The Facts That Neither Side Wants To Admit About Gun Control

Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told.
By @Justinkingnews |
Share this article!
  • Reddit
    • Google+

    (TFC) Washington, DC  – A church was shot up by a lunatic. The US government never lets a tragedy or crisis pass without attempting to find a new way to restrict the American people. So, we can expect a renewed push for gun control. There is a lot of propaganda about gun control. So much so that the truth has been lost.

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) would have you believe that guns stop murders. The gun control lobby would have you believe that gun control reduces murders. They are both wrong. Gun bans have always had the same effect once implemented: none. They do not create a (sustained) period of increased murders, nor do they reduce the rate of homicides. The gun control crowd is currently stomping their feet and screaming “No, it reduces violence! I’ve seen the statistics.” What you probably saw were studies that point to reduced instances of “gun murders,” not murder. The pro-gun crowd is screaming that gun bans cause crime. At least this is grounded in reality. Typically, there is a spike in murders immediately after a ban, but it is short lived.

     


    official MintPress sponsor

    Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told. Let’s take a look at the data:

    United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

    Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

    Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

    Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point. These figures aren’t a secret. Why would the governments of these nations want a disarmed populace? For the answer, it is best to look at a nation that has had long-time gun bans that is currently relaxing their laws. Russia recently relaxed its firearms laws. For the first time in recent memory, a Russian citizen can carry a firearm. The prohibited items speak volumes about what a government’s motive behind disarming the population is. Russia has allowed “smoothbore long barrelled guns, pistols, revolvers, and other firearms, as well as Tasers, and devices equipped with teargas.” That’s almost everything, what is still banned? Rifles. So the Russian government has made it clear that the real objective is to remove rifles from civilian hands. The reasoning is pretty clear: you need rifles to overthrow a government.

     

    The Real Reason Gun Control Will Never Work:

    Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked. In short, we don’t have a gun problem in the United States, we have a cultural problem.Home Depot. Most people in the gun control lobby know nothing about firearms or their construction. Everything you need to manufacture firearms is available at Home Depot. The materials needed to manufacture a 12 gauge shotgun cost about $20. If someone wanted to build a fully automatic Mac-10 style submachine gun, it would probably cost about $60. Every electrician, plumber, and handyman in the country has the materials necessary to manufacture firearms in their shop. The items are completely unregulated. They aren’t like the chemicals necessary to manufacture methamphetamines. How is the battle against that black market working out?

    We have a society that panders to the basest desires and instincts. One of those is violence. We live in a society where women are given dirty looks for breastfeeding in a restaurant, while over their heads on the wall-mounted television plays a movie that graphically depicts someone being tortured to death. We are desensitized to violence, and we have a generation of people that do not have the coping skills necessary to deal with reality.

    Firearms are the Pandora’s Box of the United States. The box is open, it can’t be closed through legislation. If you want to change society, you have to actually change the whole of society. You can’t blame an inanimate object that’s availability has absolutely no correlation to murder and expect to end violence.


    This article (The Facts That Neither Side Wants to Admit About Gun Control) originally appeared on The Fifth Column and was used with permission.
    Share this article!

       

      Print This Story Print This Story
      You Might Also Like  
      ___________________________________________
      This entry was posted in Daily Digest, National and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
      • Bob_Hearns

        Well, the article is wrong about Australia. I checked various sources. I’m not going to bother with the others. Another article filled with misinformation
        .

      • Peter Stevens

        Realistically speaking isn’t most gun violence just gangsters killing gangsters? It may sound callous but are thugs and criminals killing each other in itself really that big of an issue? These aren’t the kind of upstanding citizens who have jobs, raise well-adjusted children, and contribute to the overall health and well-being of society.

        • tedb120

          yup…….But for Obama its reason to take your guns and if HRC is elected it will happen….

      • Gremlin Le

        Here is theory I read from book on why crime dropped dramatically. Some might find this highly offensive but think of Roe vs Wade and the legalization of abortion. I’m not going to detail why poverty and crime correlate but you get the idea.

      • DutchS

        Pretty much all gun murderers display precursory violence first. So here’s the plan. No registry. No restrictions of weapons or magazines. BUT, commit any act of aggression, no matter how trivial, and you lose your right to own a gun. Domestic violence, child abuse, animal abuse, stalking, vandalism, road rage, drunk and disorderly, and of course any crime whatsoever, your guns are history. They constitute grounds for a search warrant to find and take your guns. And we punch a hole in your ID so everyone knows not to sell to you. Commit a gun crime and you’re history.

        But keep your nose clean, keep your temper, and keep your hands off other people, and you can have enough weapons to outfit a battalion if you want. And zero paperwork. Nobody needs to know. What could be fairer?

      • lhecker51

        “If you want to change society, you have to actually change the whole of society.”

        True. The problem is we are going the way of the Roman Empire. The train has left the station and is now at top speed and cannot stop in time to avoid the collapse of the rule of law without immediate action that our leaders do not have the stomach nor the backbone to take that action until it is too late.

        I have not only read about what happens to the weakest and most vulnerable during a collapse of society, I have witnessed it first hand as a member of multinational peacekeeping forces. They bleed the most.

        Knowing these facts, I can neither confirm nor deny that I have taken common sense and rational precautions to defend myself and family and can sustain for two years.

        When one needs the means to defend ones self, it is already too late. Collapse of the rule of law happens in some cases in a matter of hours, in others, a matter of days. In hindsight, history has proven there were MANY signs of the impending collapse, yet still people either did not have the means to prepare or thought the government would protect them. For a significant number of them, that assumption proved fatal.

        If one considers themselves a rational and critical thinker, they would be left with tow options:

        Prepare or not to prepare.

        To prepare and the crisis never materializes, you lose nothing.

        To not prepare and the crisis materializes, it could be a fatal mistake.

      • Let’sBeFriends

        a) I didn’t abandon anything, I noted it as a amusing aside but I never presented it as a main reason of anything.

        b1) Except nothing in that chart proves the crack epidemic bottoming out didn’t play a part in the drastic drop of crime at all, it still in fact shows the steep drop at the time of it winding down and Clinton’s bill pumping more resources into law enforcement.
        b2) Homicides are lowest since the 1960s, not a century; while overall gun crime has remained static for the past couple of decades and suicides are up.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6d0739db531dbed41ef10d6e60c26e304e9ac0ecc81249f18cf79948c9f5b59e.png

        Nice try though.

        And again, mass shootings still have increased. I didn’t even cite whatever study you’re talking about, since there’s many that come to the same conclusion drawing from multiple sources:
        http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf
        http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-have-become-more-common-in-the-u-s/

        And not only are they happening with more frequency, but the USA just came out of the worst mass shooting EVER. But everything is fine because gun crime is “low” and Breitbart says so!

        But sure, every person and their dog being armed is totally what stopped gun related crime in countries like Australia. Except wait, no, that’s not how it happened at all.
        Regardless, the main problem is that arms are still finding their ways into the hands of citizens who are not law abiding. I don’t believe a total gun ban could ever be implement, but more rationale legislation so that you can’t have someone who’s on a terrorist watch list get an assault rifle to mow down dozens of people within a short time span.

        Also LOL homeboy is a racial slur now? Could you be any more obvious trying to go for a cheap emotional point score after being solidly riposted? Please don’t debase yourself.

      • Matt

        I wonder how much the decrease in murder rate is due to gang bangers running out of other gang bangers to kill?

        • RubyMontana

          That’s worth some statistical analysis!

      • Let’sBeFriends

        “First off, violence started increasing in the mid-60’s, long before crack.”

        a) I’m not saying the crack epidemic was a sole factor, I’m saying it was one of them. Nothing can be distilled down to one singular factor, anyone trying to do so is a disingenuous idiot.
        b) You’re looking at the completely wrong part of the chart. It doesn’t matter when violence started, this is about what made it begin to decrease. Look at where it dips dramatically – the mid 90’s.

        “Many argue that the meth and heroin epidemics we experience today are far worse than crack ever was. “

        The difference between meth and crack is that meth is far more cheaper which is why it took the wind out of crack’s sails in the 90’s. Will meth and heroin get to such bad levels on terms of users? Potentially, but it won’t ever be as bad on a law enforcement level.

        “Yet our homicide rate is the lowest in over 50 years.”

        Just because something drops from being astronomically high, that doesn’t mean it’s objectively low. ‘The rate of which I pick my nose is the lowest it’s been in 30 years since I was a kid, but I still pick my nose regularly.’

        And while the gun homicide and violence rate may be static (while suicides are up), mass shootings have still tripled in the last 5 years:

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/02906e9ba8151389bef3c940ba92b0c0e2c7ee651453c26aab3806735e0ea401.png

        “The only possible conclusion is more guns does not lead to more crime – it may, in fact, discourage criminals to know many more of their potential victims may be armed.”

        Homeboy, police officers got sniped literally days ago.

        • jarhead1982

          And all you have is conjecture and wishful thinking (oxymoron for anti gun phaggits as they haven’t a brain) as always

      • tedb120

        the FACT is “gun crime” has been dropping in the US since the 80s and most of it is now in places where you could not even legally own a gun

        • Corruption_Eruption

          Lol, like Chicago? DC? The FACT is Chiraq (more likely to get shot in Chicago than Iraq) has the strictest gun laws in the country and has the highest violent firearm crime rate. Give it a rest.

          • tedb120

            I agree…and yet the gun grab idiots try to tell us its the local guns that are legal that make a difference…total BS of course

          • tedb120

            If Hillary is elected we can kiss our gun rights goodbye….

            here is Obama on the 2nd and HRC agrees.

            Obama quote

            “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

            http://hotair.com/archives/201

            UK gun confiscation that Obama wants for the USA – here is how the UK did it

            “Rifles and pistols have been individually registered as such on personal Firearm Certificates in Britain since 1920, and magazine-fed shotguns with a capacity over three shots since 1988. Firearm Certificates, giving individual permission to possess specific serial numbered weapons, are subject to renewal by the police every five years (formerly every three years). At renewal, the police may make individual judgements about which particular firearms an owner will be allowed to retain, on the basis of recorded regularity of use, etc.

            When the 1997 ban was implemented, the police had a complete list of every licensed pistol: unless one exported the weapon (and could prove it) or could satisfy the police that one had somehow destroyed it, one had no option but to hand it in. Every holder of licensed pistols received a letter from his local police authority, detailing when and where his registered weapons were to be surrendered. I rather doubt that many copies of those letters are still extant, and I cannot offer other references for what happened because it was simply not a matter for discussion: it was the obvious and inevitable way the system worked.”
            http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

            • Bluesman1950

              Which is probably why you are 36 times less likely to be shot in the UK than the USA (and that ratio does take into account our differing population sizes!).

              • tedb120

                and why break ins at night are 9 X more likely

                no armed homeowner to fear….

                • Bluesman1950

                  Sorry, another NRA myth! You are about 50% more likely to suffer burglary in the USA than the UK

                  United Kingdom:

                  “The police record an offence of burglary if a person enters any building as a trespasser and with intent to commit an offence of theft, GBH or unlawful damage. Aggravated burglary occurs when the burglar is carrying a firearm, imitation firearm, offensive weapon or explosive.” (UGHOCS, page 26, paragraph 9.)

                  United States:

                  “The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines burglary as the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. To classify an offense as a burglary, the use of force to gain entry need not have occurred. The UCR Program has three subclassifications for burglary: forcible entry, unlawful entry where no force is used, and attempted forcible entry. The UCR definition of “structure” includes apartment, barn, house trailer or houseboat when used as a permanent dwelling, office, railroad car (but not automobile), stable, and vessel (i.e., ship).” (FBI – CUS – Burglary)

                  UK burglary incidences: 258,148 (THOSB – CEW page 73, paragraph 3.)

                  258,148 / 561 = 460.1

                  US burglary incidences: 2,188,005 (FBI – CUS)

                  2,188,005 / 3116 = 702.1

                  You are thus 1.52x (702.1 / 460.1) more likely to suffer burglary in the US than in the UK.

                  • tedb120

                    ya sure..I am talking about HOMES…

                    • Bluesman1950

                      So, please feel free to show us the reliable statistics comparing night-time burglaries of occupied dwellings in the USA and the UK.

                • Bluesman1950

                  Your statistics for that figure?

        • lhecker51

          Support that with evidence or go back to your basement.

      • Pingback: 32 shot in Chicago since Saturday Morning - Page 2()

      • jarhead1982

        Now if any of you anti gun eloi need a lesson on the UK, we have that govt. data as well proving anti gun idiots liars, your move liars….

      • jarhead1982

        http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/suicide/submissions/sub42_pdf.ashx

        On Australian drug overdose deaths which NIH researchers believe cause a 20% to 40% undercount in suicide see
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/overdose-deaths-pass-national-road-toll-for-first-time/story-fni0fee2-1226705302834

        On top of that, Australia’s probative burdens on suicide rulings by coroners were made stricter about 15 years ago, which caused an immediate false and sustained lowering of suicide statistics rates simply due to policy changes.
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/192/8/achieving-standardised-reporting-suicide-australia-rationale-and-program-change

        By the way not only are drug overdose suicides undercounted by 20% to 40% within drug overdose deaths, drug overdose deaths themselves are undercounted in western countries
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8447863

        It is a slam dunk Australia’s suicide rate is substantially up, with the rise starting in about 1998, about the same time as the statistical undercount was created by the changes in probative burdens created by the Australian Health ministry – as noted in dozens of peer reviewed papers on the substantial undercount

      • jarhead1982

        http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13811118.2012.667330#abstract

        Suicide Prevention and Method Restriction: Evaluating the Impact of Limiting Access to Lethal Means Among Young Australians

        DOI:10.1080/13811118.2012.667330

        Samara McPhedran & Jeanine Baker

        pages 135-146

        Abstract

        Given the finite resources allocated to suicide prevention, it is necessary to direct resources into interventions that are most likely to have an impact. This article tests for possible impacts on youth suicides of a cost-intensive Australian policy change (increased firearms restriction) that limited access to a means of suicide. Suicide rates by different age groups and methods were examined for structural breaks, using Zivot-Andrews and Quandt tests. No breakpoint was found in firearm suicide among Australian youth around the time of the 1996 legislative changes. Method restriction in the form of firearms legislation could not be tied to a corresponding impact on youth suicide.

      • jarhead1982

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18839044

        Controlling firearms use in Australia: has the 1996 gun law reform produced the decrease in rates of suicide with this method?

        Dr. Helen Klieve, Michael Barnes, Prof. Diego De Leo MD, PhD, DSc, FRANZCP

        Klieve H1, Barnes M, De Leo D.

        Author information

        Abstract

        BACKGROUND:

        Observed reductions in firearm suicides in Australia have been linked to the 1997 national firearms agreement (NFA) introduced following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. The NFA placed strong access restrictions on firearms.

        AIMS:

        To assess the impact of legislative restrictions on the incidence of firearm suicide in Queensland and explore alternative or contributory factors behind observed declines.

        METHOD:

        The Queensland suicide register (QSR) provided detailed information on all male suicides in Queensland (1990-2004), with additional data for Australia (1968-2004) accessed from other official sources. Trends in suicide rates pre/post NFA, and in method selection, were assessed using negative binomial regressions. Changing method selection patterns were examined using a cohort analysis of 5 years of age classes for Australian males.

        RESULTS:

        The observed reduction in firearms suicides was initiated prior to the 1997 introduction of the NFA in Queensland and Australia, with a clear decline observed in Australian figures from 1988. No significant difference was found in the rate pre/post the introduction of the NFA in Queensland; however, a significant difference was found for Australian data, the quality of which is noticeably less satisfactory. A marked age-difference in method choice was observed through a cohort analysis demonstrating both time and age influences. Within sequential birth cohorts, rates of firearms suicides decreased in younger males but increased in hanging suicides; this trend was far less marked in older males.

        CONCLUSIONS:

        The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.

      • jarhead1982

        All the while also refusing to acknowledge the effect of the baby boomers age subgroup as it affects crime rates. Geez, you Aussies had the Baby Boomers (born 1947-1964) also didn’t you, yeah you did!

        Criminologists the world over all agree the most active criminal ages are 15-24 and 25-34, then the criminal activity declines the older a subgroup gets. Amazing how that actually mirrors identically the trend in murders DECREASING, a trend that Australian government shows began occurring back in the mid 1980’s and continues to this day. Not to mention the ending of those gang turf battles.

        Hence yet again, no valid proof that gun control had anything relevant to causing that reduction in murders., a near 42% drop in actual murders using a firearm in the US versus a 39% drop in murders using a firearm in Australia. Uh dude, there is no statistical difference is there, geez shuckey darn! Yet again proof that less firearms doesn’t equal less violence, much less more guns equal more violence BS.

        You were saying?

      • jarhead1982

        Oh wait, you forgot to mention the increases in weapons being used to commit murders or VIOLENT CRIME which the Australian government acknowledges in their reports, and reflect that indeed as noted, more WEAPONS and more KNIVES are being used to commit a crime REPLACING the use of a firearm. But hey dont let govt. FACTS get in the way of your fantasy. Since you already have a functioning link to the Australian crime database, you can try and refute their data again!

        ” So without the Port Arthur killings using a firearm only 65 occurred in 1996, which was 40 in 2011, wow thats impressive, NOT.

        Geez, didnt the Port Author killings occur in 1996 making a spike in their killings, yeah it did. So is it a true reflection upon normal crime trends to add that anomaly/spike into the trends as a rational comparison to see what effect a law had on a result, no it isnt!

        See that is where the gun banners like to use % to look impressive and quote the % of firearms used in murders has dropped SO DRAMATICALLy.

        Lets see 311 murders, 65 using firearm in 1996 65/311 = 20.9%
Lets see 244 murders, 44 using firearm in 2011 40/244 = 16.39%

        Amazing how when one digs into the details, the ACTUAL TREND for reduction in killings using a firearm is rather puny!

        Yet the number of assaults with weapons keeps rising, hmmmm. Sure appears that the level of violence isnt being reduced, but just luck of the draw some of those arent killings, so sad.

        Oh and as noted in GOVT. and recorded history, there was indeed a NASTY gang war going on in the 1980’s to early 2000’s. Has that ended matey, oh yes, it has hasnt it.

        Oh whats this page #31,Homicide in Australia: 2007–08 National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report

        http://aic.gov.au/documents/8/9/D/ %7b89DEDC2D-3349-457C-9B3A-9AD9DAFA7256%7dmr13_004.pdf

        “…………. The majority of firearms used in homicides were unregistered and/or unlicensed” hmmm, such a consistent trend all over the world that the bad guys dont obey the law to begin with!

        http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/141-160/tandi151.html

      • jarhead1982

        Totally unbeknownst to anti gun eloi, Australian academics have already examined the mass murder rate by firearm by comparing Australia to a control country: New Zealand. (Do they teach “control groups” at Harvard?)

        New Zealand is strikingly similar to Australia. Both are isolated island nations, demographically and socioeconomically similar. Their mass murder rate before Australia’s gun ban was nearly identical: From 1980 to 1996, Australia’s mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people and New Zealand’s was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.

        The principal difference is that, post-1997, New Zealand remained armed to the teeth — including with guns that were suddenly banned in Australia.

        While it’s true that Australia has had no more mass shootings since its gun ban, neither has New Zealand, despite continuing to be massively armed. . . .

      • jarhead1982

        http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/3/2/A/%7B32A6FD1D-AF18-432E-9A46-76E42EEA9755%7Dcfi176.pdf

        The Australian Institute of Criminology’s National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP) has monitored homicides in Australia since 1989. NHMP data indicate that homicide, followed by the suicide of the offender either immediately after or within a short period of killing one or more victims, is a relatively infrequent event. Out of the total number of homicide incidents recorded by the NHMP (n=5,486), six percent (n=343) are classified as murder-suicides and 80 percent of these occurred in the context of intimate and/or family relationships. The most common type of murder-suicide in 2006–07 was that involving a parent killing their children (38% of murder-suicides) followed by intimate partner homicide (31% of murder-suicides). Eighty-two percent of murder-suicides in 2006–07 involved one offender and victim only. The remaining 18 percent involved one offender and multiple victims. The figure below shows that there is no statistically significant trend in multiple-victim murder-suicides, with numbers fluctuating between a low of zero during 2001 and a high of seven during 2003.

      • jarhead1982

        A Transcript of the Police Interview With Martin Bryant” http : // loveforlife . com . au / content / 07 / 10 / 30 / transcript-police-interview-martin-bryant

        Funny, how even before 1996, you needed a LICENSE to purchase a firearm, yet the Port Arthur killer didnt have one, yet that is somehow the LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS FAULT AGAIN EH?

      • jarhead1982

        Now what is hilarious is that when one reviews the Australian gun laws from the early 1970’s on, we see their gun laws as RESTRICTIVE TO BEGIN WITH!

        How then did port author and all those attacks occur with strict gun control to begin with eh….

        https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/W/WeaponsA90.pdf

        http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/fr1974211/

        http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/FIREARMS%20ACT%201977/CURRENT/1977.26.UN.PDF

      • jarhead1982

        Isnt it amazing how many mass klillings the australians had during strict gun control from the 1970’s into the 1990’s and then still had mass shootings and attacks after 1996 eh….

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

        • Cullin-La-Ringo massacre – Horatio Wills and his traveling party were killed by Aborigines at Cullin-La-Ringo Station in Queensland in 1860; police, native police and civilians killed 60 to 70 Aborigines in response.

        • George David Silva murdered six members of the Ching family at Alligator Creek near Mackay, Queensland in 1911.

        • Coniston massacre – Over 50 Aboriginal people were killed in the last Aboriginal massacre in 1928. The motive was revenge for the killing of dingo hunter Frederick Brooks.

        • Hope Forest massacre – Clifford Cecil Bartholomew shot dead ten members of his family in Hope Forest near Adelaide, September 1971.[2]

        • Whiskey Au Go Go fire – Fire lit in club killed 15

        • 22 September 1976 – William Robert Wilson – Killed two people and wounded four on Boundary Street, Spring Hill,Brisbane. Wilson took a .22 calibre rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition to Boundary Street around 12.30 pm and began shooting randomly. He shot and killed Monika Schleus, aged 17, as she crossed Boundary Street. Wilson shot and wounded Donald William Hepburn Galloway, who was also crossing the street. Proceeding to a milk bar, Wilson shot and killed Marianne Kalatzis, aged 18, and wounded Mavis Ethel Sanders and Virginia Hollidge. In the neighbouring shop he shot and wounded Quinto Alberti. Wilson was captured by police around 4:15 pm at a suburban house where Wilson was holding a man and four young women hostage. Wilson served three years in a mental hospital. On being found fit for trial, he was sentenced in 1980 to two life sentences for the murders and 10 years each, concurrently, for the four attempted murders. He pleaded guilty to all charges.[3]

        • Russell Street Bombing – 23 wounded when a car bomb ignites outside a Police Building. One of the wounded, a female police officer, died later of injuries from the explosion.

        • Douglas Crabbe – Truck driver deliberately crashed his truck into a hotel, killing five and badly wounding 16.

        • Sydney Hilton bombing – Two garbage men were killed and 12 passers-by were injured by a bomb planted in a garbage bin outside the Sydney Hilton Hotel in 1978. A police officer who was wounded died later.

        • Milperra massacre – Two biker gangs, the Comanchero and the Bandidos, engaged in a shoot-out in a hotel car park, killing 7 people in 1984, including a bystander. Only one defendant was acquitted on the murder charges. Oh wait, these were criminals, with guns, who weren’t licensed eh, hmmmmm!

        • Joseph Schwab – 1987, Schwab shot dead 5 people in and around the Kimberley region in Western Australia before being shot dead by police.[4]

        • Hoddle Street massacre – Armed with two rifles and a shotgun, Julian Knight shot 7 people dead and wounded another 19 in 1987 before surrendering to authorities.

        • Queen Street massacre – Armed with a sawn-off rifle, Frank Vitkovic roamed the Australia Post building killing 8 and wounding 5, also in 1987. When the weapon was finally wrestled from him, he committed suicide by jumping out of a nearby window.

        • Surry Hills massacre – Paul Anthony Evers killed 5 people with a 12-gauge shotgun at a public housing precinct in Surry Hills in 1990 before surrendering to police.[5]

        • Strathfield massacre – In 1991 Wade Frankum killed 7 people and wounded 6 others with a large knife and an SKSbefore turning the gun on himself when he realised he could not escape.

        • Central Coast Massacre – Malcolm Baker killed 6 people and injured another with a shotgun in 1992 before being arrested by police.

        • Port Arthur massacre – In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21 before being caught by police the next day following an overnight siege.

        • Childers Palace Fire – In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.

        • Monash University shooting – In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

        • June 18, 2007, in which a lone gunman killed a man who had come to the aid of an assault victim and seriously wounded two others in Melbourne’s central business district during morning rush hour

        • Churchill Fire – 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7th of February 2009.

        • Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire – 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18th of November 2011.

        • Salamander Bay, Australia April 3, 2003 The shooter threw petrol bombs before opening fire, seriously wounding 2 students

        2011 Hectorville siege

        A mass shooting that took place on Friday, April 29, 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, went on a shooting rampage, killing three people and wounding a child and two police officers with a shotgun stolen from a family member, before being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour seige.[27]

        • Adelaide, Australia A May 7, 2012 Year eight student took a revolver on school grounds, firing shots, nobody was injured.

        2014 – Hunt family murders: 5 dead

        2014 – Logan shooting: 3 dead

        • • Sydney Australia Dec 15 2014, local thuggsta terrorsit wannabe kills 2 injures others….

        ht The gunman, Man Monis, obtained an illegal sawn off Remington 870 and did not hold a firearms license. Monis also had an extensive criminal history and was on parole at the time for accessory to murdertp://www.smh.com.au/nsw/shooting-outside-police-headquarters-in-parramatta-20151002-gk07tb.html

        10/2/2015 Parramatta Australia

        • Let’sBeFriends

          The definition of a mass shooting is if the gunman kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location.

          https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1

          Fires aren’t mass shootings either, ya clown.

          • jarhead1982

            Oh darn so all those claims by the everytown whoores and VPC whoores that aren’t 4 killed not including the shooter can’t be counted in their 212 mass shootings claim/lie where they included all those criminals and their criminal acts in non gun free zones this year eh, good to know

            • Let’sBeFriends

              No problem sweetie!

        • Gremlin Le

          This is so idiotic. If we typed up the entire history of gun violence with 3 or more murders during a single terrorist or murder act in the USA, it would probably take an entire population to write it up.

      • jarhead1982

        Whoops, so much for the gun control failure in australia

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GPPxGX8pdA

        Amazing how full autos, home made, are showing up in criminals hands these days!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUTdtXE4Rj8

        Hells Angels, Outlaws went to war in the 1990’s in Australia also

        http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888288,00.html

        Bikie gang killings 2009

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MMzKEXW48Q

        Bike gang wars

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO5Eh0QBGTQ

        More bikie gang violence

        http://news.motorbiker.org/blogs.nsf/dx/australia-escalating-biker-gang-war.htm

        Imagine that, fighting over turf to sell drugs!

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/11/idUSSYD1644

        Bikie gangs 2007, violence escalating again, imagine that, thought you mateys took all the law abiding subjects guns, oh wait, you didn’t take the criminals, what morons!

      • jarhead1982

        By the way, what is a country, with gun bans suicide rate vs the US? Australia has 1/100th of our firearms, so they should have 1/100th of our suicide rate, uh dude, their 2010 suicide rate is 11.14 per 100k people.

        What about murders, lets compare that as well.

        1996 Australia 1.7 murders per 100k people 2013 1.08 murders per 100k people a -36.5% reduction

        1996 US 7.4 murders per 100k people 2013 4.5 murders per 100k people a -39.1% reduction.

        How is it again, that a country with a 42% increase in civilian firearm ownership and 100 times more firearms in law abiding civilian hands than Australia, have a greater reduction in murders than they did?

        Now if one breaks it down into weapons used if you take and look at the normal trend, one see’s Australia reduction in murder by illegal use of firearms only reduced -4.61% from 1996 to 2013, the US from 1996 to 2013 was reduced -26.7%.

        That’s a 5.79 times greater reduction than in Australia…..oh wait, maybe that reduction difference is so great cause in Australia all they did was confiscate the guns from the law abiding and not the FREAKING CRIMINALS MORE-ONS!

        http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.02011?OpenDocument

        http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/F/B/%7bFFB9E49F-160F-43FC-B98D-6BC510DC2AFD%7dmr01.pdf

        • Let’sBeFriends

          “How is it again, that a country with a 42% increase in civilian firearm ownership and 100 times more firearms in law abiding civilian hands than Australia, have a greater reduction in murders than they did?”

          LMAO, because America had a higher rate of murders in the first place! Australia was already around 1.8-2.0 in the early 90’s so of course comparitively it didn’t have as great of a reduction
          http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentRate.html

          since in the early 90s the USA was sitting around 9.5 -9.8

          https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

          https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

          http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentRate.html

          Not to mention the crack epidemic drying up, more police officers put on the beat in the early 90’s and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 all helping to contribute to the sharp reduction you’re conveniently citing

          http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf
          http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Violent+Crime+Control+and+Law+Enforcement+Act+of+1994

          • jarhead1982

            So again we have proven that more guns in law abiding gun owners hands doesn’t equal more violence, thanks for playing…

            Then the reduction in violence had started long before 1994 sweety and that rate didn’t change because of the idiotic semi auto rifle racist bigoted ban because the gun was black

            But if you had a brain and thought for yourself you would see the direct correlation in the reduction in violence to the aging of the baby boomers, born 1947-1964

            You know the largest age group to that date

            See world leading criminologists like Wolfgang, Piersall, Chaiken and Ambrohse long ago identified criminals most active ages 15-34 yrs old and since near 125 million baby boomers were born 1947-1964, it’s a given more people more crime sweety

            But hey you have what evidence other than inferred causality, Nyet, nothing of course, anti gun perverts never have anything

            Its rather sad people supposedly with brains ignore the obvious

            • Let’sBeFriends

              Except part of the act that Clinton signed if you had bothered to read actual facts “sweetie”, besides increased police force, was a 10 year ban on assault rifle manufacture and distribution, 5 days wait on handgun ownership and minors prohibited from owning a handgun full stop. The fact there was more money funding police, FBI, social services, technology, all helped contribute, NOT the fact that baby boomers got frickin’ old, lmao.

              Blaming everything on the baby boomers is a ridiculous and convenient scapegoat, especially in fact of the other blatant fact of why crime was so high in the 80’s to 90’s besides the crack epidemic, which would be a floundering economy and high unemployment rates after the end of the Gulf War. But yeah, those olds were just naturally predisposed to violence I guess and there’s never been people aged 15-34 since? Hahahaha.

              • jarhead1982

                Proven lie, but hey keep it up we need the chuckles

                • Let’sBeFriends

                  Yeah you really got me there, binhead

                  • jarhead1982

                    Since everything anti gun phaggits claim is a lie to begin with by US govt data not one single one of the anti gun bingeads have ever disproven the problem is yours liar

                    • Let’sBeFriends

                      Mm yes OK. Please now tell me your thoughts on chemtrails and the illuminati

                      • jarhead1982

                        Still got nothing eh whistling between the ears

                        • Let’sBeFriends

                          At least there’s no tinfoil hat blocking the airflow on my dome, pumpkin. Just continue avoiding pesky things like facts and citations, I mean you got this far with baseless heresay and skewed facts to prop your strawmen up while throwing out doozies like “phaggits”. Keep reaching for that rainbow!

                        • jarhead1982

                          You have no proper govt facts and govt citations to back your claims liar, dismissed child

                        • Let’sBeFriends

                          Sure, I just dropped a bunch of FBI and AIC data and research papers, no big deal.
                          But I’m sure getting your pals to upvote your jibbering will help you sleep at night 😉
                          Later pops

              • Dion Kerfont

                It wasn’t one specific drug… it’s the “war on drugs” that started with Nixon.

      • jarhead1982

        Oh wait, what is this, we see that Australia is INDEED under reporting their homicides,….

        That is if one goes and reviews the Australian Bureau of Statistics report for each year on UNDERLYING CAUSES OF DEATH, versus the # of murders reported in their CRIME DATA REPORTS:

        2007-2013

        Murders: 1,709

        Homicides: 5,278

        Amazing how the police in Australia are under reporting their murders by near 80%……..and it wouldn’t just be murders they are under reporting now would it, LOL……..

        http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/24D4F763D69B9C0ECA256BDC00122407?opendocument

        • Steve Bright

          I realise you are a professional liar for the NRA / Gun lobby (saying “we” is a giveaway, isn’t it?), however claiming Australian police fabricate false figures to underreport murders by 80% is pretty low even by your standards.
          Here in Australia most people don’t own guns. The ones that do are required by law to keep them in a safe. We don’t have military style semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines. We don’t have deranged individuals shooting children in schools, night clubs, or their workmates in the office. We don’t have children accidentally shooting people with guns. We don’t carry guns around with us, our wives don’t carry guns, and we don’t shoot one another. Gun deaths in Australia were averaging over 500 / year before the gun buyback. They’re now running at low 200 / year. Still, I suspect you’ll find 300 deaths a year a source of amusement somehow, won’t you?
          Americans who move here tell us that a huge burden of fear, which they hadn’t even been consciously aware of in the US, has been lifted from them with the absence of guns.
          Most shootings are between criminal gangs. When a farmer in a dispute with government officials shot and killed one, the shooting and the trial have been a major news story for a year.
          When we read about the latest mass shooting in the US we shake our heads in sorrow and pity, and with sadness because we realise that the US is so bound up in the gun culture, that there is no way to change it in the foreseeable future.
          If I were you, I’d lay awake at night worrying that the position on gun control in the US is now so far beyond the possibility of any rational control measure that your employers will realise they don’t need a flim flam merchant like you to lie for them, and you’ll have to find an honest job. The “honest” part may give you some trouble.

          • jarhead1982

            That’s a lot of illicit narcotic fueled unsubstantiated Gish galloping lies that prove nothing

            Do get a brain transplant and seek mental health treatment for your narcissistic personality disorder you believing your God

            • Steve Bright

              What an intelligent response. Such command of the English language. I’ve never heard of “Gish galloping” before, but having looked it up, you seem to have complete mastery of the technique.
              You’re showing all the class I expected based on your profile picture.
              Happy sleepless nights.

              p.s. If you’re going to post links to your claims, you might expect someone to check them and find out the “facts” you claim are fictitious.

              • jarhead1982

                Gish galloping away says the anti gun perve

                • Steve Bright

                  “Anti gun perve”. Is that your best shot? Help! I’m being stoned to death with popcorn.
                  At least I’m not a victim of the Dunning Kruger effect.

                  • jarhead1982

                    Truth hurts eh pedo

            • Steve Bright

              And coincidentally with your reply I’ve received some pathetic email phishing attempts. Nothing to do with you of course.
              I mean, that would be so pathetic and stupid, wouldn’t it?

              • jarhead1982

                Yes we agree all anti gun phaggits are pathetic and stupid

          • JohnL1313

            I see where your sexual assault rate skyrocketed after you disarmed women leaving them helpless to defend themselves against their attackers. Nice work! Women are getting raped a lot but at least there aren’t any guns around. Ted Bundy gives you a two thumbs up!

            • Steve Bright

              That’s a truly pathetic piece of NRA propaganda. Australian women have NEVER carried guns to protect themselves against sexual assaults. How can I be certain? Handguns were not allowed to be carried in Australia, so the women would have had to tote around rifles, which tend to be rather obvious.
              Your Ted Bundy reference is really repugnant. Did any women save themselves from Bundy by having a gun? No. So it was just a crude and particularly ugly throwaway insult wasn’t it?
              Australia has a high reported rate of sexual assaults because the definition is very wide, including inappropriate uninvited touching. It skyrocketed? Only one state in Australia (Victoria) has had a modest increase in reported sexual assaults, but this is attributed to more reporting, not more assaults. In all other states it has been stable.
              I really don’t know why I bother with you anyway. You’re just another lying NRA troll.

              • JohnL1313

                So…Australia has NEVER allowed women to carry a gun to protect themselves? How sad for the women in your country to be forbidden by their own government from being able to protect themselves. Also, carrying a gun in an obvious fashion is not a bad thing as the prospective rapist, murderer, etc., will simply pass and look for an easier target.

                No, none of Ted Bundy’s victim’s were able to save themselves. None of them had a gun. I bet they wish they did.

                Not sure why I’m a “lying NRA troll” for stating the obvious facts which are that guns are used in a self-defense in the USA hundreds of thousands of times each year preventing a robbery, rape, assault, murder, etc., according to a study cited by the US Supreme Court in it’s 2008 D.C. v Heller case.

                Oh, and about the NRA. It was founded by former Union soldiers from the north after the civil war to teach southern abolitionists and former slaves how to use firearms to protect themselves against groups like the KKK during Reconstruction. The right to bear arms of some type to protect oneself and to curb tyranny dates back to the beginning of time. If you don’t want to bear that right, fine. But don’t tell me I can’t.

                • Steve Bright

                  Here we are in Australia oppressed by a tyrannical government, while armed burglars, robbers and rapists roam our streets terrorising the unarmed citizens. Really? One of us is delusional, and I’m pretty sure I’m not kept awake at night by gunshots, screaming victims, or the fear of the secret police breaking down my door.
                  If you want to, believe the cherry picked, or invented figures Mr “Jarhead” uses for Australia.
                  And if you believe carrying a gun makes you safer, look up
                  Branas CC, Richmond TS, Culhane DP, Ten Have TR, Wiebe DJ. Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(11):2034-2040
                  on Pub Med.
                  Here are the results: After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
                  But soon Jarhead will prove this wrong with his usual eloquence. Something like "Everything anti gun perve pedo phaggits claim is a Gish galloping lie."
                  And of course you should believe him. He's such a class act, isn't he?

                  • JohnL1313

                    Thank you for referring me to a study that is widely known to be flawed. It starts with a false paradigm by studying people who are assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome/event where the secondary action is not guaranteed based upon the first. Among other things it doesn’t account for people who were assaulted and not shot, it doesn’t account for demographics (a huge determinant), time of day. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866589/

                    The direct facts from the CDC and the FBI are that gun ownership in the USA has almost doubled since 1993 and the homicide rate has dropped in half. Ironically, the cities in the USA with the highest homicide rates are also those with the strictest gun laws such as Chicago, Washington D.C., Detroit, Baltimore. According to the study by Dr. Kleck, criminologist at Florida State and cited by the US Supreme Court in the 2008 D.C. v Heller case, guns are used hundreds of thousands of times each year in a self defense capacity.

                    No, the last time I checked Australia certainly doesn’t have a tyrannical government, nor do you have a “crime wave” of violence. Neither do we. I do think it’s ridiculous to not allow a woman (or a man) to carry a gun to defend themselves because you are basically telling criminals that everyone is unarmed.

                    I will carry a gun and I will defend myself and my family if ever necessary because in that one in a million instance my life or the life of my family will be on the line and I want the most effective tool.

          • jarhead1982

            We posted all the Australian govt data above proving your bs claims lies, go argue with them moron

      • jarhead1982

        Lets compare Australia’s violent crime rate vs. the US

        Year / Australia / US both per 100k people

        1996 629.2 / 636.6

        1997 788.8 / 610.8

        1998 869.7 / 566.4

        1999 908.2 / 523.0

        2000 899.7 / 506.5

        2001 925.2 / 504.5

        2002 1008.4 / 494.4

        2003 1014.8 / 476.0

        2004 984.4 / 463.2

        2005 965.9 / 469.0

        2006 1013.9 / 473.6

        2007 1024.4 / 466.9

        2008 992.3 / 458.6

        2009 938.8 / 431.9

        2010 918.2 / 404.5

        2011 925.1 / 386.3

        2012 924.8 / 386.9

        So thought you inferred gun free = less violent eh morons, why didn’t it?

        Oh and as we do have access to their data, we already sorted out the crimes there, that aren’t violent here so it is a proper apples to apples comparison, just like we did with England and Canada!

        ACT Australian Capital Territory

        NSW New South Wales

        NT Northern Territory

        SA South Australia

        WA Western Australia

        *Tasmania

        *Queensland

        *Victoria

        They quit counting the data for the three territories in 2010, notice the resulting downturn in violent crime rate, typical lefties cooking the books and lying!

        The math is simple:

        (Violent crimes / population) x 100,000 = VIOLENT CRIME RATE

        Oh one more thing, Australia only reports violent crimes solved just like mother England does…..

        • Bluesman1950

          Just came across this piece of nonsense!

          “Oh one more thing, Australia only reports violent crimes solved just like mother England does…..”

          Complete and utter rubbish and another piece of total fabrication from the idiot jarhead! All crimes that come to the notice of the police in the UK are reported. Some are solved, some aren’t. I would expect that Australia follows a similar system.

          • jarhead1982

            Man better clamor for knife control after another leftist anti gunphaggit like you killed 18 and injured 45 disarmed victims last night in Japan

            You should be so proud of all that blood on your hands yet again liar

            • Bluesman1950

              The UK does have laws against carrying bladed or pointed articles and other offensive weapons in public. Do you think that they should arm the mentally disabled in Japan just because you’re allowed a gun in the USA?

              But how exactly does a maniac attacking disabled people in Japan explain or justify your lies alleging that the UK and Australia report only solved crimes?

              • jarhead1982

                Demonstrates how pathetic anti gunphaggitry is rather nicely CAUSE YOU MORONS ONLY CONTROL THE LAW ABIDING….welcome to reality jethro

      • jarhead1982

        https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf

        THE AUSTRALIAN FIREARMS BUYBACK AND ITS EFFECT ON GUN DEATHS

        WANG-SHENG LEE and SANDY SUARDI*

        The 1996-1997 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict

        gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996, where 35 people were killed.

        Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we reanalyze the same data on firearm deaths used in

        previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates. (JEL C22, K19)

        VII. CONCLUSION

        This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the NFA on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects—that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.

        Since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, two other shooting incidents have attracted much media attention in Australia. An incident on October 21, 2002 at Monash University, in which a gunman killed two people and wounded five, prompted the National Handgun Buyback Act of 2003.

        Under this scheme that ran from July to December 2003, 70,000 handguns were removed from the community at a cost of approximately A$69 million.

        Another shooting on June 18, 2007, in which a lone gunman killed a man who had come to the aid of an assault victim and seriously wounded two others in Melbourne’s central business district during morning rush hour, renewed calls for tougher gun controls.

        Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

      • jarhead1982

        http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

        Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence, by Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker, published in the Justice Policy Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011

        Here is the abstract from the paper:

        Abstract

        The development of legislation aimed at reducing the incidence of firearm-related death is an ongoing interest within the spheres of criminology, public policy, and criminal justice. Although a body of research has examined the impacts of significant epochs of regulatory reform upon firearm-related suicides and homicides in countries like Australia, where strict nationwide firearms regulations were introduced in 1996, relatively little research has considered the occurrence of a specific type of homicide: mass shooting events. The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia. These findings are discussed in the context of social and economic trends.

      • jarhead1982

        In 1989, the state of New South Wales (NSW) passed its Firearms Act of 1989, so NSW had firearm registration, owner licensing and virtual gun bans starting in 1990.

        The next year the state of Queensland (rather strict) passed its Firearms Act of 1990, so owner licensing began there the next year (’91).

        Handguns and fully automatic firearms had been severely restricted almost throughout Australia for several years already.

Recommendations for “reform” were drawn up as a result of the 1991 meeting.

        According to a ’99 AIC document, sale of “military style” rifles was banned, starting about ’92 in all states.

At this time gun laws or their enforcement were apparently most restrictive in NSW and Western Australia.




        Tasmania had passed their Guns Act 1991, and its restrictions apparently began January 1, 1993.These restrictions included requirements that a person have a license for possession of a firearm, and that handguns be registered.

        So we see at best the laws were classified as RESTRICTIVE at minimum compared to US laws PRIOR TO 1996, hmmmmm….



        http : //www . gunsandcrime . org/aussiegc . html

        http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/fa1973102/

        https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/W/WeaponsA90.pdf

        http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt5.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/7BE877B35B56CC16CA25780300047EDA/$FILE/90-24a052bookmarked.pdf

        http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_12825_homepage.html

        http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/legisltn/current/w/weaponsa90.pdf

        http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/FIREARMS%20ACT%201977.aspx

      • jarhead1982
      • jarhead1982

        Now lets talk about the utter failure of gun control of only the law abiding in Australia

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjPEdEaS8eY

        Senate inquiry where Australian Federal police assistant commissioner Julian Slater refute leftists claims….especially the theft from gun owners BS…..Nov 1 2014….

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P3Etjp_WK0

        Man, thought gun owners were so irresponsible, yet only 6 guns stolen out of 48,000 in Victoria…..

        Hilariously they admit 68% of incidents that the guns were locked up

        • Steve Bright

          The laws in Australia require guns to be kept in a locked safe when not in use.
          Hilarious that “experts” like you and your pals couldn’t find this out.

          • jarhead1982

            Which has been proven multiple times to have zero effect on reducing theft or lowering crime

            Hilarious how liars like you anti gun Eloi are too fkkn stupid to prove otherwise

            • Steve Bright

              Liar? What lie? I have a friend who has a profitable business selling the gun safes.
              And it’s been proven multiple times having guns locked in secure safes has zero effect on reducing theft? You just crack me up.
              Don’t bother with more pointless, crude, personal abuse. It’s really immature and frankly boring. You’re not worth my time.

              • jarhead1982

                Sorry liar you aren’t God and since all anti gun phaggits are proven liars you’re unsubstantiated word isn’t proof, try again rookie

          • JohnL1313

            How do you enforce this? Are the police allowed to enter your home at any given point to check on you? Also, if your gun is locked away in a safe, do you call “time out” during the burglary/home invasion while you open the safe?

            • Steve Bright

              If you want a gun licence you have to prove you have a safe. Most Australians follow the law and since they have spent a lot on the gun safe, use it. Police in Australia can only enter a home with a warrant, for which they’d need some evidence of illegal behaviour.
              If we have a burglary we call the police. Burglars in Australia rarely carry guns, and tend to run away when discovered. The only burglary I’ve experienced in my 68 years was when some adolescents stole a used surfboard from my garage while we were out. Oh, the horror!
              Home invasions, particularly with firearms, are rare, with the exception of those between criminals & drug dealers, and I figure they deserve what they get.
              Most Australians don’t own guns, I’ve never met anyone who carries one (except police or security guards).
              The big law enforcement issue at the moment is the occasional “one punch” attack where some drunk punches another and injures or kills him. We have to import almost all of our news on gun violence from the US. You seem to have plenty to go around. There were at least 2 items on the 6 o’clock news last night.

              • JohnL1313

                In America, 99% of gun owners follow the laws as well. As we both know – you mentioned it in your post regarding criminals and drug dealers – criminals don’t follow the laws regardless of the country, here in the USA or in Australia. That’s why I own and carry a gun. In fact, since the mid-90’s, gun ownership has almost doubled in the USA and all homicides have declined by half in that time. One of the largest drops in homicide in the entire world over that span.

                My point about the safe is that there is no way to enforce the use of the safe. Sure, I have to buy it to get the license, but once I’m home, there is no way to enforce the use of the safe. During the gun confiscation, how were you able to get the murderers and rapists to turn in their guns?

      • jarhead1982

        http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_04.pdf

        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1997/97sec2.pdf

        http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr/mv41_12.pdf

        http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764212.html

        In the US Per FBI UCR & CDC in 1991 24,700 murders, consistent % where firearms used is 67.8% =16,747 murders by illegal use of firearm, 15,383 suicides by firearms, 657 justifiable homicides, 1,463 accidental firearms deaths =34,250 deaths where firearms were used

        2013 14,196 murders 69% used a firearm = 9,795, 681 justifiable homicides, 505 accidental deaths, 21,175 suicides = 32,156 deaths where a firearm was used.

        Since 1991 to 2013, that is a reduction in…..


        Totals / Rate


        Violent Crime -39.2% / -51.47%

        
Murder w gun -41.52% / -54.09%

        
Rape -25.27% / -38.54% 


        Robbery -49.84% / -58.31%


        Assault -33.84% /-47.1%

        Accidental deaths -45.23% / -56.31%

        Amazing how those are the highest total reductions of ANY country in the world during that time!

        So explain again how since 1991 there has been a 42% increase in firearms in civilian hands there hasn’t been a 42% increase in violence or suicide?

        • Kevin Marshall Sutton

          Dude your research is like a champ man

          • Steve Bright

            Making up lies is “research”, is it?

            • JohnL1313

              He cited all of his statistics. That’s not “making” it up.

              • Steve Bright

                Really? The “statistics” are made up or taken so completely out of context as to be ridiculous.,
                Boy, there’s really a conga line of mendacious trolls on this site.

                • JohnL1313

                  So the information from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control, a federal agency) and the FBI were made up?

                  You’ll need to prove it with your own cited stats.

                • jarhead1982

                  Aw the anti gun phaggot is upset by govt data proving it a liar

            • Kevin Marshall Sutton

              Lin family murders 2009
              Logan shooting 2014
              Sydney Siege 2014
              Monash University Shooting 2002
              Hectorville siege 2011
              Banksia Grove shooting 2016
              Ingleburn, Sydney 2016

              So when people argues that Australia doesn have mass shooting since 1996. It’s a false claim

      • Aquaria

        Complete bullshit.

        The Australian homicide rate has gone DOWN since 1996:

        http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

        The UK homicide rate has gone DOWN since 2000:

        http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html

        Despite some year-to-year fluctuations, Ireland’s homicide rate has overall gone DOWN since 2007:

        “By the end of last year [2012], homicides had fallen by 52 per cent from a peak of 138 cases in 2007.”

        http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-statistics-ireland-1.539183

        While 2014 saw a rise in the Irish murder rate to 84 (still 39% less than 2007’s 138), in 2015, there were 54 murders in Ireland, a drop from 2012 of 19%:

        https://www.osac.gov/Pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=19661
        So much for your moron argument.

        • Barry

          “The Australian homicide rate has gone DOWN since 1996”

          Guess what? The homicide rate in the US has gone down since 1996 as well by an even larger amount than in Australia.

        • jarhead1982

          Read above and get schooled loser

      • Ttoe

        Interesting argument, but in two of your three recent gun-ban examples, you refute yourself. I give you credit for your honesty. Not typical of a liberal today, but then you’re not liberal either. I can say that safely because you actually argue that gun-control is pointless.

        You just argued that there isn’t a sustained increase in violence with gun-bans, but then you stated the numbers proving that 2 out of the 3 you mentioned did indeed have a sustained increase in murders.

        The jump immediately proceeding the gun-ban did not remain at the peak, which is to be expected as guns are rounded up and removed and those who want to commit murder or other violent crime have to rethink how to go about doing it.

        However, the sustained increase in violence remained when the increase did not go back down to pre-ban levels.

        So, essentially, the NRA is correct. Gun-bans do in fact cause a sustained increase in at least the murder-rate. It’s just that that sustained increase isn’t typically remotely close to the peak of murders that happen immediately after a gun-ban.

        Also, the world did indeed change for all of those people who suffer and die needlessly in pointless gun-bans that don’t actually solve anything . . . as you illustrated.

        At least you recognize that Democrats aren’t just stupid. You recognize that they have a reason for wanting to do gun bans in spite of the fact that they know it doesn’t actually help anything.

        Nice piece, all in all. I like how you’re making the effort to be fair and unbiased towards either side. But to any rational person, you clearly made a very rational argument against gun-control.

      • suemenow

        Your headlines said fact BOTH side don’t want to admit…But even if your FACTS are true..you left out the other side…So since your title is not true, what else in the rest of the article isn’t?

        • Alcohol Prohibition was a spectacular success. Drug Prohibition is working just as as well. Gun Prohibition will work just as well. What side are you missing?

          BTW “gun free zones” are also a huge success. No one ever gets killed by guns in places where the signs are posted.

        • Andrew Johnson

          Uh yeah it did it definitely said that before and after gun bans very little change. So the argument that states guns are responsible for more murder is wrong and the side that says guns in legal citizens hands prevents it is also wrong.

      • Dan B

        If you take the US homicide rate during the same time frame you will see the US homicide rate drop 50%. There are a slew of other factors involved outside of gun legislation.

        • There are a slew of other factors involved outside of wearing a seat belt. But seat belts prevent, not stop, vehicle deaths. If vehicles rammed into schools killing 49 children at a time, roads would be banned near schools. No one would confiscate all roads, that’s stupid. Only people profiting from roads would make that argument.
          Get it?

          • BL4CKSH33P

            Lol what? What kind of analogy was that? Those two situations aren’t remotely similar.

          • Well if you look at the gun murder stats you will find that a certain segment of the population is doing most of the murdering. And they are doing it to each other. BLaM.

        • Ttoe

          During that time, we were increasing the numbers of guns in our possession, and Australia’s murder rate remained the same after the immediate peak after the gun ban. So, whatever was going on in the world, we benefited from a drop in the murder rate while Australia kept their rate like nothing happened. In other words, they probably missed out on the drop because of a inadvertently poorly-timed gun-ban.

        • JesusMiguel Burgos

          Did you read the article?

        • You were too dismissive of Australia. “but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.”

        • Pat

          That article has incorrect facts. If you look at the Australian government crime statistics gun violence increased by 30% following the ban. Violent crimes increased by 55%. Gun violence has since decreased but the majority of the decrease is gun suicides, which dropped by 70%. Overall suicide rates dropped by 10%. I don’t know where that article received their info from, but this is all available on the Australian government website.

      • How do I stop the talking ad so I can read the article? I will not share news that has distracting ads.

      • Aaron Hatch

        Seems like the author forgot to put what gun advocates don’t want to admit.

        • Mike Grimm

          The Author typed; The National Rifle Association (NRA) would have you believe that guns stop murders. The gun control lobby would have you believe that gun control reduces murders. They are both wrong. So, no, the Author did not forget. The gun advocates are not as stupid as you’d like to believe. We actually already know that guns won’t stop ALL murders. But in those cases where a gun WILL stop a murder, we “gun advocates” are going to do all that we can to stop the murder. Gun advocates do not advocate guns to use them to initiate an attack on others. It’s not “retaliation” or “assault” or “vigilantism” to protect your life or the live’s of others by using a force equal to or greater than the threat, to stop the threat. Our goal is not to kill the attacker, nor to torture or seek vengeance. The goal is to stop the threat. A wounded attacker usually is no longer a threat. If one day there are zero firearms, and I mean zero, will there be no murder? No, history shows murder was invented long before the gun, and it will almost certainly be around long after.
          By the way,
          1. The NRA was originally not a civil rights organization, and was founded in 1871 for rifle marksmanship training.
          2. The NRA has a history of being for gun control.

          In 1934, the NRA supported the National Firearms Act, which served to regulate and tax firearms that were considered used by gangsters at the time. They also supported the Gun Control Act of 1968, which expanded on the system to license firearm dealers and prohibit criminals and those with mental impairments from owning firearms.
          3. The NRA has a history of supporting the Civil Rights Movement.

          While African Americans were being terrorized by the Ku Klux Klan, where the Klan were sometimes aided by local law enforcement, the NRA setup charters to help train local African American communities to be able protect themselves. The most prominent case being in 1960 in Monroe, N.C. where the local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People head Robert Williams also chartered an NRA Rifle Club that successfully defended an assault on one of their leader’s homes by the KKK without casualties.

          According to a recent Gallup poll, 54% of Americans hold a favorable view of the NRA, while 38% have an unfavorable view.

          • “we “gun advocates” are going to do all that we can to stop the murder.”
            You cannot make this blanket statement and expect to retain credibility.
            Ask any vet, a gun fight isn’t like in the movies. People panic, most people with guns panic.
            There was 5 ‘good guys with guns’ around Reagan, he still got shot four times.

            • The new cleavage

              You can’t just make a blanket statement like that. You just lost all your credibility. See how I just ignored everything you said and changed the subject to discredit you so I don’t have to argue my point? I have a 7 year old niece who uses the same tactics. Liberals are big children.

              • You just replied like a seven year old. It’s rubbing off on you.

            • Ron Roy

              Yeah and just imagine how MANY more people would try and murder the president if he DIDN’T have ARMED security.

              • There were 5 ‘good guys with guns’ around Reagan, he still got shot four times.

      • Lucas Baxter

        Wanna know how to stop gun violence and kill the homicide rate?
        Put money into the people, so EVERY American can survive without having to resort to commit crimes to be able to survive, Offer FREE Drug rehabs, have the government stop shipping in metric tons of cocaine and heroin to hook the US population and BAM, homicide rates will drop significantly if not all together.

        • jmeg8237

          I agree the War on Drugs has been a waste of time and money, but I can’t completely agree with your statement that putting money into people will stop gun violence and crime in general. Sadly, there will always be a portion of the population who see taking advantage of others as an easy way to survive. Even if you remove illicit drugs from the playing field, there will always be robberies, rapes, burglaries, etc. because some people simply feel the need to exert their superiority over others to gain money, power, etc.

      • James

        So you use a homicide rate for Britain but because that won’t work for Australia (the most recent years show a 35% drop in the homicide rate for Australia against before the gun ban) you switch to total number of homicide and ignore the significant growth in population in that time?
        I guess you are not even trying to be taken seriously any more.

        • Bob Coco

          In AU, the trend was on a downward slope before the ban, and that trend continued, any drop is not gun related, it was happening anyway. Nice try though.

          • James

            Wow – nice job. Completely ignore the accusation and move the goalposts to a completely new argument altogether – the Donald himself would be proud of that piece of deflection. So the Australian murder rate was And you have data to back that up? No of course you do not because again it is simply not true. The intentional homicide rate in Australia varied only between 1.6 and 1.9 per 100,000 from 1989 when the National Homicide Monitoring Program first began to 1997 the year of the gun buyback program. So while it may have dipped slightly in 1995 this can hardly be seen to represent a significant long term downward trend.
            In the last decade this rate has averaged below 1.2
            So even if we accept a small downward trend prior to 1997 (which is dubious in its significance) we would still have to accept that the trend did not “continue” but significantly sped up.

            • RonnyMexico

              So, if one concedes the point that Australia has experienced a decrease in homicide rates per capita after thier gun ban then how do you suggest we proceed? We would then have data that shows in 2 out of 3 cases gun control doesn’t work at all and comes at the cost of more deaths before we it gets back to doing…nothing at all (in 2 of 3 examples). Based on these three examples, doesn’t logic tell you that gun control USUALLY A) temporarily causes more homicide and B) doesn’t work at all in the long term? It would seem those are the facts.

              • James

                Ronny – if the Australia example is not needed to prove the pro-gun point one has to wonder why so many people lie so egregiously about it.
                I do not favor a complete gun ban, and I have never advocated one.
                I am not as familiar with the UK and Ireland situations.
                The Australian buy back program was predominantly about long guns. To argue that AR15 style weapons are used for self defense is beyond ridiculous.
                I am simply in favor of having this debate based on truth – not the sort of nonsense peddled in this article.

                • stellar1

                  If you don’t want a gun Don’t Buy one… you don’t tell anyone else what to do…

                • John Crawford

                  The reason we pro-gun folks speak of Australia is that the anti-gun side continually raises it. We don’t need it to prove that our Constitution protects our Right to keep and bear arms.
                  Semper fi

                  • James

                    So we are agreed then – you guys will stop lying about what happened in Australia?

                    • John Crawford

                      You guys? I have never lied. Australian stats are online. They tell the story perfectly.
                      Semper fi

                • mookiepook

                  Some interesting points presented by you and others. I’m going to admit that I have a hard time understanding the truth of many statistics, but although I am a staunch proponent of the Second Amendment I still want to know the truth, whether that supports my beliefs or not. You guys keep slicing those stats and I’ll keep reading to see if I can learn something.

                  That said, I think a number of the Korean shopkeepers who kept their stores looter-free and unburned during the LA riots would argue that the AR15 and long guns in general do qualify as an appropriate tool for self-defense. Gun control advocates like to minimize that example because it happened nearly 25 years ago, but I can still remember what it was like waiting for it to flow south to our neighborhood–and while some of the societal pressures of that time are much less of an issue now, I think a repeat performance or worse is an absolute possibility given the right mix of conditions. There are some truly dark people in the world, some of them with rifles (our local MS-13 proliferation comes to mind) and if you ever have to deal with one a handgun may not fit the bill.

                  Anyway, the most important justification for the AR15 is to give the citizen a last option in the event they need to exercise the ultimate intent of the Second Amendment. I don’t expect to see such a thing in my lifetime and I don’t obsess over it, but I believe we are more empowered with it than without.

              • James

                I found some updated stats on Britain. The author cites a rang of 10.9 – 13 homicides per million before the ban. The last 3 years have all been below 10. Now I do not know if you can attribute that to gun bans. But can we please stop the lie that homicide rates have not fallen significantly?
                Regarding the temporary rise after the ban – well Ireland was in a state of virtual civil war in the 1970s – hardly representative of the longer term trend.

                • RonnyMexico

                  No, we can’t stop James because it’s been far too long for that to be meaningful as it relates to the gun ban. Way too many variables and too much time to make that connection at this point. Why is it so hard to admit that gun bans have no meaningful impact on homicide rates? It’s obvious that it doesn’t at this point. People who want to commit a homicide simply switch to another weapon or find a gun on the black market. I think the pro gun control crowd would get a lot further if they took the time to understand what they are talking about, such as what a semi automatic “asault rifle” really is and stop exaggerating when it comes to the reality of statistics.

                  • James

                    Ronny – I did not connect it to the gun ban – I specifically said that I was not doing so. I asked that the gun lobby stop LYING about other countries’ gun stats – you seem to be admitting on behalf of the gun lobby that you will not stop those lies.

                    • James

                      I think you would get a lot further if you took the time to actually look at the stats instead of lying about what they say – and if you stopped using truly moronic arguments like that all murders are preplanned involving someone who “wants to commit a homicide” and so prepares for it by buying a gun specifically for that purpose.

                • DJ Yates

                  James… I challenge you to explore the overall crime rates, and the post ban numbers on same.

                  May I assume, that you are NOT saying we should all be willing to endure significantly more crime, including non-lethal violent crime, in order to “better regulate” firearms?

                  Just as an aside… for anyone who studies our nation’s founders even a little bit… an item of note… they had a much better working knowledge of history and civilizations than the mass majority of Americans and Canadians. They also understood the implication of the range of fault and virtue typical for human beings… and the fact that despite passing of time… the realm of human behavior was predictable.

                  Simply put… “Men (and women) are not angels”… avarice and lust for power were a common shadow side of human behavior for millennia.

                  THAT was the entire argument behind placing the Bill of Rights as part of the Rule of Law in The Constitution. It was for protection of rights that are not granted… but natural by birth… that history abundantly shows are commonly abused by those who gain money and seek power over their fellows.

                  Men are not angels.

                  • James

                    DJ Yates – I have provided that information. There is no massive increase in other crimes in Australia or UK after the gun bans. In fact quite the opposite. So why not have a look at what I have provided instead of challenging me to provide it while falsely claiming what you think it will say when I do.

                    • DJ Yates

                      You are limiting your data set to gun violence. That is fine, if the only purpose of guns on their own is to commit gun deaths… but that is the fallacy that folks who are afraid of guns tend to believe.

                      REMEMBER… the ONLY folks who will OBEY the law, are “law abiding citizens”. Forget criminals and the lawless… take them OUT of the equation James.

                      Let’s break it out very simply into 2 groups, and what they use guns for, shall we?

                      USE OF GUNS

                      Law abiding folks: defensive use, self, family, property, community (actually much more frequent use is for non self defense purposes… but that’s not salient to this discussion.)

                      IMPACT of firearms legislation: At the affect of additional laws, does not want to break law.

                      Criminals, those who do or plan to commit criminal behavior: Criminal activities, offensive use in commission of crimes (…and probably some of the same non-criminal activities mentioned about legal gun owners, but not salient to the discussion.)

                      IMPACT of firearms legislation: Some to little or none. Will not alter behavior, or adhere to current law. Only interested in selfish means to an end, and won’t follow law even as it applies to legal ownership when not committing crime.

                      JAMES… with the above 2 categories of holders of firearms, now let’s consider this whole topic with THIS question in mind:

                      – What impact has the restrictions on firearms had on ALL categories of crime, in the U.K. and Australia?

                      The answer to that is very simple, although more impactful in Australia than the U.K.**

                      Overall higher levels of crime, especially in Australia. **(The U.K. is essentially an Orwellian surveillance state. Video cameras are, literally, everywhere. The average urban resident has their image captured on CCTV more than 2000 times a day.)

                      I’m not saying it’s great, James… but the DATA is consistent and overwhelming.

                      Talk to rank and file cops in Australia (not politically appointed), and they will tell you morale is way down, and they are overwhelmed by the increase in overall crime. They just can’t keep up.

                      That may be fine for some… but trading a lower death rate for a dramatic increase in every kind of non-murder crime will NOT fly in the U.S., especially when it is settled case law by SCOTUS, that Law Enforcement is NOT obliged to protect citizens from being victims of crime.

                      • James

                        “You are limiting your data set to gun violence” – no I am not. I posted data for all violent crime and for all property crime. It is not limited to guns at all.
                        You continually make claims here without any data to support them – and reject, quite wrongly, any data put before you before coming back to your original lie – that historical evidence elsewhere suggest a trade-off of ” a lower death rate for a dramatic increase in every kind of non-murder crime”.
                        Anecdotal nonsense like “talk to a cop” means nothing. The data is there in black and white – you however do not want to accept the truth and so keep peddling these lies.

              • DJ Yates

                Folks should pay particular attention to one of the nuances in this article… and this thread.

                The dialog isn’t talking about “Crime”. It is talking about gun crime resulting in death.

                This is no small point. The personal and property crime rates in Australia and the U.K. went WAY up. People will have to decide if living with dramatically increased personal and property crime, is a fair trade for the illusory appearance of safety.

            • DJ Yates

              James… in the U.S., until the genius banksters blew up the financial world in 2008, from 1995 the violent crime rate in the U.S. was down around 50% (according to the FBI crime data).

              During this same period, and in almost direct correlation, States increasingly passing Concealed Carry laws.

              Statistically, correlation can NOT be proved as causation… for either side of the argument. But if folks who are pro-gun control want to make specious arguments about gun laws and gun violence where THEY claim correlation/causation… then they are in no position to cry “foul” when folks who are pro Bill of Rights do the same.

              There is one problem though, on the playing field of that argument. Pro BoR folks have a LOT more points of correlation/causation to use in the argument, then anti-gun folks.

              ANY discussion about these issues, should be void of logical fallacies… which is why pro BoR folks get so worked up on this topic.

              Watching Media and politicians who want more laws and bans, and actually tracking the quality of their facts… is like having to watch that idiot Republican in Missouri a couple years ago who claimed “women who are raped can’t get pregnant, because their bodies prevent it.” The quality of fact checking on the gun topic is ABYSMAL

        • DJ Yates

          …and the violent crime and property crime rates in both Britain and Australia both went UP.

          Annoying part of this article… it only tracks homicides. In Australia, the property crime rates are dramatically UP. Personal and property crimes against folks who are over 65 (for whom guns are a dramatic “equalizer”) spiked up almost 300%, and have stayed very very high.

          Ask non-politcal appointee rank and file cops in AU about “after ban” crime, and they will tell you they are completely overwhelmed in many areas… folks are pretty much on their own, because the police just can’t do anything to prevent crime.

      • nathan

        “The reasoning is pretty clear: you need rifles to overthrow a government.” Of course, that must be why America keeps getting overthrown by 3rd world governments. We need to stop wasting our money on an Air Force and tanks and missiles and stuff and make more rifles!

        • RonnyMexico

          I think you missed the point here. The word “overthrow” is a clue. The article is saying that governments don’t want their own “citizens” to be well armed with rifles because that would make the citizenry more capable of “overthrowing” their own government.

      • Charlton Wilson

        What absolute rubbish. The ban in Australia was on automatic and semi-automatic weapons to reduce or eliminate mass shootings after the Port Arthur massacre. Since then, (this is the 20th year) there has not been a single mass shooting in Australia.

        It’s be nice if if you media people would tell the WHOLE truth once in a while… >:(

        • John Williams

          the article said nothing about mass shootings, it only sited number of murders. Have a wonderful day

        • Nique

          Has it occurred to anyone that maybe it wasn’t the ban on guns in Australia that has kept them safer from terrorism, but the diligence of the Australian government to thwart the proliferation of terrorist types in their country? Criminals and terrorists don’t follow the laws, they use the black market/ISIS types to obtain what they need to destroy lives. So, there must be something extraordinary that the Australians are doing to protect their country. Here in America, our very own POTUS can’t even utter the word ISIS, but goes above and beyond to disagree with the fact that terrorism is the goal of radical Islam (and some might argue that it’s “good” Islam’s highest goal to destroy infidels, as well). Could it be because he is Muslim? Oh, he claims to be Christian, but that’s about as true as me claiming to be the Queen of England; I can say whatever I want, but that doesn’t make it true. Actions speak louder than words. But folks, the only success that gun control provides is to allow the good folks to be dominated by the bad folks. As this article says, we need to change the heart and attitude of society. BTW, abortion, the most heinous form of murder, far exceeds the death rate of gun violence. But nobody seems to think abortion is worth banning. As the quote goes, “would it mean something if abortions were done using guns?” So if you’re concerned about terrorism, don’t take away my only protection, my shotgun; you just might be saved by my diligence to protect my family, friends, and neighbors.

      • phil box

        gun or weapon control has absolutely nothing to do with guns/weapons. it is all about taking away your rights. if you can not fight back you won’t, that is until life get so bad that dying looks better than living. and that always happens under a dictator.

        • Lee O. Welter

          This book affirms your view: ESCAPE FROM CAMP 14 about North Korea and one very fortunate survivor (escapee).

        • DanD

          Nuclear weapons control has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It is all about taking away your rights. etc…

          There are already sensible restrictions in place on the right to keep and bear arms, and they work well in those categories. Adding a few more reasonable restrictions (universal background checks, magazine capacity limits) don’t harm your ability to defend yourself, unless you’re one of the people that the country has already decided shouldn’t have firearms for valid legal reasons.

          • phil box

            first off, look at how england lost their guns. a little chip here, a little chip there and pretty soon, no guns. besides there are ample existing laws that if enforced would do the job. you should read the 10(?) steps to socialism sometime, then reflect on how those steps have been applied to AMerica.

            • DanD

              There really aren’t. Right now there is a simple and common path whereby someone who is legally not supposed to buy a gun can get one, and the purchasing individual (who clearly does not care about the law) is the only one who has violated the law. And that path is the route whereby 96%+ of convicted felons purchase a gun.

              Requiring background checks for all sales, along with providing a simple method to allow non-licensees to make such checks, is a simple change. It doesn’t prevent anyone new from buying a gun. It simply prevents people from who aren’t supposed to buy from violating the law.

              • phil box

                3rd line mid sentence of your reply tells you why more gun laws are worthless. only law abiding citizens will be affected by more laws.

                • DanD

                  And apparently your reading comprehension is lousy. Yes, requiring all sales to do background checks does affect law abiding citizens. Specifically, it prevents them from selling guns to criminals. So it doesn’t only affect them.

                  • phil box

                    by definition criminals do not obey the law. so any law is not going to be obeyed by a criminal who chooses not to obey that or any law. waste of tax payer money again.

                    • DanD

                      And still, you’re missing the point. Right now: Law abiding gun owner sells gun through private sale. Background check not required. No law requires him to make certain the purchaser is legally allowed to buy a gun. Gun is sold to criminal.

                      With universal background checks: Law abiding gun owner attempts to sell gun. Does a background check, learns purchaser is not allowed to buy gun. Gun is not sold to criminal.

                      • phil box

                        no i have not missed your point. so what about you selling me a “lemon” car. should you be required to provide me with proof the car is road worthy? what about the tv you want to get rid of. i will need proof that it meets radiation limits. my point is, with the government mindset today, if you give them an opening pretty soon you are on the “no fly” for improper use of toilet paper. our 2nd amendment was add to prevent the type of government stupid people let happen. a name on one government list will soon be on all government lists. look at how the irs persecuted those who had pissed off obama. don’t think because you are squeaky clean not that tomorrow you won’t be on a government list. once there is a leak in the dam, soon the dam collapses. there is a whole world just past the end of your nose.

                        • DanD

                          Knowingly selling a lemon car without disclosing is illegal. Likewise knowingly selling a TV that was damaged or recalled for a safety issue.

                          Knowingly selling a gun to a felon who hasn’t had his rights restored is illegal. This just increases the percentage of people who know before they sell. It is not an undue burden, and it doesn’t actually infringe on the right to keep and bear arms (because it’s only relevant when you are getting rid of a gun, not when you acquire it). For that matter, the courts have already ruled that a background check during fire-arms sales is not an infringement.

                          So please look up “slippery slope” and stop being an extremist.

                        • David G. Lander

                          So, from what you are saying, selling a firearm to a criminal is already illegal, right (and, yes, it most certainly is)? So there is no need to add any other restrictions, because it is already illegal, and from what you say that means it doesn’t happen, correct?

                        • DanD

                          Knowingly selling a firearm to a felon is illegal. Unkowingly selling one is not. However, there is currently no requirement that the seller make certain that the receiver is not a felon. Adding that requirement is not an undue burden.

                        • David G. Lander

                          Ignorance of the law is no protection. If you unknowingly sell stolen property, then you can still be tried for it, just as if you unknowingly sell a firearm to someone who is barred from their purchase you may still be tried for it. People protect themselves from this by completing ‘private’ transactions through a dealer, who will process the transfer for them, or they protect themselves by only making private sales to people whom they know explicitly.

                        • DanD

                          Ignorance of the law is not protection. Ignorance of the buyer is. The way the laws are written now, the seller has no duty to know, they are legally permitted to sell to anyone who claims they are a legal buyer.

                      • David G. Lander

                        You do realize that not every criminal will appear on a background check, and there have been cases where people have been able to legally purchase firearms, even though they have malicious intent because they have had a clean record, up until they have carried out their plans, right?

                        • DanD

                          Yes. If you had the power to wave a wand and stop 50% of car accidents, would you not do it because of the other 50%?

                  • David G. Lander

                    And it will specifically not affect a criminal who would burglarize, or otherwise steal a firearm. Nor would it affect one criminal from selling stolen, or otherwise acquired firearms, illegally, to another criminal. It seems in that case the limitations are only set upon those who abiding by the law, without meaningfully impact the criminal element, whom the law is proposed to prevent.

                    • DanD

                      Nope, it wouldn’t prevent stolen or black market guns. But it would cut off one more stream of guns from the legal to illegal markets. And without being an undue burden on the seller (assuming a convenient way was set up to do background checks). So yes, it would meaningfully impact the criminal element.

                      • David G. Lander

                        Except that there is already a method in place for this, which is to complete your ‘private’ sale through a licensed dealer.

          • David G. Lander

            Please explain how universal background checks, and magazine capacity limits are ‘reasonable’ restrictions. Also, please explain why my not believing in those ‘reasonable’ restrictions means that I shouldn’t have a firearm for valid legal reasons? Further, please inform as to what a ‘reasonable’ capacity for a magazine would be, and why. Thank you.

            • DanD

              Reasonable restrictions: Restrictions that do not place an undue burden on the legal gun owner’s right to keep and bear arms.

              Universal background checks are an extension of a system that is already proven to work (not perfectly, but well). It does not create any barrier to the legal purchase of firearms, only a barrier to illegal ones.

              Magazine capacity limits do not prevent any legal use of a gun. They do, I admit, prevent you from going to the target range and running through 30 rounds quickly, but being able to do that isn’t a legal requirement. I’d love to see a 3 round limit, but I suspect 9 or 10 rounds would be considered a reasonable compromise.

              And where did I say anything about adding people to the list of who shouldn’t have a gun? I was pointing out that background checks only prevent those who already aren’t supposed to have guns from acquiring them through that route.

              • mookiepook

                A few points to consider:

                I’m assuming that you are not a proponent of the Second Amendment? If you were, you would understand that it exists because the framers knew that traits such as corruption, greed and the hunger for power were inherent to man’s nature, and would inevitably lead to the strong (government) oppressing the weak, particularly if the cost of doing so was low. That’s a unique attribute of our system of government that I happen to think is a good one, and as legitimate now as it was back then.

                With that in mind, why wouldn’t law-abiding citizens of sound mind have access to the same tools of defense as local law enforcement? It certainly can’t be because cops are more trustworthy, their rate of violent crime is on par with the general population’s and their rate of sexual assault is much higher. Note that these new magazine restrictions don’t apply to retired police officers…don’t you find it a little worrisome that long-term state employees are–in the state’s eyes–either more trustworthy or of higher value?

                With regards to pistol magazines and the assertion that no one needs more than three rounds or 10 rounds, or any other arbitrary number less than what the handgun in question was designed for–I ask you this: When you drive your family on a cross-country vacation (or drive anywhere) do you (1) do so with the minimum amount of gas needed to get to your destination (2) add a little more than you think is required, or (3) do you plan for the worst and fill it all the way up?

                If we accept that one of the reasons (or even the primary reason) for a law-abiding citizen to own a handgun is to defend themselves against a potentially lethal attack, why would we artificially restrict ourselves to less than the firearm was designed to carry? In police shootings it typically requires more than two rounds of 9mm to incapacitate a suspect — that means two or more rounds must hit the suspect. Given the chaos and stress of a shooting there will often be misses, there may be more than one attacker, and it wouldn’t be an incredibly rare event to find that the 15 rounds in your normal (factory issue) Glock magazine were not enough, much less the ten in a reduced capacity California-compliant magazine. Cops expend more than 10 rounds in shootings on a regular basis, why are civilians less deserving of having the same chance of survival?

                California already had Federal background checks for firearms purchases. Now the state wants their own register. If you surmise that it’s an eventual lead-in to a complete ban or even confiscation, you are painted as a paranoid whacko. But I ask you, what sort of whacko puts their trust in a powerful, elitist organization with a track record of deceit, corruption, and criminal behavior (google Sen. Leland Yee for some ironic scandal)? Especially when they’ve been steadily encroaching for thirty years on what may of us thought was a constitutionally guaranteed right.

                I don’t doubt that there are some well-meaning, upstanding civil servants on both sides of the aisle in Sacramento, but there are plenty of narcissists, sociopaths, and garden variety conmen as well. Governments have been going back on promises, trampling rights, and generally acting like what they are (human beings with power) since the beginning of history — and because constitutionalists and gun rights advocates are a minority in California, our rights are being stepped all over so the politicos can make the general population feel like something positive is happening. And when one group’s rights are abused, the freedoms of all groups become a little less secure.

                Anyway, I’m a moderate law-abiding citizen, but I woke up this week to find that the rifle I legally purchased in California, after passing a federal background check and completing a firearms safety test, that isn’t an “assault weapon”, must now be registered as an assault weapon in a state that is clearly suspicious of a person that would own such a thing, and that I’ll be a felon if I don’t do so, and that I can’t pass this item on to one of my children even though I paid a not insignificant amount for it, and that for evermore if I’m pulled over for a traffic violation or falsely accused of domestic violence (happens all the time) I run the risk of some excitable gun-phobic officer pulling up my name on a state database to see that I own an “assault rifle” and injecting his personal bias with unjust/unpleasant consequences. I also woke up to the fact that the (normal) capacity magazines for my handguns, that were previously legal, are now also going to be criminal to possess, and I must now use 10-round magazines in a pistol designed for 15, when it’s somehow legal in almost every other state in the nation to have normal capacity magazines.

                Now…if I was the only Californian affected by this, or even one of a thousand (and I didn’t believe my rights were being violated) I might be able to suck this up my rationalizing my situation as so unique that it wouldn’t be reasonable to expect any consideration from the State or my fellow citizens….but based on all the numbers I could find, there’s anywhere from 200,000 to possibly over a million guns in California that fit the State’s definition of “assault rifle”. Conservatively, we can assume at least 200,000 otherwise law-abiding citizens are affected (but possibly a more than a million) and at risk of becoming felons if they don’t comply, whether knowingly or out of ignorance. Now consider that many times more Californians own handguns, and a percentage of those are in possession of normal capacity magazines (typically more than the state mandates 10 rounds).

      • SickOf BeingCoddled

        you are correct. Ending violence is not the goal of those under cover behind the scenes gun ban advocates. Making WE the PEOPLE unable to keep the government off our necks and out of our pockets- that is their goal. Let’s not succumb to the lies .

      • Mike Redick

        You need a lot more than rifles to overthrow a modern government these days. A rifle isn’t going to do you a lot of good against a tank.

        • Rudeforthought

          Tanks without infantry support are close to useless. They’re not invincible and are surprisingly vulnerable given their relative lack of agility, and visibility. Infantry have been destroying tanks since their invention and most of the same vulnerabilities exist whether it’s immobilizing them and pelting them with sustained mortar fire or other mobile infantry weapons, or trapping it in an improvised hole disguised to look like normal ground. At the end of the day a tank is a specialized piece of equipment designed to function alongside other components of our military. It all still does come down to infantry, or “boots on the ground,” as they say today on the news. And as the saying goes, “if it bleeds, we can kill it.” A lot of the people most invested in overthrowing a hostile government, particularly in the US, are former employees of the military and know exactly how it operates. Professionalism and training are one of the few real edges a national military has over an insurgent population.

          The only truly effective trump card a modern government has against a populace is carpet-bombing or nuclear ordnance. And using those things on your populace makes a lot more enemies than it kills.

        • Enderby

          I think armed citizens, with no access to tanks, machine guns, or grenades are effective because of the psychology behind an army. A government can send an army into the streets to quell a protest of unarmed citizens and order them to fire rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse the mob. But if the citizens are armed, the army, made up of citizens themselves, will not want to exchange gunfire with their neighbors, school teachers, cousins, or the children of their friends. Most revolutions are relatively peaceful……the people assemble en masse and the soldiers switch sides, and and armed populace makes it all the easier for soldiers to switch sides. It happened in our American revolution. Although the British soldiers readily shot American rebels, the American loyalist rapidly lost the stomach for it….either running from the British ranks to either switch sides or flee to Canada. Support for the American revolution was very weak in 1774, but grew to a majority by 1777. It never would have happened if the colonislists weren’t armed, and vastly superior British firepower eventually proved incapable of defeating the will of an armed population.

          • Lee O. Welter

            Thanks for your succinct summary. A more extensive account it in the book LAFAYETTE IN THE SOMEWHAT UNITED STATES: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24602886-lafayette-in-the-somewhat-united-states

          • Banaschar

            A small difference between 1776 and 2016. The British government didn’t reside in North America. Nor did we threaten the British Empire, save a possible minor nuisance to the Canadian territories (where the advantages of local insurgency would disappear). We mostly made ourselves far more of a nuisance than we were worth while politics in the British Parliament did the rest.

            Far more likely that the U.S. government will wait it out patiently and let the dissidents make a mess of things on their own, or wait for an opportune moment to cripple the leadership with a minimum of conflict (a la Malheur). They gain no advantage by firing the first shots in a pitched battle, and I guarantee you that they know that.

            You’ve seen what the media has made of most protest movements where a few people throw bricks and molotovs, right? Do you think it’s going to be more sympathetic when the crowd opens fire on police or the National Guard?

            Without the ability to project force, I just see the armed militants on the losing ends of both a siege and a PR war. Anything relying on a mass, popular uprising didn’t need the weapons in the first place; they let the government defeat itself.

        • DrMcNinja

          To put it in perspective, the US government had a far easier time defeating the Iraqi army compared to a smaller and significantly less equipped insurgency.

        • 5MMs

          And I would have no problem with a citizen owning a tank, a 50 caliber , or even a Howitzer to go along with their rifles.

      • JacoLantern

        Way to be misleading with the UK statistic. Trimming the graph so 2001-2003 is prominent. See the 2002/3 statistic is so high because Harold Shipman was convicted of 170+ unlawful killings he committed over a few decades. They were all recorded at once regardless of the year he committed the crime. He was a doctor unlawfully killing patients with medication. It has nothing to do with guns. 2001/2 is inflated by 58 deaths because some illegal chinese immigrants suffocated in a truck. The average year in the UK has less than 600 total deaths. 60 deaths are a massive spike and those deaths are nothing to do with guns.

        Remove those two events and the graph is just as flat as all the others entirely negating your bullshit point.

        • El_Tigre_Loco

          I think a valid point is if guns are removed, killers can find other means. Timothy McVeigh comes to mind. Some guys in China killed a bunch of people with knives. Scandinavian countries are having people killed with guns. To really kill a lot of people, Mateen should have used Molotov cocktails according to what I heard on O’Reilly tonight. There was only one entrance/exit to the club. The others were padlocked.

        • RonnyMexico

          Okay, let’s concede that it is a bullshit point. Now you are left with the fact that gun control does absolutely nothing to lower homicides, but hey, at least it doesn’t make them go up right?

      • Pingback: Hill No! – Since Australia Has Banned Guns This is What’s Happening in Their Streets with Muslims…()

      • Pingback: Since Australia Has BANNED GUNS This is What’ MUSLIMS ARE DOING IN THEIR STREETS ... HORRIFYING -()

      • Xenoace

        When Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people he did not fire one shot. He used a rental filled with 7000 pounds of ammonium nitrate, nitro-methane, and diesel fuel. How quickly we forget!

        • TheBamaKid1962

          They changed the composition of the fertilizer to stop a repeat performance of McVey’s hatred of the government, however, I am sure the “intelligent loons” in our society have already or will soon find a substitute. I am still of the belief that many of these mass killings can be traced back to DC, but how could one prove that without getting killed themselves?

          • Thvwandool Yusef Moring

            Already found long before the change. A trip to any cleaning supply cabinet in America provides suitable substitutes. And some damned good ones.

            • TheBamaKid1962

              Yet another thing I didn’t know. I know that certain chemicals mixed together can make a large hole in the ground…or one humongous fireball. I am way behind in bomb making 101, which is okay by me.

            • DanD

              It also tends to produce damaged or dead bombers. Mixing explosives is easy. Not blowing yourself up with them and still getting them to explode on command, not so much.

          • El_Tigre_Loco

            Flour, sugar, many powdered substances make perfectly good bombs.

            • TheBamaKid1962

              Thanks +El_Tigre_Loco I watch a lot of mythbusters and never saw that. Thanks for the info although it’s something I don’t need, I just knew they changed the composition of the AmNi

            • DanD

              No, they really don’t. Yes, dust explosions are a huge risk. Deliberately creating one is difficult. And the explosive force is low for the volume used.

              Remember the important criteria for a bomb is not explosive power, it’s being able to apply that power on demand (and only on demand).

        • El_Tigre_Loco

          The crime is in the mind of the person(s), and that mind will find a way.

      • Gray Liddell

        Jews for the Preservation of firearms Ownership in Wisconsin has a great chart, listing the gun control law and the number of people murdered by their government as a result of their good intentions on gun control and
        resulting defenselessness. It is about preventing the government from having a monopoly on the use of lethal violence.
        http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/de

        A guy named R. J. Rummel lists the number of people slaughtered BY THEIR GOVERNMENTS when they were blessed with gun control.
        https://www.hawaii.edu/powerki.

        Hands and Feet Kill more people very year than rifles
        Table 8
        https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/c

        • gailpurpleangel

          Just to let you know – None of the 3 sites you posted actually open. Maybe it’s my computer but All 3 say something like “the page you requested cannot be found.” Pretty weird. Esp disappointing because I wanted to read them.

          • deaderpool

            all three worked fine on my chrome browser.

            • gailpurpleangel

              thanks. the 3 you just provided all work for me now (?). i appreciate the info.

        • Gray Liddell
          • gailpurpleangel

            thanks for reposting. these 3 worked for me now.

        • DanD

          Only because of the size of the category “Firearms, Type not stated” on the FBI link.

          • Gray Liddell
            • DanD

              And they have “Firearms, Type not stated” at 1,933. If 412 of those are rifles, then they’re equal. And since there’s no information to determine whether police are more or less likely to report the type if it’s a rifle, there’s uncertainty at best. (And practically speaking, less complete reports are going to come from smaller police departments, which are going to trend rural, which is a higher probability of a long gun instead of a hand gun).

              Also relevant is that the FBI statistics are known to be under-reported. Police department reporting to the FBI is voluntary, not all departments do so. Whether that has a bearing on the ratios is uncertain.

              • Gray Liddell

                I see what you are talking about now But(from the Volokh piece)
                ” If we assume that 5% of the homicides involved rifles (following the
                breakdown between known handgun homicides and known rifle homicides), then blunt object homicides would still exceed rifle homicides. If it’s 20%, for instance if handgun homicides are more likely to be provably identified as such, but rifle homicides are more likely to seem ambiguous, then rifle homicides would exceed blunt object homicides.”
                from here:
                http://volokh.com/2013/01/03/are-blunt-objects-more-common-homicide-weapons-than-rifles/
                You are using the higher 20% number of 412 whereas I would use the 5% number merely becasue that is the approximate ratio of rifles to
                handguns murders in the of 2010, 2011, 2012,3013and 2014 already
                reported numbers.
                But thanks for bringing the point up.

                • DanD

                  I suspect you are right, although, I do think that “type uncertain” is likely to slew rifle somewhat, simply because of the nature of reporting (more detailed reports from more urban police forces) and the nature of the crime (I would guess fewer rifle murders are positively identified, because less evidence is present). I doubt it’s 20%, but the uncertainty exists.

                  All that being said, however, there are several other relevant factors. First, 100% of people have access to hands and feet, and are technically capable of killing with them. Only ~33% of households have a gun in them (best estimate). Of those, I’m willing to assume that a significant percentage have a rifle, but far from all. Let’s say half, for the sake of argument. So, as a percentage of people with access, 2.8 times more rifle homicides are committed than hand homicides.

                  Second, while the total number of rifle homicides is relatively low, the presence of high capacity semi-automatic long guns correlates very strongly with mass and spree killings. That’s why they tend to be targeted after mass shootings.

                  I don’t remember if it was on this article or elsewhere, but I don’t actually support confiscation of guns. I do, however, think that certain regulations would be reasonable. Universal background checks, including on private sales (obviously combined with some system to make such checks simple). Strong limits on magazine capacity (if you need 30 shots for home defense or hunting, you are more of a threat to bystanders than to your target). More uniform rules, and enforcement thereof, against gun purchases by those that society has deemed unsuitable for such. Restriction of gun purchase rights for anyone who is convicted of a domestic violence charge, even a misdemeanor. None of those are, I think, unreasonable.

                  I would also like to see significant restrictions on the purchase of guns by anyone who shares a household with a felon or someone who has been diagnosed with an appropriate mental illness, but I realize that one is a lot more controversial.

      • Seth Forbis

        i gotta say, this changed my mind…i was a supporter of gun control but now i wonder…statistics say if we banned handguns people would just switch to knives and poison and junk, one would think a gun murder would be easier to prevent and solve, considering that guns are loud, easily identifiable, and easily traceable compared to a knife murder…plus guns spray a nice coating of residue on your hands when you use them, that can be easily identified…

        • Ron I.

          The argument that those who want to kill lots of people would just do it with knives or poison is BS unless of course you become an expert, fast knife thrower and can carry a lot of knives on you. I guess you could just carry one knife and kill each person one by one; you know stick the knife into someone and then pull it back out and then move on to the next one. Does that sound doable to you? Be realistic..the reason people use guns is because its easy to do and so convenient; just pull the gun out and fire. If you run out of ammo drop the empty mag and pop another one in. How much time does that take…maybe 10 seconds? Probably not even that much time if you practice and who doesn’t practice when you want to kill a lot of people? Poison is a little bit trickier to use. You have to gain access to the food or drink and that might be a problem.

          So here is the test…to see if you have learned anything. You want to kill a lot of people in as little time as you can. Do you use knives or a gun. You might say a bomb and you would be correct. But you are not familiar with bombs and they can be tricky to use. I mean shit..you don’t want to blow yourself up by mistake do you? Of course not! Its the other innocent people you want to kill.

          If you said the answer is a gun, you would be correct. That is only my opinion of course but apparently other mass killers feel the same way…a gun is the way to go.

          • Kenny Servello Jr.

            Idiot,bombs are easier to get and can be made from anything. And this last shooting was a terrorist attack,not a mass shooting.

            • Amy King

              It was a mass shooting. Mass murder is defined by the FBI as the murder of four or more people in one event at one location. Fifty people were shot and killed at the Orlando night club. The event was a mass shooting. Period.

              It doesn’t matter one bit if the shooter was a terrorist, a homophobe, a closet gay, a Muslim, an atheist, a mentally ill person, or a combination of these things. These things only suggest a motive. The manner of death was, unquestionably, a mass shooting – the murder of more than four people in a single event, by shooting.

          • Bill Citro

            you can kill more people with a car than a gun in a shorter period of time. with no training whatsoever

          • mark

            And if they don’t have a gun they could make a bomb or drive their vehicle into the crowd.I someone is hellbent on killing they will..

          • Thvwandool Yusef Moring

            I think you should read up on knife fighting. At 25 yards and knife is considered by experts to be more deadly than a handgun simply because it is faster to gut someone than pull a weapon release the safety aim and fire. A person can move 25 yards in about 1 second. Just the other day and jewelry killed6 homosexuals at a gay pride parade in Israel for the second time. The adage “don’t bring a knife to a gun fight” was said by a person who lacks knowledge in the art of homicide.
            I

            • Amy King

              Um… a person can move 25 yards in 1 second?
              You might want to check your math…
              25 yards is 75 feet… 75 feet per second…
              That’s over 50 miles per hour.

              The average Olympian can sprint for short distances anywhere between 21 and 25 miles per hour. Your scenario is impossible.

              Ron is right. Unless you’re a trained knife-fighter attacking at close proximity, you’re not going to win against someone holding a gun.

              “It doesn’t take skill, just determination”… That statement is just silly. You could be the most determined little rascal that ever held a knife, but that won’t make a lick of difference if you don’t have a clue how to fight with it.

            • DanD

              A knife fighter is in reach of their opponent. A gun fighter is not.

              And you are drawing a false comparison between a drawn knife and a holstered handgun.

          • David G. Lander

            You just said that if you wanted to kill people using a gun, then you would practice using a gun. Why would you then make the qualification that your hypothetical mass murderer is not familiar with bombs? You can find information on assembling, and detonating bombs, just as easily as you can find information on using firearms.

      • Lisbon_G

        The facts and figures are pretty interesting, but the one thing I didn’t see (did I just miss it?) is that in Australia there was a gun ban even before the buy back in 1997. So it is not like the general population had an overabundance of weapons to begin with.

        • And the gun ban isn’t total now. I believe that handguns and semi-automatic rifles were the main things that were not banned beforehand and are banned now.

        • Bill Citro

          they confiscated almost 700,000 guns

      • Let’sBeFriends

        “Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.”

        LOL what is this purposely skewed, biased garbage? There hasn’t been one mass shooting in Australia since the ban on high caliber, high ROF weapons.

        • Mike Soukup

          The point was – there are STILL just as many dead people – whether it was done in a mass shooting or individually. Personally, if I am murdered – whether it was a mass shooting – or an individual stabbing me to death – it doesn’t REALLY matter- I’m dead.

          So, the ENTIRE point of the article (that you obviously missed) – is that with or without gun control – there are JUST AS MANY PEOPLE murdered. They just find other ways to do it.

          Your attitude shows the problem with using facts and logic on people who “want to believe a certain way”.

          • Let’sBeFriends

            Sure, let’s talk about facts and logic.

            The statistic that this article cherry picks out of a report (that also says that a) homicide incidents have shown a steady decline, and b) homicides committed with a firearm continued on a declining trend) out of context is completely misleading because it reflects only the absolute number of homicides rather than the homicide rate. This statistic may have a point, if the total population of Australia hadn’t have grown in 15 years.

            Australia had a population of 17,638,408 in ’93, the first year of the span in the example the author decided to source from, with the end date being ’07. Guess what the population of Australia was in 2007? 20,791,089.
            The point being that Australia grew in population by a few million and yet the homicides per year did not grow, and in fact got lower.

            Bottom line: there are less armed robberies, there are less homicides committed with firearms, and homicide rates have declined by about 20 percent in the past 22 years:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/170291be3ff91a3db2d65e8184399ffc8dae288ca26ae8f44b3b026e0492c6d2.png

            Please tell me more about using facts and logic on people who “want to believe a certain way”.

            • Lionym

              This is one of the most well worded and informed responses I’ve ever seen. Bravo.

            • Christopher Glen Clouse

              Yes the key is homicides by firearms but not homocides in general. You are clearly missing the point. Why is being murdered by a firearm worse than being murdered at all? If you can amswer that one please let me know

            • ohdotell

              Nice Graph, Dippy. If you look close at the flat stretch between ’94 and’97 that is when the gun ban was put in place. You will then see an 8 year trend of increased homicides, and then a decrease beginning in 2003/4. If it was the guns that created the decrease it would have happened in ’98 at the latest.
              IT WASN’T THE GUN BUY BACK THAT CAUSED THIS. Not to mention the increase in other crimes… The guy buy back is a failure

              • Let’sBeFriends

                Hey if you want to willingly delude yourself, be my guest. Cheers gramps!

                • ohdotell

                  It’s fact, no delusion. Don’t ignore facts.

                  Please explain why it took 8 years of increases to finally see a decrease?

                • ohdotell

                  Funny! In the face of irrefutable facts, you just go away. Probably for the best.

                  • Let’sBeFriends

                    Quote from http://www.aic.gov.au/, stats running from 89 to 07: “Firearm use has declined by more than half since 1989-90 as a proportion of homicide methods”

                    The irrefutable fact is that the pointy end of every graph in terms of is lower right now in terms of gun related homicides, as a percentage of total homicides, so on and so forth. “Oh but the change wasn’t instantaneous!” is your only argument, ignoring everything else. I guess it’s just magic everything is lower. It’s the water. Again, you want to willingly delude yourself. I’m just leaving you to your devices. Addddddddios!

                    • ohdotell

                      Sorry, Man. I thought you were looking to reduce homicides. You aren’t! All you care about is gun deaths, which obviously decreased. And yes, Gun Homicides did decrease, immediately, like the next year. But you know what Total homicides continued to increase. What does that tell you? They simply used other methods. The pointy end of the graph is lower, but the evidence proves that it was not because of the gun restrictions.

                      Everything is lower, violent crime is up. Suicide hasn’t changed. The Gun restrictions did not accomplish the intended goal.

                      If guns were the cause of the murder then the overall homicide rate in australia would have decreased at the same, or somewhat slower rate. There is no explanation for an increase in the homicide rate for nearly 8 years.

                      • Let’sBeFriends

                        LOL the graph you replied to JUST ABOVE is specifically about homicides incidents you bloody troll. I already debunked that, and then you tried to argue specifically about the gun laws being ineffectual despite that, so I pulled facts that show they weren’t, and now you’re just desperately pivoting back again

                        “There was a 3.0% decrease in the number of homicide victims in Australia, from 434 in 2013 to a five year low of 421 in 2014. ”

                        “In Australia during 2014:
                        The homicide victimisation rate decreased to a five year low of 1.8 victims per 100,000 persons”

                        http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4510.0~2014~Main%20Features~Homicide%20and%20Related%20Offences~9

                        “Since 2001–02, there has been a downward trend in the homicide rate, decreasing from 1.8 per 100,000 to 1.1 in the 2010–11 and 2011–12 financial years.”

                        http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr23/02_exec-summary.html

                        You have given ZERO citations to back up your arguments. It’s over. Bye!

                        • ohdotell

                          Its funny that you completely ignore what I say. I never said that the homicide rate did not decrease. What I said was, it was not due to the 1996 Gun Buy back and restrictions. If it were, there would have been an immediate decrease. But you have to use 2014 stats to finally see a decrease. How can that be the gun?

                          Look at the same references you used, and look at 1997, 98, 99 2000, etc. the homicide rate INCREASED. Suicides did not change.

                          You have your blinders on, either because you want to believe the mainstream rhetoric, or you are simply gun-phobic and want them gone.

            • Kenny Servello Jr.

              Better read up. There have been more armed robberies and assaults since the gun ban.

        • ohdotell

          Hey Dippy! We are talking over all murders. There were more dead people after the ban than before. Also you state there hasn’t been one mass shooting. . . Well there was one in 2000, 2002, 2009 (there were 2), 2011 (there were 2) 2014(there were 3)

          Do some research, dude.

          • Let’sBeFriends

            Do you have a source on these shootings that absolutely do not exist?
            It’s incredibly common knowledge that there hasn’t been a mass shooting in Australia by definition since the Port Arthur massacre in 96, of which after was when the stricter gun laws were institutionalised, Dippy.

            • ohdotell

              You are right! My apologies, I was referring to mass murders, and not shootings. There were only 3 or 4 shootings since ’96 but do not fit the definition of “MASS SHOOTING”.

              This does not change the fact that murder continued an upward trend as well as suicides. The rate in Australia did not begin to decline until 2004, which, after 8 years cannot be attributed to a gun ban.
              I will eat crow for misrepresenting the homicide rates, though.

              • Let’sBeFriends

                As I just told someone else, this article cherry picks only the absolute number of homicides rather than the homicide rate. I don’t think it needs to be said that Australia is clearly a growing country, and that the population has raised in significance between 1993 and 2007. The logic used by this article would dictate that if the population grew, then the rate of homicides would too, no? But it didn’t, and in fact gradually lessened.
                There was a 47 per cent decrease in firearm related deaths over the period 1991 to 2001, and the sharpest part of that declining curve was between 96 and 98.
                Homicides rates dropped to a record low of 1.1 incidents per 100,000 people in 2011, and sat at 1.2 in 2012, meaning homicides had declined by about 20 percent in the past two decades.

                • Christopher Glen Clouse

                  Actually the study specifically quoted the murder rate, not the actual number of murders. So if the population goes up that trend or “rate” will stay the same according to the numbers. His point is that gun control doesn’t have an effect on the overall number of murders per capita. If 2 people are murdered with guns an 2 more by other means, and they do a ban, the next year will be 1 murder by gun and 3 by other means, not accounting for the spike after the ban. But there’s another statistic that isn’t taken into account here. The rise in violent crime after the gun ban. So in Australia we know the gun ban overall did not reduce the number of murders in Australia but what happened to the violent crime rate? I don’t have that information but I would expect it to be higher. I’m sure you can look up that info on your own. I know I’m going to.

                  • Let’sBeFriends

                    No, what the author cites in his argument is the total number of murders, not the rate. The total of homicides has “stayed the same” completely omits the factor of a growing population. The fact that the homicide rate in general has clearly dropped, along with homicides committed with firearms, is right there in my post.

                    • disqus_9Kum238D8y

                      No, the author clearly cites rates. I’m not sorry you’re too stupid to see that.

                      • Let’sBeFriends

                        I quote from the article: “Murders have basically run flat”
                        The author is citing from the first chart in the link, ‘Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)’. Sorry you’re too stupid to see that.

                        • disqus_9Kum238D8y

                          Hm, my story doesn’t have any charts.
                          What is does have is: “homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million” and “Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945.” and from the link you cite “the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and
                          1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population.”
                          In the context of the article, “Murders have basically run flat” would appear to be in reference to the rate since ALL OTHER REFERENCES in the article are to rates.

                        • Let’sBeFriends

                          I’m not sure how many more ways I can say it: maybe the author intended to source murder rates, but that is not the statistic he’s pulling up here.
                          There’s an embedded hypertext link in the relevant portion of the article:

                          http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

                        • Kenny Servello Jr.

                          Run flat doesn’t mean drop.

                        • Let’sBeFriends

                          Completely missing the point.

                    • Kenny Servello Jr.

                      Not dropped

                  • 5MMs

                    I haven’t seen that data, but I have seen UK data. The burglary rate went up and what is scary is that the rate went up substantially for burglary with the homeowner being in the house at the time of the crime. In fact, the perpetrators often targeted homes when the owners were there since they knew there would not be a gun to worry about and the wallets/ purses of the owners would also be in the house making for a better haul for their efforts. We are actually seeing a similar phenomena in big cities where the police have been demonized. The criminals do not fear being caught because of less patrolling in some U.S. cities the same way criminals in UK do not fear being shot by the now unarmed homeowners. Or, if the homeowner does have a weapon, it is to be locked up on it’s own with ammo locked somewhere else. Makes it hard to act swiftly in self defense.

                    • James

                      When you say you have seen the data you probably should have specified it was data you made up yourself. The UK burglary rate peaked in 1993 and has been trending down ever since – the most significant decrease happening immediately after the gun ban from 1998 to 2000. So it is neither scary nor even vaguely true that the “rate went up substantially for burglary”
                      http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/2015-10-15#theft-offences-burglary

                      • 5MMs

                        Burglary rates per 100k in England and Wales ,where about 90% of UK citizens live ,are still a lot higher at about 950 per 100K compared to just under 700 per 100K in US even though US has far more guns. Also, about 60% of those burglaries in England and Wales occur when occupants are home. Less than 2% occur with occupants home in US. Reason is guns are a deterrent in the US.

                        • James

                          5MM – first of all you told us burglary rates went up. I have demonstrated that is simply not true. Now you are trying to move the goalposts by creating a new argument regarding a comparison with US rates.
                          Also regarding the rate when someone is home – given you were dead wrong about the first stat you quoted (although do not seem to want to admit it) you will forgive us for guessing you made this one up as well. If you have a source for this data (and I could not find one) then please provide it.

                        • 5MMs

                          From an article I read months ago. Correct about rates not going up. It was the rates compared to US were much higher even though there are fewer guns and more restrictive laws. Main point is the same. In UK criminals are far more likely to rob a home with occupants home than in US. It isn’t even close.

                • ohdotell

                  Sorry bud, but who cares what the FIREARM related homicide rate was? (They bought back 80-90% of all firearms and the rate decreased only 47%, interesting, but anyway)
                  The overall homicide rate continued to increase following the gun ban until 2003/4 when they finally saw a decrease.
                  Interesting! a 20% decrease. You do know the US saw a near 50% decrease over roughly the same time period?
                  Australia is not the example you want to use.

                • Kenny Servello Jr.

                  That term is bs. A buy back ? How do you do a buy back when they never owned the firearm in the first place. .

                • “Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population.”
                  http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

                  You are wrong.

                  • Let’sBeFriends

                    That data you’re quoting only takes into account 1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007.
                    The latter half of my data which you seem to be saying is “wrong” is from 2011 and 2012, and is not wrong.
                    And either way, they say the same thing, so cheers for that.

              • Ryan Dingler

                What this says is that firearm homicides declined, but others rose in the wake of no guns, thus the same amount of dead people.

      • truthbtold0000

        In the U.S., only the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th. 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, (you get the picture) amendments protect citizens from government. Why anyone would think the 2nd amendment refers to the natural right and responsibility of a person to protect their most valuable possession is beyond me.

      • bradbergstrom

        Your argument evaporates if you change the dependent variable to “mass shootings” (4 or more people shot per incident), of which the US is in a league of its own, suffering an average of more than one per day in 2015.

        • pyrodice

          Except they had to change the definition of “mass shooting” from what you’re thinking of, theater, club, school shootings… to an average chicago street drive-by.

        • Banksters_Rule_the_World

          How many of these “mass shootings” occurred in “Gun Free Zones”?

        • Michael Rice

          So, 10 people dead in 1 shooting is worse than 10 individuals killed in 10 separate shootings? That’s what your “logic” says.

          If we eliminate gang related shootings, you know criminals who won’t pay attention to gun laws, our rates plummet.

      • Pingback: The Facts That Neither Side Wants To Admit About Gun Control()

      • yor mom

        Congress just needs to create a law that bans murder. Problem solved.

      • Pingback: Fewer guns, deeper background checks, no assault rifles()

      • locsphere

        I am just so sick of the left constantly beating the drum of gun control. They use it’s failures as examples of success. They use the dead to stand on after a tragedy to push these laws that have no basis to stand on without the tragedy. Its pretty disgusting. I am so disgusted with the democrats right now. I am disgusted with Obama always bringing it up. The guy literally has nothing else to define his presidency so he pushes this?

        Not voting democrat anymore. hopefully libertarians offer something more.

        • Melody Record

          I grew up in the South and I know how many kids were hurt with guns because their parents did a poor job of Parenting.
          And since then…because almost anyone can own a gun & shoot bullets , these individuals become as the Highest Judges in this country…as they hold in their hands a gun that allows them to get to decide who lives & who dies.
          If there were a strict discipline of using killing weapons enforced…(“pre-crime”.legislation)..this argument would disappear.
          I grew up in the deep South with people who did not think very well…were paranoid (“prejudiced”) and SCARED of all kinds of things….people & animals & ghosts and “things that go bump int he night ‘.
          They would literally SHOOT FIRST & ask questions later.
          (Yes – sometimes they shot one of their children or a neighbor !!)
          At the least – people must get a PERMIT to own a killing weapon – because just like a car – it is dangerous to OTHERS if you screw up. And having Gun Insurance would also be a great idea so if you DO HARM the one you harmed would be able to access CARE immediately.
          We The People understand this about cars hurting people – why not about GUNS hurting people… just
          because a document written MANY MANY YEARS AGO when there was no “law enforcement” and barely any courts said you had a RIGHT to own a gun & protect yourself.
          Living in areas where there is danger from predators it makes sense.
          But many people have accidentiy shot a family member or pet from that FEAR the removes “THINKING”.
          A Classic book /movie (DUNE) has a famous quote that describes this simply:
          “FEAR IS THE MIND-KILLER”
          The “Right” to use a KILLING MACHINE must be monitored so poor decision makers do not kill innocent people.
          That just makes sense.

          • JamesDDean

            If you feel so righteous in your crusade, get your state legislature to work to repeal the second amendment via a Constitutional amendment. The FBI statistics for 2014 for murders with firearms are 8,124 people. So 0.00271% of the population were murdered with a firearm in 2014. The number of traffic deaths in 2014 were 32,675. Wow, that’s four times greater than the firearm homicides of the same year. BTW, cars don’t hurt anyone. A car is a conveyance that takes you from point A to point B. A firearm is a tool that if used responsibly hurts no one.

            Honestly, most of the murders occur in the cities in the North, South, East, and West.

          • deaderpool

            you neglect to acknowledge that period of american history from the 1400’s till the early 20th century when the wild west saw nearly everyone armed? just a mistake or does that fact blow your entire “We The People understand this about cars hurting people – why not about GUNS hurting people… just because a document written MANY MANY YEARS AGO when there was no “law enforcement” and barely any courts said you had a RIGHT to own a gun & protect yourself.”
            argument out of the water?

          • deaderpool

            “If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.” Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment

            Your fear controls you. Your government creates your fear.
            And…….You will advocate for gun control. Now fear your government!

      • Lawrence Little

        The homicides are trending down in Australia because very few citizens are in compliance with the gun restrictions. In that regard, the nation is on the verge of anarchy.

      • Pingback: 50 killed, 53 injured in shooting at nightclub in Orlando - Page 15 - Honda-Tech()

      • Franko K.

        Insert socialists Hillary, Sanders, or Obama or any other rotten “progressive” for “Himmler” below – or for Hitler or Stalin or for any other despot who banned guns: “Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.” — Heinrich Himmler

        Many others as above by dictators and human slaughterers as compared to:

        “The 2nd amendment is mainly so we can rise up against tyranny. No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms .” Thomas Jefferson

        “What country can preserve (its) liberties if (its) rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” Thomas Jefferson

        “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” Benjamin Franklin

        “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – – Thomas Jefferson

        “Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER’S COTTAGE, IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE THAT IT STAYS THERE.” — George Orwell.

        I HOPE AND PRAY WE NEVER GET TO THIS SCENARIO – “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government – by exercising one’s Second Amendment rights.” Alexander Hamilton

        • Fiasco Linguini

          News Flash: the world is different today than in Jefferson’s day. The people of Syria rose up against tyranny, look how well that’s turning out.

          • David G. Lander

            Look how many people in Syria have the means to rise up effectively. Seeing as how Syria has been a dictatorship for decades you don’t think there might not have been a reason they disarmed their populace?

            • Fiasco Linguini

              There are plenty of small arms in Syria. The problem is that they are not effective against artillery and air strikes.

      • Dash

        Whether or not it decreases total homicide rates, gun control measures definitely lower mass shooting rates, because almost all of those are used with legally bought firearms

        • Coinspring

          Chicago much?

          • Kaylakaze

            Chicago weapons are legally purchased in neighboring states (usually Indiana)

            • Mike Soukup

              No they are not – most come from IL. And, MOST are not bought or sold legally. They are bought and sold on the streets – and are mostly stolen

            • Coinspring

              Sweet. How do you explain the USA’s hard drug problem? (Cocaine/Heroin/etc)

            • Allan Erickson

              How bad are the shootings in Indiana?

        • truthbtold0000

          You read the article, right? Making a machine gun doesn’t cost much and the instructions are all over the Internet.

          People intent on murdering a lot of people at once will find a way to do it. Look at the mass murders in China where the terrorists used knives.

      • Truth2Powers

        This article is a lot of opinion parading as fact. Quite disappointing, given the title.

        • truthbtold0000

          The article was spot on about the homicide rates. All of the info is published by the countries and readily available for independent investigation.

      • Lance

        I believe you ‘figures’ for Australia are wrong. If you check this http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html and scroll down to the graphic titled “Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003” you will see that the ‘higher than normal peak in 1999’ is simply a part of acceptable fluctuations. The trend is downward and has been since guns were banned. Using statistically acceptable fluctuations to support your point of view isn’t science it’s wishful thinking.

        • You need to use more recent data from the AIC. Be sure to scroll down and look at the three categories (Homicides, Robberies and Kidnappings), and the subcategory “Firearms” within each category. Note that “Homicides by Firearms” reached a low in 2005 (2 years after your data) and has nearly double since 2005.

          http://aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/weaponUseTrend.html

          • Jamie Frada

            Of course homicide by firearms will go down in a place where they are banned, but if you look at the total number of homicides the numbers are not far off. You trade a death by firearm for a death by baseball bat or stabbing.

        • john

          Your also looking at homicides involving firearms. Duh those would be down considering a ban you dummy. We’re talking about all homicides rise after a ban. That’s fact, bc criminals will then fear no one.

          • Lance

            In the UK the police never used to wear sidearms. Then a few American gangs came into the country with guns and cops started to get killed. The cops were then armed. The local criminals were so upset with the Americans for introducing guns that they kicked the Americans out. The police went back to not wearing guns. However, during the Irish terrorist killings in England they went back to wearing and carrying guns and they still have them but the English criminals had learned a lesson – now they normally do not carry firearms when they for to ‘work’ because the police will shoot them but the English police are NOT taught to shoot to kill they are, instead, taught to shoot to bring down – legs and stomach mostly. Guns get you killed and criminals, if not confronted by armed police, normally do not go around armed. Gangs are a different issue – they go armed at all times but that because of gang on gang killings and not for use against civilians.

      • James Cummings

        Obvious We aren`t all that bloodthirsty, if that were true armies would be massing.

        • Allan Erickson

          They have always been massing.

      • Ryder

        Great article…

      • cbunix23

        Gun control legislative pushes happen when there are high publicity murder(s) using firearms. That doesn’t mean the cost, or benefit, of gun control should be measured by looking only at changes in murders. The change in rates of all violent crimes, e.g., home invasion, robbery, assaults, rape, and others, have not gone down in those other countries.

        When violent criminals know they are facing unarmed victims they don’t have to use a firearm; they can simply use physical force if they are strong enough, being younger and stronger their strength will probably win.

        • robertg222

          Simple. Look at the US. Number of gun in the country is up. Murder rate is down
          http://cdn.cnsnews.com/guns_per_person_vs._gun_homicide_rate_1993_to_2013_0.jpg

          • coachj

            wow, nice chart. completely meaningless, but nice nonetheless.

          • I can do this, too.

            • Lisa Campbell Schaaf

              Lol!

            • yor mom

              That’s great (lol!) but if leftists were saying that consumption of mozzarella cheese would decrease the amount of Civil Engineering doctorates, than this would be relevant.
              Similarly, if leftists say increasing guns per capita will increase gun homicides (and they do), then the burden of evidence is on the leftists and you pointing out the correlation/causation fallacy is kind of bullshit.
              “Guns per capita doesn’t necessarily have anything to do gun homicides. Let’s reduce guns per capita to reduce gun homicides. Derpy derp derp durrrr.”

              Obviously it’s more complicated than just; more guns = more safety.

              • I don’t care who says what. Showing correlation does not prove causation. All the chart above shows is a correlation, it does nothing to prove the trends are related. You need more info than that to prove that more guns = more safety.

          • drklassen

            Guns per person is misleading. It’s not more people buying guns but the same people stockpiling more and more of them.

            • jfabritz

              I guess that implies that more guns in the *right* hands = lower homicide rate?

              • drklassen

                No, it implies nothing of the sort. It implies, absent any additional information, that there is no causal connection to the correlation.

          • DanD

            Now correlate it with the percentage of households that own a gun. I’ll wait. (Here’s a hint, fewer owners with more guns each is the trend).

            More to the point, an actual correlation would would have matched slopes. There were several significant shifts in gun legislation in the mid 90’s that reduced the homicide rate that had nothing to do with gun ownership.

            • David G. Lander

              Which shifts in gun legislation were these?

      • King Rocker

        http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5

        Your UK stats are wrong, they are trending down clearly and no trend up

        Australia also shows trending down.

        Guess you’re out of luck, eh?

        • BD Barney

          No the author did address that. UK crime (including murders) didn’t start going down until after they hired an additional 20k cops to patrol the streets.

          • King Rocker

            Fair point, I’ve checked more sources. It’s still early to tell where it stabilizes, though. Long term it will definitely improve. If they stop this Middle East immigration bullshit, that is.

        • msmadness

          And watch has the US murder rate done over the last 20 years? It’s dropped 50%. Explain that with your “less guns, less murder” theory.

          • King Rocker

            You sound like “other things cause cancer, therefore smoking doesn’t” crowd. Get a brain.

            • msmadness

              Really? Exactly how do you go from more guns, less firearm homicides to smoking doesnt cause cancer? Would you like me to cite the studies proving that link? As opposed to your unsupported claim that more gun control equates to safer streets.

            • msmadness

              Get some facts.

            • Coinspring

              Spoons made me fat.

          • Steve Dowd

            More people in jail, more ‘hot-spot’ targeting of bad areas by police, more cameras… really, the argument that more guns control the rise in crime is silly.

            • msmadness

              Please… Not my facts. You can find them yourself. Along with other politically inconvenient facts like a murder rate three times higher for blacks than whites and the very low number of murders committed with “assault” weapons. Not my facts… Our government ‘s.

              • Steve Dowd

                This does not say anything against my point – want to read my post again?

                • msmadness

                  Want to read mine again? Less guns does not mean less crime; more gun control does not mean less crime. Simple facts.

          • King Rocker

            Easy. US gun crime rate is so high, a 50% drop is still meaningless. Probably still higher than civilized countries by a factor of 100x. Explained.

      • patroy75

        The 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with crime AT ALL. It is there ONLY for the protection of the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT. The crime argument means nothing.

        • drklassen

          No it isn’t. It is to protect the government and country from invasion and insurrection.

          • truthbtold0000

            Exactly. Only the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th. 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, (you get the picture) amendments protect citizens from government. Why anyone would think the 2nd amendment refers to the natural right and responsibility of any person to protect their most valuable possession is beyond me.

            • drklassen

              Yes, the limit is that there shall be no standing army. All armed forces are to be citizen soldiers so the government can’t use them to oppress the people.

          • ggetaclue

            no, it isn’t. The Bill of Rights limits government powers. The 2nd provides that despite the need for organized militia, the right to keep and bear arms (by individuals) shall not be abridged. Patroy75 is correct.

            • drklassen

              When it was written, the phrase “bear arms” was used almost exclusively to mean “military service”. So that means, the 2nd, in modern English would read: because we want our defense to be made up of state militias (and not a federal standing army), the right of the people to serve as citizen soldiers (so we don’t have professional or mercenary soldiers) shall not be infringed.

              http://www.potowmack.org/emerappa.html#conclu
              http://www.readex.com/readex-report/originalism-digital-age-inquiry-right-bear-arms

              • ggetaclue

                I disagree with your reading of the second. I view the comma as separating independent clauses. Though we need and have a militia, the right to bear individual arms is separate.

                • drklassen

                  Scalia’s silliness was that the first part was “prefatory” and “non-operational”, and yet, not other part of the Constitution was written that way. The right to bear arms is dependent upon the need for militias. Which makes sense when coupled with the fact that in every legal document of the era “bear arms” as a phrase meant “serve in a military”; it *never* meant “carry a weapon with you wherever you went”. That’s even more clear when you consider that MANY towns had laws that you couldn’t carry weapons in them, and some even required storage of personal weapons in a town armory.

                  • ggetaclue

                    As I stated, I disagree with your reading. As this is just a matter of opinion, I acknowledge that I will not persuade you and you will not persuade me.

                    • drklassen

                      It’s not my reading. It’s actual English and usage from the day. This isn’t a clash of opinion. It’s what is correct and what is misinterpretation.

                      • ggetaclue

                        Forgive me, but law is interpreted and opinions based on said interpretation are rendered. The Constitution is a particularly fluid document, designed to serve the needs of this nation and its peoples “for all time.” Necessarily the “framework” created by the Founders has, from time to time, required judicial scrutiny and interpretation. English and usage from the days of the Founders do not serve us well in 2016. (The Congress has not “coined” money, either by itself or with the U.S. Treasury’s assistance since 1913 when the issuance of national currency was turned over to a private corporation, for instance.) This is why the Constitution was created as a “framework” of laws; not cast in cement. This is how law grows and change. I interpret the 2nd differently than you. Neither of us has a perma-lock and the interpretation of this and other Constitutional provisions will undergo interpretations by many different judges and courts.

                        • drklassen

                          Scalia, the darling of cons everywhere, was a believer in “originalism” and claimed that’s how he ruled on the constitution. That you have to interpret the words used as they were used at the time it was written. Except he completely threw that out for the Heller decision (and Citzens United…).

                          I agree with him to an extent: one has to understand the words *as they were used* at the time. But for the purpose of getting to the *spirit* of the meaning. That is the judicial interpretation part. So freedom of ‘the press’ should naturally extend to media beyond the simple printing press. But “bear arms” meant “serve in a military”; I see nothing there that extends in spirit to “carry an assault weapon wherever and whenever you want”. To call that ‘judicial interpretation’ is making a mockery of the system. It is creating something new from whole cloth. And lawmaking is the job of congress.

                        • ggetaclue

                          I don’t agree with “originalism” because that wasn’t the founders’ intentions and therefore, we still disagree as to interpretation. Enjoy!

          • David G. Lander

            WRONG! “The security of a free state” which is part of the verbiage of the 2A refers to a state independent of a central government. The second amendment was written to allow the PEOPLE of a free state to form militias (formed from the people) to protect themselves from possible tyranny of the central (read federal) government.

            • drklassen

              WRONG! The “free state” is the nation of *states*. The second was to allow the STATES of the nation to form militias of citizen soldiers to be called up to protect the nation from invasions. The central government is *duly* *elected* and *representative* of the people. Overthrowing *it* was most certainly not the idea. As proven by the Washington. Twice.

        • Allan Erickson

          It does if you are the target of a bad guy.

      • JustTheFactsMan

        The most unfathomable and purely moronic idea is taking registered guns. Don’t get me wrong, I will never surrender my right to have firearms but I am 100% FOR much, much, much stricter laws and restrictions, without question. The most obvious issue with taking registered guns is this: Q – Who has REGISTERED firearms? A- Citizens who are complying with gun control laws BY THE MERE FACT that they are registered in the first place! Q- What’s wrong with taking registered guns? A-Whose guns are not registered? THE PEOPLE WHO ILLEGALLY ACQUIRE THEM AND DON’T WANT TO COMPLY WITH THE GUN LAWS (i.e., criminals, just as a starting point but certainly not the beginning).

        • Robert Pollard

          Unfortunately, the government is not concerned with people’s lives and the guns that take them. They are only concerned about people having enough fire power to stop their criminal activities and getting rich in the process.
          Keep in mind that Hitler also disarmed all the citizens first by registration (now he knows where they are), then by going to the addresses and taking them.

          • Ron Newlin

            No, Hitler didn’t disarm the citizens. He actually relaxed the gun control measures of the Weimar Republic. Except for the Jews, obviously. Like most pro-gun arguments, this one is false.

        • patroy75

          dumb

          • Splitterwide

            How is that dumb? Explain please

      • Pingback: Episode 13 of The Logical Anarchy Podcast – Paris and San Bernardino Attacks | Logical Anarchy()

      • Pingback: Logical Anarchy Today Episode 13 – The San Bernardino Shooting | Logical Anarchy()

      • FlDino

        Never mentioned are the higher numbers in other crimes once guns are take away. Once a criminal knows you don’t have a gun you’re easy pickings.

        • coachj

          Well, I don’t have a gun, but the guy that broke into my house had one. He’s currently paralyzed, because I hit him pretty damn hard with my baton right in his lower back. So, there is that.

          • Veronica

            Yes, but not everyone will be able to do that. The elderly, the handicapped, those who lack that kind of physical strength, etc.

      • jason

        Some people are just to stupid to interpret the facts. In Australia before 1996 our homicide rate was always between 1 to 2 people per 100,000. Since the gun buyback the rate has fallen from 2 to 1.1 which is almost half now stay with me. Only %20 of murders involved guns so even if there were no gun homicides it would only go from 2 to 1,6 so where did the other .5 drop come from. How did a guns buyback reduce the incidence of knife and other murders, Well it didn’t there are just fewer murders at this point in time. Rates go up and down and this is even more evident in our suicide rates which are exactly the same now, 12 per 100.000, as they were before the gun buy back despite a massive %50 drop in gun suicides. Almost %50 of all suicides in Australia are now hangings up from %25 before the buyback and have a similar lethality rate of %80 compared to guns at %85. The simple truth is that guns are not a reason or cause of homicide or suicide they are a method and controlling methods does nothing to affect reasons or causes.

      • Vince Edmonds

        Its real simple … the most important and relevant FACT not mentioned here in … i have guns .. they’re mine .. no you cant take them. If you try … you die. FACT. Welcome to the constitutional Republic of America

        • Robert Pollard

          Well said!
          “Through her quoted words, Hitlery and her many anti-gun accomplices have committed a federal felony. Title 18, USC, Sec. 241 clearly states that: ‘If two or more persons CONSPIRE to injure, OPPRESS, threaten or intimidate any the people of these United States (and its territories) by denying them their “secured” Constitutional rights’ (any of them), that that/those persons are guilty of felony punishable by from ten years to life in prison. If that felony results in the death or injury of someone, the death penalty is then on the table. Since the Heller decision finally defined that the Second Amendment IS a “fundamental” right, she and every other gun prohibitionist are obviously guilty of breaking this law. To further cement her guilt, Sec. 241 does NOT require that any of the CONSPIRITORS commit an overt act (passing a law) for this to be a crime. Conspiracy IS conspiracy! We can now add this to the many other felonies that this Marxist usurper has committed. For that matter, CT and every other state’s legislature that has enacted laws that “chill” OUR Second Amendment rights are guilty of this felony and also Title 18, USC, 242, which provides the same penalties for those that actually follow through with the conspiracy.”

          • Mike V99

            You are absolutely right. Now get the Loretta Lynch DOJ to enforce it. Therein lies the problem. Government will not enforce laws against itself.

      • Unjust System

        “Typically, there is a spike in murders immediately after a ban, but it is short lived.” tell THAT to Australia a YEAR after their ‘nationwide’ gun grab!!
        From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
        Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.
        It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

        The first year results are now in:
        Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
        Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
        Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

        In the state of Victoria, alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

        While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

        Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns….’ You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

        The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-biding citizens.

        Take note Americans, before it’s too late!
        Will you be one of the sheep to turn yours in?
        WHY? You will need it.

        • Steve Bright

          THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE! THE FIGURES QUOTED ARE FABRICATED. YOU CAN LOOK UP AUSTRALIAN CRIME STATISTICS EASILY YOURSELF, AND NOTHING LIKE THESE FIGURES ARE IN THEM.

        • Bluesman1950

          A complete 15 year-old lie from 2001!
          http://www . snopes . com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

          For the actual figures see this from the 28th April 2016:

          http://www . reuters . com/article/us-australia-guns-idUSKCN0XP0HG

          Australia on Thursday marked the 20th anniversary of a mass shooting which led to strict gun controls that have in turn led to a huge decline in gun murders, undermining claims in the United States that such curbs are not the answer.

          The chances of being murdered by a gun in Australia plunged to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2014 from 0.54 per 100,000 people in 1996, a decline of 72 percent, a Reuters analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed.

          In 1996, Australia had 311 murders, of which 98 were with guns. In 2014, with the population up from about 18 million to 23 million, Australia had 238 murders, of which 35 were with guns.

          It was the April 28, 1996, shooting deaths by a lone gunman of 35 people in and around a cafe at a historic former prison colony in Tasmania that prompted the government to buy back or confiscate a million firearms and make it harder to buy new ones.

          The country has had no mass shootings since.

      • Mark Davis

        There’s a problem of causality here – the article insists on looking at percentage points increasing and decreasing rather than actual deaths as a percentage of the population. The U.K. For example has less than 0.1 gun related violence per 100k people in 2013 as compared to over 3.5 per 100k in US. So that’s a 350% difference.

        The slight changes in UK percentage points described by the article can be attributed to one or two events. Whereas the huge difference between the two countries can be clearly attributed to a difference in gun culture. Before the ban in the UK there was not a gun culture that needed to be crushed. But mass shootings in the UK have dropped in frequency. Sadly mass shootings only represent a part of the problem in the US massive figure.

        As well as misrepresenting data, this article neglects to confront the bigger problem of the constitutional right to own a gun – the current legality is a dustbin of the text born of a misunderstanding about well regulated militia and the non existence of automatic weapons.

        Getting rid of the huge stockpile of guns in the US is the biggest problem facing gun control – the data PER 100k of the population speaks for itself:

        http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2015/10/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-u-s-rest-world/

      • Pingback: Quora()

      • Analbumcover

        “You need rifles to overthrow a government.” Yeah, back in the 1700s. However today there are things like assault choppers, tanks, fighter jets and so forth. Nobody is going to overthrow a government with rifles. That would be like attacking a grizzly with a pea shooter.

        • Bob Nolan

          Iraq, Syria, Libya, Congo, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Bosnia,,, All countries in the last couple decades with government overthrown by groups of bad guys with rifles… The people being slaughtered in the middle east right now are good people denied weapons by the government by bad guys who got them anyway… All prime examples of why 2nd Amendment is necessary and good..

          • Analbumcover

            Actually, none of them did it with just rifles. But thanks for proving my point.

            • Bob Nolan

              None of the above groups started out with the heavy weapons mentioned above… They just attacked poorly trained troops with rifles and took their weapons and ammo and equipment (never fired, only dropped once). ISIS still has little/no tanks, no aircraft, etc. and for a couple years now they’ve held the better part of 3 countries… Balkan war was the same way. I agree they did it with more than rifles but not much and certainly not heavy weaponry. Pretty good pea shooting if you ask me…

        • Cloud Hobbit

          Tell that to the people in Afghanistan who held off the Russians with rifles and a few rocket launchers or Grenade launchers, I forget which. Well organized Guerilla units can do much more damage than you think.

        • Robin

          No, you can’t win a war without ground troops and ground troops use and are susceptible to rifles. All the other things you listed make the job easier but wars are won with rifles not bombs.

          • JustTheFactsMan

            Nothing personal, but you REALLY, REALLY need to read up on this subject man.

        • Chris

          Looks like you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Clearly you know nothing about humanity’s endless history of war.

          What a scrub xD

      • 4irplan3

        Rifles have never been banned in Russia… They’re the most common weapon owned by citizens in general, and are heavily used by hunters, geologists, etc. They weren’t specifically allowed under the new legislation because a) a rifle isn’t really a self-defence weapon, and b) they were never banned before.

      • Pingback: Gun Grabbers Don’t Get It. When The “Economy Falls Apart, Crime Increases.” That’s Why You Need Guns.()

      • Done

        Libtards will be libtards…. a bunch of onesies wearing, basement dwelling, non productive members of society….

        • Harlee Jo

          Yet again an incorrect opinion of a liberal. I am college educated, I have been working since I was 17, I pay my taxes and I take care of myself and my famil and I fully support the 2nd Amendment, open and concealed carry. Not all liberals fit in one box.

          • Done

            One out of a thousand doesn’t make a trend, it makes an outlier….

            • Mitch

              Or you have a hilariously over inflated ego that makes you think you work so much harder than everyone else. You don’t buddy, get over yourself.

              • Done

                Cumb Dunt much? Sad little man…

      • GRAMPA

        The data from the United nations say that America stands at 111 place on the world list of deaths per thousand. so with all these guns around why are we so far down the list? America has nearly one gun for every citizen. We are still far below other nations that have little or no gun ownership. Why? One answer is that we are more civilized than is lauded by the media. We do have areas with strict gun laws like Detroit and Chicago and Pittsburgh. Who also have the highest crime and murder rate in the nation. Remove just these three and America would fall near the bottom of the murder deaths per thousand on the UN list. Most of the deaths that are from the police in other countries are not counted in their national data which would push us even farther down the list if we removed the deaths by police. Our murder rate is used for political reasons for government will never have complete power as long as we are armed.
        Grampa

      • oscar1939

        So in other words we need a massive brain washing program. With government deciding what is to be washed out.

      • Dew Free

        the facts are never going to spell out the truth.The reason is there has been restriction on gun carrying since 1976.this alone will screw up any fact being displayed.i do not care where you go ,you will not see that many if any guns in eye view.thus the deterrent factor of guns is not going to have the effect it should have in the first place.

        If you strap on guns on ever single person hip,then and only then will you see the deterrent factor come into play.the more guns seen in a given place ,the more deterrent there will be for crime.how ever just determining more guns will cause it is wrong.1 person with 100 guns in area of 200 people is not going to deter anything.however if you strap on guns on 50 people in that same area of 200 people ,you will see a significant drop in crime.There will be less crime in area where there are more visible guns,period.The powers that be will not allow this come into play,ever.There goal in all the so called gun control is not making it safer or making people feel safer.It plainly put is to make the public afraid.Afraid of them first and afraid of criminals second ,thus they can tax more and create more police jobs in a single community.Create more un constitutional laws and just do as they damn well please.The absolute fact is this:{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia} 85% less crime than national average.

        • Oldshooter

          In fact, there is a clear, and negative, correlation between the passage of “shall issue” concealed carry laws and violent crime. While such a correlation cannot technically be used to prove causation, it IS quite clear that violent crime rates decline significantly following the passage of such laws (and even continue to decline annually thereafter, for as long as it has been measured), in every place they have been passed. The effect is far too large to be accounted for merely by the numbers of citizens who actually obtain CCW licensure, let alone the (probably much lower) number who actually carry a gun regularly in public. To explain this fact, it has been hypothesized that the effect occurs because of the perception, by criminals, that their potential prey MAY be armed, and their resultant caution. While there may only be 1 or 2 percent of the public who are actually “packing,” there is no way for the criminal to determine WHICH 1 or 2 percent they are, or whether a potential target for their crime is among that small percentage. As an interesting sidelight, in FL, following the passage of their 1989 CCW law, violent crime declined, but even more interestingly, the TARGETS of such crime changed, to focus more on apparent tourists than native Floridians (presumably because it would be reasonable to assume that non-residents were less likely to be carrying). For example, people driving rental cars from airports were suddenly being targeted more. This resulted in the legislature passing a new law making it fairly easy for tourists to get a temporary license to carry concealed while visiting FL, and the hoped for result (ie, a drop in the targeting of tourists) occurred as predicted. This fact tends to support the hypothesis that criminals are knowingly avoiding potential targets that MAY be armed, whether or not they actually are. As an interesting social corollary, this also supports the belief that making it relatively easy for the general public to be armed has a deleterious impact on crime, especially violent crime, whether or not large numbers of citizens actually avail themselves of the opportunity. Hence, the mere passage of such CCW laws is a social good, in and of itself, with a measurable social benefit. At the same time, the obverse, that is, the higher violent crime rate in places where it is more difficult for ordinary citizens to carry a gun legally, suggests that the ABSENCE of such laws is a significant social detriment, posing an actual, measurable, danger to the general public. This idea is further bolstered by the (too often unpublicized) use of guns by ordinary citizens, to prevent or stop crimes in the public sphere. All in all, the evidence strongly suggests that not only are “shall issue” concealed carry laws beneficial to society as a whole (rather than detrimental, as the anti-gun fanatics would have us believe), but also there is a measure of support for the idea that, for most of us, carrying a gun in public is actually the “socially responsible” thing to do.

      • Pingback: Gun Grabbers Don’t Get It. When The “Economy Falls Apart, Crime Increases.” That’s Why You Need Guns. - Patriot Net Daily()

      • Pingback: Gun Grabbers Don’t Get It. When The “Economy Falls Apart, Crime Increases.” That’s Why You Need Guns. – wsprepers()

      • Pingback: Gun Grabbers Don’t Get It. When The “Economy Falls Apart, Crime Increases.” That’s Why You Need Guns. - Patriot Rising()

      • Pingback: Gun Grabbers Don’t Get It. When The “Economy Falls Apart, Crime Increases.” That’s Why You Need Guns. « When The S*** Hits the Fan()

      • Pingback: Gun Grabbers Don’t Get It. When The “Economy Falls Apart, Crime Increases.” That’s Why You Need Guns. | Prepared for Anything()

      • Pingback: Gun Grabbers Don’t Get It. When The “Economy Falls Apart, Crime Increases.” That’s Why You Need Guns. – Tactical Buzz()

      • Pingback: Gun Grabbers Don't Get That When The "Economy Falls Apart, Crime Increases." That's Why You Need Guns.()

      • Pingback: The Gun Grabbers Just Can't Let Go of This Ridiculous Argument | The Daily Sheeple()

      • Pingback: The Gun Grabbers Just Can’t Let Go of This Ridiculous ArgumentAlternative News Network | Alternative News Network()

      • Yee high! Let’s head on back to the wild and wooly west. Shoot ’em up. Shoot ’em and let the Lord sort ’em out.

        • Rich7553

          Yet another peer-reviewed, footnoted, and cited comment from the irrelevant left.

        • J Gary Giron

          Don’t get lost in logic…you’ll find you are a stranger there…

        • Andrew Maxwell Moody

          Amusing actually, wild west had lower violent crime than we have now and everyone had guns… people were more polite when everyone else was on equal footing.

        • Steven L Dunn

          you are uniformed. the wild and wooley west was much safer than Chicago at that time.

        • Zach Freeman

          It’s pronounced “Yee-Haw”.

        • Cloud Hobbit

          Nobody is saying that, they are saying that the right to keep and bear arms means just that, you can keep them and bear them and even shoot them if need be. Many times the mere fact that a criminal can see a firearm is enough to make him back off. The overwhelming majority of gun owners who own their firearms legally are the only ones ever effected by gun laws, because they are the only ones who follow them. They are also people who about 99.3% ofthe time never use their firearms in an unlawful manner.

      • bpuharic

        And yet there is a clear correlation between guns and violence

        http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/the-correlation-between-guns-and-homicide-rate.html

        • philosopher 299792458

          That only looks at number of guns per capita vs FIREARM homicide rate, NOT overall violence or even overall homicide rate. Any idiot can see when there are more guns around, more people will choose them to kill someone else because they make it much easier. It says nothing about overall homicide rate. OVERALL homicide rate is what is important, NOT firearm homicides. If you’re only paying attention to firearm homicides, you’re not rational and you just have some fetish for guns. Did you even read the follow up article?

          • Ogrrre

            And, even then philosopher, one should only be counting MURDER rates, not homicide rates. A justifiable homicide is still a homicide, even though it is not a murder.

            • philosopher 299792458

              You’re correct in theory. If it was possible to have a “God’s-eye view and knowledge of all events,” one should focus only on unjustifiable homicide. In practice however, homicide is used because it’s much more objective and unbiased. Determining homicide is mostly free of the views, beliefs, or opinions of others, whereas determining whether a homicide is justified or not is not free of those subjective influences.

              • Ogrrre

                That may be so, but murder is a violent crime, whereas defending yourself, your property, or another person from a felon, is not a crime. Included in “homicides” are police shootings of violent criminals. However, with very rare exceptions, those “homicides” are not violent crimes. Justifiable homicides, whether by cop or homeowner, should not be counted in a country’s murder rates.

                • philosopher 299792458

                  And I agree. Every effort should be made to categorize the homicides as justified or unjustified. It’s just not always possible to do so in practice. Especially in an objective manner. For example, in one jurisdiction, using lethal force against a burglar would be justified, while in another it would be a crime. What is justified or not depends on the local laws, and they vary. However, it’s much more universal and objective when one tries to determine whether a death was a homicide or not.

      • Pingback: Gun Control: Just the Facts, Please! – The Fiftyone Percent()

      • Pingback: A Trigger Happy Ban – Jacob Wilderson()

      • Emcee Dr B

        Nice way of being disingenuous. Gun crime in the UK has soared since the ban. Just using murder as the sole parameter doesn’t tell the whole story. Look at the Metropolitan Police’s own figures. Or go to many places in London to see the gun crime. Or Manchester, Birmingham or many other big cities.

      • Rocky

        On the other hand, if it didn’t affect the homicide rate, then it was a waste of time and money, right?

      • jim peacher

        you name murder as the common denominator in your statistical argument.It is total crime that has exploded since gun control in England and Australia.Just ask any citizen of Chelsea or brisbane.

      • Joe Lovell

        So….if the net effect is zero, there is no excuse for the left to be taking away civil rights.

      • Kaspar Nybo Andersen

        You realise that the 2003 murder spike in Britain is an artificial spike, because they changed their rules on counting crimes.
        http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22275280
        You’re a liar and a deceiver.

        • ian m

          ‘the rules changed in 2003’

          this guy talks of a spike in murder up UNTIL 2003, starting from 1996. They spiked suddenly downward AFTER the changes, and as pointed out in this article, the addition of some 20k more police.

          Congratulations, you made yourself look like an utter fool.

          • Lucinda Larkin

            If anyone has made themself look a fool it’s the one who chose that ridiculous avatar

            • Wooxer Pt

              What’s your problem with guy fawkes masks? I’m pretty sure you’d feel offended if I said that your avatar is ridiculous. Keep the discussion on point, want to defend gun laws or the absense thereof, defend them, personal offenses won’t make anyone smarter.

          • Kaspar Nybo Andersen

            I’m not really sure you understood the BBC article. I think you might need to read it again. Like reeeeally read it. Also you realize that mask only works when your name isn’t next to it? Either be anonymous or stand by what you da by showing your face.

            • philosopher 299792458

              It appears YOU are the one who lacks understanding.

              • Kaspar Nybo Andersen

                Nice rebuttal. Good job.

                • philosopher 299792458

                  I know you’re trying to be a smart a$$, but if you read your own article it talks about 2003 onward. The best you can do with your article is to exclude 2003 from the years mentioned before. The years mentioned were up to 2003, not after.

                  • Kaspar Nybo Andersen

                    Actually the report looks at 2003 AND 2012. I don’t have to be a smart a** as long as you’re CLEARLY a jacka** 🙂
                    Guess what? Guns weren’t brought back in 2003. So yeeaah. What Dingle MacBerry talks about in the “article” is that crime went up when guns where banned. He choose the remove the parts that disproved this (ie. the stuff AFTER 2003) and misrepresent the data he was left with.
                    Anything else I need to explain to you?

                    • philosopher 299792458

                      What happened after 2003 can not possibly disprove the fact that crime went up after guns were banned in ’96 lol. You obviously still don’t understand. The point was the ban of guns was largely irrelevant. Crime went up for a while, then fell down years later. Gun laws were not responsible, other factors were. The best criminological and sociological studies demonstrate gun laws have little to no effect on crime rate. It’s always other factors that cause crime to rise or fall. Anything else you need explained?

                      PS: It’s generally not advisable to be a smart a$$ about a topic you have little working knowledge of.

      • BSORaiderErie

        Right to bear arms is a Constitutional Right in the USA.
        If the ObamaTheTurd Administration were really serious about gun violence then they wouldn’t be releasing Straw Purchasers with a slap on the wrist.
        God Bless the USA and Springfield Armory!

        • The last president to forcibly remove guns was George W. Bush during the crisis after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. All guns to include those registered were taken from their owners even if they were to protect a home or business from thieves and looters. Those taking weapons included the Nat. Guard, Reserves, and private security forces. Last time I looked GW was a Republican.

          • BSORaiderErie

            I know people from New Orleans and none of them had their guns confiscated.
            God Bless the USA and Springfield Armory!

            • Oldshooter

              It depended on where you lived. If you lived in an area like the 9th Ward, or immediately adjacent residential areas, Mayor Nagin’s orders were to confiscate all your guns, and those orders were generally followed by everyone who was in the business of law enforcement at the time. While the orders went to the NOPD specifically, they were being assisted by various other agencies, and some private contractors (like the Blackwater folks). So, guys from various other agencies (often against their own beliefs about what was right) were involved in the confiscations (unless, as happened in some cases, they personally refused to participate). There are still more than a thousand confiscated guns either in storage, (and in terrible shape now) or just missing, in the aftermath of this illegal confiscation. The courts have formally held that the confiscation was illegal, and both LA and several other states have passed laws specifically prohibiting such confiscations in the case of future large scale disasters.

          • Switzerland

            Thats BS. My brother was there as a National Guard unit and the only people they they took guns from were cops who were causing trouble.
            It was the NOPD that took guns, fool.
            You know zero.

          • joe nobody

            It was New Orleans police and Some Louisiana National Guard members, that did the gun confiscations. Other out of State Guard Units actually denied NOPD requests to disarm people.. hence why they ran to the LNG to do it.

      • RRN

        This is quite possibly one of the worst “neutral” articles I’ve ever read. You know that “conservatives” have a problem with math and particularly facts but when you see them insert “statistics in something for basis it actually looks pitiful. This isn’t close to being accurate, just say you don’t believe in gin control and leave it at that. Please stay away from numbers, especially when math is concerned. It’s pitiful and you don’t help your cause.

        • really.really!really?

          And Libs don’t have a problem with math? Pot meet Kettle…

        • Shaun W. McDonald

          Hate to say it, but you don’t understand nothing yourself. It’s true that over 90% of shootings occur where there is either 1) no one else around other than the targets or 2) a NO GUNS sign outside. The no guns sign is like an All you can eat buffet to a fat man. Would you rather have to fight for what you want or just easily get it?

      • Pingback: Quora()

      • Liberty & Justice For All

        “Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates.” Period.
        Liberals hate facts. Next issue please!

      • Pingback: Quora()

      • SeaNote

        Americans prefer the use of mortars to guns because of the collateral damage that enhances the high from blowing humans to bits, but the constitution says guns and Americans want to abide by the law and do the right thing.

        • Joe Lovell

          Split the difference – us a howitzer.

      • Oldshooter

        you might want to check out John Lott’s data (he makes the raw data available to any researchers) regarding the decrease in violent crime as the availability of guns increases. This has nothing to do with the trumped up “gun murder” rate, but with violent crime generally (murder, rape, assault, etc., combined). In EVERY state that has made CCW available to the citizens, or has made it MORE available than previously, there has been a significant, and continuous (for as long as we have data), decrease in violent crime immediately after passage of such legislation.

        • Phillip Derengowski Jr.

          lol. lott really. he has been so widely discreditted that your use of him as your evidence just speaks to you don’t know what your talking about.

          • Cyber Liberty

            Please provide a link to a source that discredits Lott. Make sure there is supporting data at the link. Only then can you refute him. “Discredited” might be spelled correctly there (bonus!).

          • Cloud Hobbit

            Sorry but rumors of him being discredited are completely false. Ask Gay Kleck if he thinks Lott has been discredited. He used Lott’s data and got the same results. Only one peer reviewed study ever found that more guns equals more crime.

            In a 2011 article for ALER, Donohue claimed the NRC panel results published from the hybrid model “could not be replicated on its data set”.[75]
            Lott replicated the NRC’s results using the NRC’s copy of the Ayres
            & Donohue model and data set, pointing out that the model used for
            the ALER article was different and introduced a truncation bias
            Check Wikipedia for John Lott and see if they think he’s been discredited.

            The anti-gun folks would love to discredit him, but they can’t and he has let anybody who wants to have access to his data, so far about 120 have taken him up on it. Guess what, they get the same results.

        • Shaun W. McDonald

          I do say the reason no one actually can stop someone with a gun is because they are refrained from having on in the area. Did you know, little trivia, the only machine gun related death WITH A LEGALLY OBTAINED GUN was done by a cop over some cocaine? Yeah he was into that stuff.

      • Nikola Tasev

        “Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked.”
        So the US is the poorest, least educated country in the First World? Sounds legit.

        • really.really!really?

          It didn’t say that.

          • Nikola Tasev

            No, it said it isn’t access to firearms that causes violent crime. It said low education and poverty caused it. Unless I misunderstood the article and they meant high education and high poverty causes violent crime.
            In any case, given the highest rate of violent crime and especially high violent death rate in the US, based on the arguments in the article, my comment was the only logical conclusion. Please correct me if I missed something.

        • philosopher 299792458

          No, but the US DOES have one of the largest disparities in the world between the “haves” and the “have nots.” The US has some of the richest people in the world, as well as some of the poorest. Same with education. The US also has a culture of violence not often seen in other industrialized countries.

          • Cloud Hobbit

            I don’t think anybody in the U>s> can compare on poverty to people in the third world. Everybody in the US no matter how poor seems to have a TV and a cel phone.

            • JupiterAscendant

              Not just any cellphone, but smartphone. I see much more poor people who shouldn’t be able to have an expensive iPhone and yet, they do. America is great. The reason why other countries in the “first world” category have such small gaps between the have and the havenots is based upon the fact that they both have so little to begin with since everyone is overly taxed to death.

        • Shaun W. McDonald

          Cuba has a 99% literacy rate and is third world. So yep.

          • joe nobody

            Cuba is 99% poor, with the rich 1% socialists running it.

      • Logan Waltz

        The article seems to want to appear neutral by saying that more or less guns don’t affect murders and anti-gun only pays attention to “gun” murder/crime as opposed to all murder/crime.

        To be fair, I am assuming the contents of the article is to point out that gun control does not affect murder rates and only to make that one point. It never pulls up violent crime, burglary, b/e, etc. which are all raised when there are fewer guns and lowered when there are more guns. Crimes and violence are affected drastically by firearms laws or lack thereof, so again, I’m assuming the article is simply to refute that gun control does anything.

      • Krissy1969

        2.5 million legal gun owners protected themselves last year. That is about 6,500 a day, which prevents a crime committed to them. 82% of those didn’t even have to fire a shot. Criminals are more in fear of an armed citizen, then they are in the law enforcement. Criminals do not follow the existing gun laws and will not follow any new ones, either. Therefore, any new gun laws and restrictions will only affect law abiding citizens, which will make them be vulnerable to a criminal act. For any politician to state, “There needs to be fewer guns.” Remember, there is only one way for there to be fewer guns…for them to be confiscated! Any form of confiscation, will open up Pandora’s Box to confiscate all guns!

        • john_willow

          There are no stats to back up what you say. There is just a mish mash of self-reporting by gun owners and claims made from non-peer-reviewed studies. . The U.S. tops the list of Western countries for gun deaths. The idea that guns prevent crime is a fantasy, as is the idea that the government just wants to take your toys away.

          • Krissy1969

            Sorry facts cannot be made up! Not to worry, you are not alone in La La Land.

            • john_willow

              You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you? Self-reporting is not evidence. There are no other stats to back these claims up. But there are plenty of stats on the harm gun owners have done to themselves and others. I doubt that you even know how to find the stats.

              • Krissy1969

                2.5 million legal gun owners, protecting themselves in a year, is a law enforcement stat!
                The MSM doesn’t report such, because is does not go along with their narrative.
                You know…there might be a reason why the amendments were numbered! Order of importance!

                • john_willow

                  What part of the FBI uniform crime statistics on defense with guns being self-reported don’t you understand?

                  • Krissy1969

                    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2705913

                    I understand the FBI is a part of the USA’s corrupt government. And they are puppet’s on a string, dancing to their Slave Master’s tune.

                    • john_willow

                      Figures you’d have a paranoid, delusional response.

                  • Logan Waltz

                    You might want to check the CDC’s 2013 study on firearms after the president passed an order to resume study that was banned in 2003.

                    Separately, 2014 FBI statistics show approx. 30,000 gun deaths. 2/3 of which were suicide, and of the remaining 10k, approx 6k were black on black crime likely drug or gang violence and the remaining 4,000 gun deaths were murder/manslaughter/ legally justified. So, realistically speaking, the US has less than 4,000 morally unjustified gun deaths every year that isn’t almost entirely the fault of the government.

                    • Oldshooter

                      FYI, no studies were prohibited by the congress. The law merely stipulated that the CDC could not engage in specifically anti-gun, politically oriented, studies. They were always free to do REAL research into the topic, but generally had no interest in that.

          • Fact Checker

            The US definitely does NOT top the list. Maybe check your facts.

            http://www.mythdebunk.com/us-3rd-in-murders/

            • Nikola Tasev

              Among the list of developed civilized countries it is. Or is being better than the likes of Jamaica, Colombia and Mexico good enough for you?

              • joe nobody

                When you subtract the liberal US cities, which has GANG PROBLEMS, the US is close to the top of the safest “developed countries’. 95% of US counties rarely, if ever, have murders. That is a FBI Statistical fact. The US Does not have a gun problem. We have a Liberal problem that has bankrupted those cities, and the minorities there, out of their jobs, and their very futures.

          • Oldshooter

            Utterly misleading, and not even true. Both the US homicide rate and the US “:gun death” rates are below a number of other countries-Last I saw Honduras topped the list. In any case, when you leave out suicides, the US homicide rate is right at (actually just below) the international median number. Further, if you delete the numbers for Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit, and Baltimore, the US is in the lowest 5 percent internationally. This tells you that we don’t have a “gun problem,” we have a “black gang problem,” since the vast majority of our murders (especially in those cities) are the result of gang and drug related violence. The solution isn’t restricting guns, it’s restricting gangs.

        • Dennis Wilson

          A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice has found that defensive gun uses occur an average of 67,740 times per year. http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

          That’s 67,740 reasons a year to own a gun. Unfortunately, any chance of Obama mentioning the positive side of gun ownership is about as likely as finding Al Sharpton’s church.

          • Krissy1969

            http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2705913

            Can’t always trust the FBI. They are puppets on a string, dancing for the Slave Master!

            • Oldshooter

              Excuse me, but the VPC is VEHEMENTLY anti-gun, and only published this study because it was well known that they had done it and people were asking for the results. VPC is by no means an unbiased source, and the fact that they actually had to publish a study that refutes their own ideology is telling.

            • Joe Lovell

              Even the CDC, in the anti-gun study Obama ordered, accepts the 2,000,000+ figure as valid. The low number the VPC used is the number of incidents reported to police. If a person hears someone trying to break in, racks the slide on a pistol or the action on a shotgun and hears someone running away, that is a successful Defensive Gun Use (DGU) and will likely not get reported to police.

              Even if that 67K number is correct, that is well over twice the number of total deaths by firearm each year, and about 8 times the number of murders by criminal use of firearm. Why would you want those 67K+ crimes to be successfully committed? Oh! That’s right! Leftists NEED to create victims!

          • Shaun W. McDonald

            Either way, that’s still better than none!

          • joe nobody

            VPC has admitted that they are lying on their statistics, and that they merely echo the Brady Campaign talking points. It is ran by a very antigun liberal, who has cooked his numbers for decades now. FBI has mentioned that Defensive Gun uses are significantly higher than that, anywhere from 800k to 2.2 million.

      • Raymond Covit

        disaming the sane and compliant , will not protect you from the insane or unjust.

      • “Neither side”? This article…or whatever it is, is totally one sided.

        • hawaii007

          Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. This is a proven fact.

          • Kristen Bromell

            Gun Control does have an impact of other types of crimes like robberies and home invasions. After a ban on civilian ownership of firearms there is less risk for would be robbers when they break into someone’s home.

            • William Snapp

              Kristen you need to talk to people who have suffered an armed invasion of their home after gun control. After a ban on civilian ownership of firearms there is less risk to armed robbers when armed robbers invade your home because they know you are unarmed and you cannot defend yourself and you will be easy pickins. Criminals do not obey laws on gun control even though everybody else does. Studies of prisoners admitting that unarmed people are their targets as opposed to armed citizens.

              • William Snapp

                oops Kristen….sorry…….I misread your above article. I now realize we are saying the same thing…..sorry again.

            • Charles_C

              Crime such as Robbery happen a lot in DC as a matter of fact it happens in cities that have strict gun control than it does in cities that have lax gun control. Example Kennesaw Georgia made it a city ordinance that you must have a firearm in your home if you were allowed by state law. Crime went down and had not had any murders for a record 25 years. They did have one a few years ago.

        • Mick Price

          Note the complete absence in that piece of ANY evidence that gun control reduced homicide in Japan. There is LITERALLY nothing, merely the statement that a) there are less gun related homicide in Japan than the USA and b) that Japan has stricter gun control. It doesn’t even say they have less homicide overall, so if you don’t care if you get killed by a gun or a knife the article says nothing about which country is better. Yes I know Japan’s homicide rate is lower, but your article doesn’t even say that. To conclude that gun control works on the basis of that article you have to assume a) there are no other differences between Japan and the USA and b) that only gun homicides count. Learn to logic.

        • Rory Anderson

          Your article only mentions gun related murders, as little as two,not all murders.

      • Pingback: Gun safety instructor shoots pastor - Page 7()

      • Pingback: Who is for/against repealing the 2nd Amend. Poll - Page 2()

      • Davehere

        What is the definition of “copout?” Human suffering, chopped off heads, squirting blood, torture, rape, mutilation, cannibalizing and all other forms of hideous sickness is now entertainment. People will scream like a pig under a gate about “guns” and never say one potent word about the cause of murder. We have desensitized people until they will pay to watch someone’s guts spilled onto the street.
        It sickens those of us who value human life as sacred, to hear those individuals claim this hideous display qualifies as free speech, or that it doesn’t affect them. You have merely to open your eyes and ears to pick up references to these horrid human degrading productions in association with murders every day. It has desensitized them, otherwise they would be able to see how this “entertainment” creates crime! Interfering with freedom, not promoting it. Determining that injury can interfere with freedom and pursuit of happiness is why you can’t scream fire in a theater. It’s not free speech. How have we allowed this virus to sicken society to the point that people will adamantly defend their ‘right’ to watch human suffering? Fiction or not, how did people come to enjoy this!?
        It’s easy and quite “safe” to jump on a bandwagon about guns. “Scream about Hollywood and the video games our kids and adults as well, play? Oh, for Gods sake no! That’s actually taking a solid stand!” Why aren’t folks trying to outlaw knives? That’s even safer!

        • Tabykatt

          On point!

        • Michael F

          There is about a 0 correlation between playing violent video games and committing violent crimes. There is a negative correlation between witnessing public executions and committing violent crimes. All they do is desensitize people to seeing them, not turn otherwise good people into criminals.

          • Davehere

            There are institutions that have proven you wrong. One of these belong to Col David Grossman, a former Phsyc professor at Westpoint, who was given the task of desensitizing Vietnam soldiers so they could look at someone and shoot them ( something the soldier in WW 2 by in large was not able to do, because they did not need to be able to). He has written books, articles and has been referenced by presidents for his work on “how” this stuff is affecting people. My question to you still remains, as a former emergency specialist and having seen more gore in reality than you, how can you enjoy watching a human being get tortured and brutally killed? Because YOU are desensitized. Why is this entertainment? Because YOU, my friend, are desensitised. I would expect you to say “no l’m not.”

            Let me tell you something. There were more guns per capita by far in the 50s than there are now. Look it up. My grandfather carried a shotgun to school in a buckboard in the early 1900s and so did his classmates. They had NO school shootings, by adults or otherwise. They carried those guns to protect themselves against dangers of all kinds, from OUTSIDE of the school. THEY WERE CHILDREN!! Not to examine what has changed is just pure dishonesty. You can not ignore this. Screaming gun control is at best, a copout. We have killings from automobiles everyday. Are we going to outlaw cars next? We allow the nation to accept a sickness, then we decide to try to stop folks from protecting themselves against it. Something we don’t do with any other desease.

            You can give me all of the “I think” that you choose. There are piles of institutions conducting experiments and research involving entire countries that are proving what I am saying. Little children shooting people because they think it is a game. Lists of movies with direct links to murder. I am tired of hearing “it doesn’t effect me.” Take folk’s favorite TV series away, their favorite sport, etc and you get disappointment. Tell them you want to take away their so called priveledge of watching spurting human blood while some soul dies, and they get enraged. Bad sign. Similar to an addiction.

            If it does no harm, why do you “enjoy” watching the simulation of human suffering? How did you get like that? Don’t dodge this question.

            Other folks who share my view should pipe up and stop being quiet. This is part of the problem.

            • Michael F

              Compare young children thinking real guns are just a game to teenagers that know it’s not is not intellectually honest. Children kill their friends or parents because they haven’t been taught about the dangers of guns, it has nothing to do with moral degradation, desensitization, or enjoyment.

              I do not enjoy seeing gore, suffering, blood, death, etc. The most popular games like Call of Duty or Battlefield have none of that in it, you might as well be playing laser tag – someone gets shot, they fall down, then they’re character just disappears. Halo has even less. They’re no more violent than the Loony Tunes or Tom and Jerry.

              Some games like Grand Theft Auto are worse, not because they have gore (they generally don’t), but because they’re more open, less of a competition. It’s not how skilled are you, it’s kill these hookers because it’s fun (which I don’t understand). There’s a reason it’s illegal to sell them to someone under 17 – if you don’t have a solid moral foundation by then, it’s not the video games’ fault.

              If we look at more “traditional” entertainment, rodeos and fighting have injuries that are for more graphic than anything in a video game. As does any movie directed by Quentin Tarantino. Looking at the real gore stuff, it’s really only found in the news and movies like Saw – which only appeals to a very small group of sadists (who would be sadists without it) and pre-teens that think seeing it makes them cool but actually hate it.

              Here’s the only “I think” that isn’t just common sense I’ll give you. We have a total moral failing and Godlessness in society today (really just an observation). It is so prevalent it practically permeates the ether. A complete elimination of all entertainment media would not fix it because it is in every neighborhood – it has even penetrated the Bible belt. Hoodlums weren’t playing video games, watching Tarantino, (and probably not the news either) when homicide was at it’s peak in ’89. This will be a slow and uphill fight, but statistically, we’re winning even if it doesn’t seem so on the 6 o’clock news.

              Here’s an actual source for you: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130826123134.htm

              • William Snapp

                Michael F.The difference is that Tom and Jerry and are not being sighted down the barrel of a gun and after being shot fall over with a little blood popping up on the screen. And this is a BIG difference.

                • Michael F

                  Have you ever actually played these games? Tom and Jerry is more violent than them. There is nothing that feels real about them, even the so called “realistic” ones like Battlefield.

                  And I recommend actually reading the article I linked to. There is no significant increase in violent tendencies amongst people that play “violent” video games.

                • Gary Scheuer

                  No. Instead they shoot, stab, maim and crush each other with no real world ramifications whatsoever.
                  So kids grow up thinking that shooting someone in the face just gives them powder burns.

              • Raymond Covit

                children spending more time on those games than being trained by hanging out with parents doing household chores and being together. Alienated , lonely heartless, compassionless automatons, is what this digital age is producing here.

              • Gary Scheuer

                Thank you. While I don’t think “Godlessness” has anything to do with it, the rest of your observation is spot on.

            • Mick Price

              “There are piles of institutions conducting experiments and research involving entire countries that are proving what I am saying.”
              And yet you don’t cite any. Look if what you said was even POSSIBLY true there would have been a massive upsurge in violence in the USA particularly and the Western world generally. There have not. Quoting that psychopath Grossman “These things make people murderers, I know because that’s what I did to our police and military” is beyond the pale.

      • Jordans03

        I love how this article is titled as “The facts that neither side wants to admit” yet is clearly geared towards Pro Gun activists.
        I also love how when reviewing murder rates of countries prior & after to gun bans, they omit numbers from a country that’s most similar to the US (Australia)
        I have a lot more to point out but I see that would be clearly pointless.

        • Chester

          Better go look again, as Australia most assuredly IS in there. What they told you about Australia is that the numbers did NOT change enough to be more than a blip of a pen between before and after “Gun Control,” actually firearms banning. Funny thing is, you talk to the people in the know about Australia’s guns, and they will tell you there are more long guns there now than before the ban, only none are registered, or even officially known to exist.

          • Mick Price

            “What they told you about Australia is that the numbers did NOT change enough to be more than a blip of a pen between before and after “Gun Control,” actually firearms banning.”
            Well no, they changed, but the change was statistically indistinguishable from the change that was previously happening. The trend was down before the ban of multi-shot guns, afterwards it was bigger, but not statistically significantly so. So it COULD have helped, but the help was indistinguishable from chance variations.

            • Chester

              Mick, I think you missed the whole point of what I said, that there are MORE of those nasty semi-automatics in Australia now than before the ban, and NONE of them are on the books.

              • Mick Price

                That may well be so, but the figures were as I said, no statistically significant difference from trend.

              • Gary Scheuer

                Read what you just wrote. Out loud. then think on the foolishness of your statement. What you said in effect is,” There are way more guns out there than before. We don’t know how many because no one is admitting to it. But we know they are out there. Because we just know.”

                • Chester

                  In other words, Gary, if there is no OFFICIAL record of something, it doesn’t exist? Might tell that to a LOT of people who have been killed by unregistered firearms, or by explosive devices that never had a record to begin with. Just because something is not present officially does NOT mean it isn’t there.

                  • Gary Scheuer

                    There is no OFFICIAL record of aliens, elves or unicorns. Therefore, by your logic, they must exist.

                    • Chester

                      Well, Gary, I guess you are saying that because there is no official record of a gun, other than the fact that it has been seen more than once, it can not exist. This is pretty much what is going on in Australia. Guns are coming in, but they are being bootlegged, rather than coming in through the OFFICIAL ports and being logged in or returned. As far as the aliens, elves, and unicorns, we have as much of an OFFICIAL record of their existence as we do of Christ, yet Billions of people will swear to His existence, and just as many will swear that the little people and their steeds can’t exist.

      • Pingback: On American Violence: Is it Guns, Terrorism or our Culture?()

      • bob

        What people don’t realize is that guns don’t kill people. People kill people with guns

        • Tony

          A bullet piercing the flesh of a person, fired from a gun, kills people.

          • William Snapp

            Tony….I believe someone has to pull the trigger Tony. Gun accidents do happen but most guns used in killing people are aimed by someone, the trigger is pulled by someone with intent by someone. Guns are not out walking around by themselves and are not loading them selves before they are being shot.

            • Tony

              Yes but those people get access to said guns via lax laws.

      • paul ivaldi

        you should not be allowed to write articles, you’re going to further confuse the already ignorant. please admit your mistake and rescind this. while your obvious conclusion of a cultural problem is correct your attempt at an intelligible argument is really a naive essay from somebody that thinks they’re smarter than they actually are. i’m sorry i made this so insulting. i really should try to write my own if i’m so willing to criticize others but this issue drives me crazy because there is too much misinformation.

      • Mike Breen

        “” In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.””
        Incorrect. The handgun ban was deigned to remove one type of gun from a very small number of licenced owners. It was entirely successful. As to increasing crime, no it did not. The removal of one type of gun from a very small number of people who never used those guns to prevent crime cannot have increased crime.

        • phillipqb

          Then what was the point?

          • Gary Scheuer

            TO TAKE UR GUNS AND MAKE YOU SHEEP.
            Didn’t you read the article? It’s the Illuminati New World Order Freemason Muslim Government that wants to make slaves of us all.

      • Pingback: White House: Terrorists Will Stop Attacking if We Pass Gun Control Legislation - Page 2()

      • Dave

        All I got out of this was a challenge to see if I can build a shotgun with parts from Home Depot

        • nordicwinds1969

          Although, I caught that too…. They also pointed out that governments have the agenda of wanting the guns from the hands of the people so they could not overthrow the government. You will find this toward the end of the article but before our great guide on where to shop to build your own arms….

          “… a Russian citizen can carry a firearm. The prohibited items speak
          volumes about what a government’s motive behind disarming the population
          is. Russia has allowed
          “smoothbore long barrelled guns, pistols, revolvers, and other
          firearms, as well as Tasers, and devices equipped with teargas.” That’s
          almost everything, what is still banned? Rifles. So the Russian
          government has made it clear that the real objective is to remove rifles
          from civilian hands. The reasoning is pretty clear: you need rifles to
          overthrow a government.”

          Now, if people were trained well, they could do some real damage without having to use a rifle. or we could go to home Depot and figure out how to make our own.

          I think the biggest point is that the stats lie about what banning guns really do. It is not as effective as they say.

          Oh, and I am noting you saying it was a challenge…go to other stores too. Change it up and confuse them! LOL! No seriously. If you have them. Do not give them up!

        • Banjo

          Since you missed the point, I will change the “object”.
          “Everything you need to manufacture a bomb is available at Home Depot.
          The materials needed to manufacture a pressure cooker bomb costs”…I’m not quite sure, but not much.
          The point is, the problem is the culture and the lack of dignity for human life. I’m not a crazy “crusader for babies” but when many believe that it’s OK to kill an unborn because “they are not yet human”, and that idea permeates the nation along with first-person shooter games, and all sorts of other activities or movies involving not just killing, but in-your-face, unabashed, violent killing, couple that with a generation in this society used to getting what they want, crying they are offended and growing up undisciplined whiners along with designer drugs to treat this condition or that discomfort that just so happen to have side-effects that involve suicidal thoughts or actions and you have a recipe for disaster with or without guns!
          People have become desensitized to humans killing other humans…until it involves a real gun on real people. Then they “care” about human lives and want to take our guns…not gonna happen!

          • You are mixing guns, which are used to kill fully conscious beings against their will, who might also be the support for an entire family, with reproductive rights, a fetus that doesn’t have a clue he even exists, and doesn’t feel or thinks? WOW!!

            • Rojo

              Perfect. I understand. If you fall asleep, or get knocked unconscious for any length of time, and you don’t have dependents, you’re fair game for euthanasia. Good to know.

              • Useless comment.

                • EzA

                  he makes a point: how do you KNOW the fetus/baby doesn’t feel?

                  • Because prior to weeks 23-25, the connections between the brain and the spinal cord are not complete.

                    Without these connections, you’d feel the same thing a paraplegic feels, nothing.

                    “Within the subplate, cortical afferents establish prolonged synaptic contacts before entering the cortical plate. The subplate is a “waiting compartment,” required for mature connections in the cortex. The major afferent fibres (thalamocortical, basal forebrain, and corticocortical) can wait in the subplate for several weeks, before they penetrate and form synapses within the cortical plate from 23-25 weeks’ gestation.”

                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

                    • Mack Gropeman

                      SCIENCE! lol. Good luck getting any of these mouthbreathers to read that… good on ya though.

                    • Davehere

                      Wow. You can predict that a particular life is not going to be a scientist, major leader etc! That’s better than God! Hey maybe we can make a gauge that we use in all pregnancies. “Wow! Gotta kick this one into the dumpster. Looks like it’s gonna be poor.”

                      • Davehere

                        Life is not a mechanical functioning machine. It is a process. We depend upon those who do not consider their own selfish desires when looking into the future. Imagine some ignorant individual stating, “If Benjamin Franklin had never been born someone else would have jumped in.” You don’t know who will change the course of history.

                      • Yeah, making the argument of “what if”, is a half empty/full glass, that same child could be the next Hitler or born with any disease.

                        The fact remains, it’s an unwanted pregnancy, and I surely wouldn’t want to be born that way.

                        • Davehere

                          Now there is a “useless comment.” The good that a human could bring, can be canceled by the bad they might bring. Again, perhaps we need a gauge we can use at birth. Just a dodge of my points, my friend.

                        • You made a comment regarding a positive outcome. If you factor in the amount of people who are actually genius against those that are below average in IQ, you will see that there are more low IQ people than high IQ by a factor of at least 10. So chances are, that this child would have been just another human being, consuming the planet, with a family that didn’t even want it.

                          I have no idea what your point is, but thinking that we should just have children, because a SMALL portion of them MIGHT be the savior of the universe, is naive to say the least.

                          The mother has the choice, period. It is NONE of your business, or anyone else’s business. You are pro life? Go help the 25,000 children that are starving PER DAY. Maybe one of them will turn out to be the next Einstein.

                • Davehere

                  No it’s not

                • Banjo

                  No, using your rational it’s absolutely correct! You just lack the moral conviction and mental honesty to admit it!

                  If your “fully conscious being” criteria indicating that aborting(killing) an unborn baby is OK because it is not yet conscious is correct, then no one who, for example, gets into an accident and kills a pregnant woman and her unborn child should get charged for manslaughter for the unborn baby…right?

                  The cognitive dissonance on the left is staggering!

                  • Again making irrelevant comparisons. A mature human and an fetus without neural connections.

                    Your own pathetic book, the bible, says that life starts with the first breath, and didn’t your God kill millions of babies?

                    Give it up and stay away from women.

                    Now go defend starving children, of which 25,000 starve to death, each and every day, instead of wasting your time trying to save unwanted fetuses.

            • Banjo

              Wow indeed! Conscious or not, it does not matter! You are mixing a tool used by some humans to kill other humans with the justification that killing unborn humans is OK because they cannot express their pain and desire to live. You missed the point entirely…making abortion normal and no different than having a tooth pulled was expressed as just another way to desensitize society to taking another human life! BTW, how do you know the unborn child doesn’t feel or think?

              • Are you a republican? If so and you want government out of your business, then why are you in the way of women business?

                The unborn child before week 23-25, has NO connection between the nervous system and the brain. You know how paraplegics can’t feel pain? Yeah, like that, but more, because do you remember when you were 9 months old? Yeah, like that. So both things, they can’t think or feel.

                They would NEVER know they never existed. Nothing compared to a human, you know, like the mother, who has to go thru a pregnancy AGAINST her will.

                You are putting a fetus, who doesn’t think or feel, over one that does. WHY?

                Why do you even care? We send fully grown adults to war and you don’t even flinch.

      • kat

        http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/12/08/440834/Craft-International-mercenaries-San-Bernardino-shooting This is the truth, this is why things where not adding up. The witnesses told us there was 3 men shooting, and so much more. The MSM and the Government is trying to get us to start a civil war. Learn the truth. Wake up before it’s too late. They will do more of these until they get our guns. We must get down to the truth, stop listening to the MSM and the fake video’s on social media. IT’s all to brainwash us.

        • William Snapp

          Yes Yes Yes Kat you are so right. Another word for what you may be saying is “we are all being destracted” by the media or world events and as Manual said to Obama “You cannot let a crisis go to waste”.

      • David Newcomb

        What a load of bollox. This article has totally missed the point, it has restricted it’s argument to murders (i.e. people who been killed unlawfully with a firearm) and given a very skewed view of gun crime. People who actually die as a result of murder (by gun) only represents a tiny fraction of all the people who are affected by gun crime.
        The article doesn’t mention those 50,000 people THIS YEAR in America who have had their lives ruined as a result of firearms. The numbers are frightening, just for this so far: 2,000 accidental shootings, 650 deaths/injuries of children under eleven and 2,500 teens.
        To the author: redo your statistics for the other countries and include firearm deaths and injuries not related to murder and you will probably see a huge spike over America and now over Russia!

        • Phil Farnum

          Along those lines how do you reconcile the number of people hurt or killed in automobile accidents, abortions at planned parenthood (350K yr), stabbings and beatings, drug complications and overdosing, and bad eating and personal habits. A significantly higher number than people hurt by firearms. It’s funny how some like to cherry pick statistics. Either way the author appears to have a valid point when you appear to have an emotional argument that doesn’t consider actual facts or take in the entire context of your non-murdered population (although including abortions in the non-murdered column is a stretch).

          • David Newcomb

            Some good points, but I would say that drug overdosing, poor eating, smoking, not wearing a seat belt, etc would be lumped into the suicide (super-) class of deaths as they are, to all intensive purposes, self inflicted. We use education to help fix that problem and it is doing everything it can. Although I will concede there is probably not much we can do about the stabbings because knives are even more prevalent than guns. The abortions argument (which I never brought up) is always going to be a bone of contention. It’s my opinion that you have to be born to be able to die, or maybe it’s best to give them an unrelated column in the table of deaths with still-borns caused naturally or by poor motherly choices (but that is a discussion for another day!).

            From what I understand (correct me if I’m wrong) not a single extra law has been passed to address all those gun related incidents.

            The article is saying there is no point tightening controls on guns because it won’t have any effect on murders. From some shaky “evidence” which I addressed in my post above.
            From what I understand anti-gun lobbyist want to help prevent deaths of people from guns and not murders as defined by this article. The NRA (of America) believe in guns for self-defence which is subtly different to what the author has stated. The premiss of the article is based on something that is a cherry picked set of statements which may be true, but like the ice-cream sales and shark attacks argument not really relevant to each other in the way the article portrays.

            The anti-gun lobbyist want to reduce deaths and injuries caused by guns. They probably feel that going for a ban is a good opening position as they can haggle it down to tighter controls like the rest of the world.

            • Mitch Berg

              “From what I understand (correct me if I’m wrong) not a single extra law has been passed to address all those gun related incidents.”

              OK. Here’s your correction.

              Quite a few new laws were passed 20 years ago, via cooperation between gun rights groups and both sides in Congress. One of them led to the national NICS database – whose effect on crime has been minimal, but which has made sure that stores are rarely the source of guns (except via straw buyers). Others included sentence enhancements for using guns in crimes. Where applied, these enhancements have had an affect on violent crime. However, many jurisdictions – and the Obama Administration – plead the upcharge away, or ignore it, for political reasons; they don’t want to give a win to a pro-2nd-Amendment policy

              • David Newcomb

                Thanks for the update. If the criminal’s are not buying their guns from stores where are they coming from? Is it still true that a person with a criminal record or mental health issues can go to a different state with different gun laws and buy a gun legally?

                • Mitch Berg

                  “If the criminal’s are not buying their guns from stores where are they coming from? ”

                  Stolen guns, or guns acquired from other criminals (without background checks!), and guns from straw buyers (people who buy guns legally, and give/sell them to criminals).

                  “Is it still true that a person with a criminal record or mental health issues can go to a different state with different gun laws and buy a gun legally?”

                  The NICS check is the same thing in every state. As a *general* rule, the same disqualifiers – felonies, domestic violence and violent crime misdemeanors – are reported consistently across all the states. Some mental health information varies from state to state; different states observe different levels of due process in reporting this information.

                  • David Newcomb

                    Just one last question. Are there any laws relating to the storage or firearms at home: like weapons must be locked in a safe, ammo can’t be kept with weapons, bolts/firing actions must be locked up separately. Is this standard across the states?

                    • irememberallthelies

                      Nope and its not a good idea to do that. You may have 30 seconds to get your gun when someone breaks in. Its almost like not having one at that point. If you are smart you educate your kids on the matter. You dont leave them laying out etc but handy if you need it etc. All the things you mentioned I don’t do. I prefer to not leave a round chambered myself except on one. Chambering it takes a second to complete.

                    • William Snapp

                      Yes in some places there are laws about how guns are to be away from children. What happens most often (I believe) is that a child finds a gun shoots himself or someone and because the grieving mom or dad (who should be charged in the child’s death) are going through so much pain the judge does not send them to prison for 5 years (like he should) and slaps them on the wrist and children go on killing themselves. This might be an oversimplification.

                • William Snapp

                  David…criminals buy guns in their neighborhoods in back allys around the corner and all is needed is for the criminal to put the word out they need a gun or they know who is the gun seller in their neighborhood. This is the real world David and by the way you can go into any large city and buy a gun anytime you want and it will be illegal because criminals don’t care about gun laws. It is really simple.

            • Phil Farnum

              The only issue with weapons regulations are that they are intended to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire weapons. When an elected official drafts legislation that will inhibit criminals from illegal weapons possession and subsequent crime I’ll be 100% behind it. When proposed legislation is intended to stop or limit normal citizens from the procurement of weapons I’ll stand 100% against it. Maybe we should add an immediate death penalty to anyone caught with an illegal weapon. Cop finds a person with an illegal weapon or use of a weapon in a crime and immediately puts a bullet to the brain of the offender, problem solved. If your intention is to stop crime, go after the criminal not the citizen.

              • David Newcomb

                That’s a very anti-government view. It sounds a bit like you are suggesting that people don’t turn into criminals they are criminals already. You are also suggesting that people don’t transition from normal citizen to criminal. This is clearly nonsense.
                In the UK if you are caught driving a car without insurance then your car is confiscated and crushed. This has greatly reduced uninsured drivers, so you can keep that idea 😉

                • Phil Farnum

                  No one has developed the crystal ball that can tell if one is going to become a criminal in the future or be a hero. If we cannot determine how a weapon may be used or misused in the future how do we know if these efforts to limit weapons acquisition and ownership will have good or evil results? Pro-gun arguments indicate that if you limit the access to weapons by law abiding people, and criminals don’t really care what laws you place in effect, you would only be assisting the criminals by reducing the opportunity for self defense. Pro gun control arguments hope criminals will adhere to the law.

          • LostInUnderland

            Automobiles, regulated. Abortion, regulated. Drugs, regulated. Foods, regulated. Now, you can claim that all those regulations are bad, or that gun regulations are somehow less important than any of those other categories, but false equivalency is false. I have not heard anyone call for a ban on guns. What I have heard (and support) is common sense regulation.

            • Phil Farnum

              Automobiles regulated? One must learn to operate a vehicle prior to use on PUBLIC ROADS, there is no regulation on who can procure or own any vehicle, you can even drive without an operators license while not on PUBLIC ROADS. Abortion…there is no regulation stopping any women from killing their children for convenience, maybe when, but not the ability to kill. Where is Cocaine, Heroin, Crack, Meth regulated? Where is any crime regulated? Food may be regulated for health concerns so that it meets it’s intended purpose and doesn’t make people sick, not too sure anyone has to submit to a background check and wait 10 days before they can pick up their groceries.

        • Mitch Berg

          No bollox (sic) at all.

          BTW, the gun violent crime rate is down 50%, and the gun homicide rate 30%, in the past 20 years – as the number of civilian guns rose 56%.

          But tell you what, David: Let’s do indeed “redo your statistics for other countries”; the US has the 111th-highest murder rate overall. And 90% of those murders are committed by people with criminal records. Incidentally – the places with the lowest murder rates have the highest gun ownership rates.
          Let’s do indeed look at the real stats!

          Mr. King: An excellent piece – all the moreso considering what a disaster most of MintPress is.

          • David Newcomb

            You are comparing the US with the rest of the world, but like this article, you are not comparing like with like. I would expect the US to have a lower murder rate than a developing country but the fact is that America is about half way up the table right in the middle of all the developing countries, then there is quite a big gap then the rest of the developed world. So I wouldn’t say that was anything to be proud of. I also backed up my numbers and the reasons for the skew while discussing this with @jjmartinjr:disqus

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
            http://uk.businessinsider.com/us-vs-western-homicide-rates-2014-11?r=US&IR=T

            • Mitch Berg

              “Comparing like with like” is specious. Murder is murder. A dead Honduran is of the same worth as a dead white Westerner. The link you showed put the US at #121 for intentional homicide in the world.

              But you want to compare “like with like”, then you can’t stop with “developed”. You have to go with “large nations” (forget about Denmark and Belgium) “with large, culturally heterogenous societies”.

              And when you actually *do* compare “like with like”, you find that several large heterogenous first-world, developed countries come in much worse than the US, with its murder rate (per *your link*) of 3.8/100,000:

              Argentina: 5.5

              Brazil: 25.2
              Russia: 9.0

              South Africa: 31.0

              Or we could truly compare apples with apples: there are many large, culturally and socially homogenous areas in the United States with very, low crime rates (like, most of the country west of the Ohio River and east of the Sierra Madre), with murder rates at or below European levels (and generally super high gun ownership rates). America’s small states tend to mix low crime rates and high rates of gun ownership:

              http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=55601

              In fact, if you leave out the 20-30 highest-crime cities – all inevitably run by administrations or in states hostile to civilian gun ownership – and the Deep South (where the scots-irish cultural tradition is very tolerant of violence, and was long before there was a US, much less widespread gun ownership), the US’ violent crime and murder rates are pretty competitive.

              And remember – 90% of all US gun murders are committed by people with criminal records.

              So that tells us what?

              It’s not the guns. It’s the culture.

              (And no, not “gun culture”; for one example, people with carry permits tend to offend at two orders of magnitude lower a rate than the general population:

              http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=5358)

            • Glenn Eric Johnson

              you can keep your submissive culture, i’ll keep my rebellious culture

        • Jj Martin Jr.

          Please source your information. Statistics with no source is bollox!! We can’t bother you with facts because your mind is already made up.

          • David Newcomb

            My source for the listed numbers is: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
            Another skew in the results is the numbers relating to UK. The reason why banning the hand gun in the UK had no real effect on murders is that so few of those murders where committed with a gun (which was obtained illegally). in the UK gun murders make up 7% of all murders ( http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html ). In America that number is 70% ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm ) with most of those guns used bought legally ( http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/25/15339/firearms-used-homicides-often-purchased-illegally ), or bought legally and illegally transported between states. The article states the UK numbers per million. If gun murders doubled or halved their
            it would have no significant impact on the murder numbers in the articles. The same is not true of Americas 70%. I would struggle to believe that if someone couldn’t get hold of a gun they would just pick up a knife – there is a different level of risk and heart that goes into stabbing someone to death.

            • PJSL

              The only reason gun violence, and violent crime in general, went down after the ban is because UK hired half again its police force. Also, crime using other weapons and bombings increased exponentially.

              CDC doesn’t separate legal police action, self defense, suicide and criminal action in its gun death statistics.

              Your other numbers are foolishly skewed.
              US has the highest firearms ownership of any nation in the world, yet it is lower than 50% in gun murders per capita at 3.55 per 100,000.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#List
              The countries with the highest gun murders also have very strict gun laws.

              Ownership – Not Even in Top 100 Countries for Murder Rate
              http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/01/usa-first-world-gun-ownership-not-even-top-100-countries-murder-rate/
              The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to “Developed” Countries
              https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

              • Mike Breen

                “”The only reason gun violence, and violent crime in general, went down after the ban is because UK hired half again its police force. Also, crime using other weapons and bombings increased exponentially””
                Tell me, how many crimes were the banned guns preventing in in 1996?
                While the US gun nuts get themselves tied in knots trying to prove the UK 1997 firearms reform act made a huge difference to UK crime, the same bloody fools have made little to no effort to understand the situation prior to the ban and what the ban achieved.
                It banned ONE type of gun belonging to 1/960 of the population, that’s ZERO POINT ONE (0.1) percent of the population. Further, those guns owned by this tiny percentage were STRICTLY for use at the range. The very mention of using these guns for defence was enough to lose your licence.
                In other words, criminals never feared these banned weapons. Given these banned weapons never featured in crime in any way shape or form, how could the ban be responsible for any change in crime patterns?
                US gun nuts who have visions of the UK masses being deprived of their guns under the pillow, in the car, on the hip need to get real. That situation did not exist.

                • PJSL

                  “Tell me, how many crimes were the banned guns preventing in in 1996? ”
                  It’s impossible to prove a negative.
                  What I can show is incidents of decreased crime with implementation of looser gun laws and CCWs

                  Murder rate drops as concealed carry permits rise, study claims
                  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/09/murder-drops-as-concealed-carry-permits-rise-claims-study/
                  Gun Control: Myths and Realities http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

                  • Mike Breen

                    “”It’s impossible to prove a negative.””
                    No, but it is possible to show that many Americans have complete faith in the claim that the 1997 firearms reform act increased crime because they have a completely incorrect belief that these guns were..
                    1: Widely owned.
                    2: Were being used for self defence and defence of property.
                    3: That is was a total ban on all guns.
                    The facts. The 1997 firearms reform act effected 1/960 or 0.1 of the population. These guns were NOT being used for the defence of person and property. The mere suggestion of doing so would have lost the owner his licence. To actually use one for such would be jail time. The truth of the matter is a tiny percentage of the people owned these guns and they were strictly for use at the range. They were not carried in the car, on the hip or kept under pillows.
                    In the unlikely event that an owner chose to break the law and keep a gun ready for use in the house, he has numerous other guns to choose from.
                    The 1997 firearms reform act had no effect on crime because they banned guns were not preventing any crime. It’s that simple.

                    • PJSL

                      WOW

                      Where to start!!!!
                      Your whole post is supposition, hyperbole and conjecture.

                      But I’ll deal with facts.
                      Banned guns were banned because they LOOKED and ONLY looked dangerous!
                      They were no more dangerous than others of the same caliber.
                      They all shoot the same round, at the same speed & only one round per trigger pull.
                      PERIOD

                      Claiming that banned guns weren’t used for self defense is irrelevant!
                      People keep extra blankets or flairs in their vehicles but almost never use them. That doesn’t make them superfluous.
                      The premise of the 2nd amendment is homeowner weapons being well maintained and available for immediate need in militias. The fact that we haven’t had need of militias since the civil war only emphasizes the quality and stability of our government; it doesn’t detract from the personal ownership of firearms.
                      PERIOD

                      (side note) Even at the time of the creation of the constitution there had been improvements making firearms more powerful, more accurate weapons. If the framers only wanted specific kinds of weapons maintained and available, they would have specified such.

                      Where firearms are carried isn’t relevant!
                      Open carry laws are active in most states. Most people don’t open carry because it’s a hassle, not because it’s illegal.
                      During hunting season it’s common to see firearms in the back windows of trucks – a LEGAL location to carry.

                      Banned guns didn’t prevent crime?
                      Banning guns didn’t prevent any crime!
                      Banning guns only makes people more vulnerable to crime.

                      The recent Chicago CCW law IMMEDIATELY reduced violent crime
                      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/?page=all

                      There is unending evidence that civilian ownership of firearms stops hundreds of thousands of crimes every year.

                      Is it True Armed Civilians Have Never Stopped a Mass Shooting? http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/it-true-armed-civilians-have-never-stopped-mass-shooting/690808
                      “handguns were used in an estimated 13,200 homicides in 1992 –less than 0.02% (two hundredths of 1%) of the handguns in America. Many of these reported homicides (1,500-2,800) were self-defense or justifiable and, therefore, not criminal. That fact alone renders the myth about the “only purpose” of handguns absurd, for more than 99% of all handguns are used for no criminal purpose.’ http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
                      Guns and Self Defense http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense
                      Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
                      Harvard Publication On Gun Laws Resurfaces As Talks About Firearms Continue http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

                      • David Newcomb

                        Thanks @Mike Breen, that was the point I was trying to make. This discussion has become lost in the “God given rights” and the “Cold dead hands” crowd. This article states that crime was not reduced when hand guns were band from 3 countries. This is a total amount of “evidence” that the short article offers. All the side discussions, while interesting, are largely irrelevant to the main topic of the author’s argument.

                        Let’s say the the hand gun ban in UK halved or doubled (doesn’t matter which) the gun murder rate. it would effect the murder rate by less than 1 person per million people (numbers from the article above). Banning hand guns had no effect because gun murders had no effect on the murder rate before the ban. In the US this is not the case as Gun murders represent three quarters of all murders. It has been proved that killing someone with a knife is significantly less likely than killing someone with a gun. So if US banned guns that 3 quarter percentage of gun murders would not translate into three quarters knife murders.

                        I know how you all like your statistics so I’ll leave you with this one: More Americans have been shot by their own dogs in the last 5 years than UK policemen have been killed in terror attacks. We have to thank Donald Trump for inspiring the research:
                        http://libconthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/the-power-of-pie-charts.html

                        @pleathers:disqus I think you are confused. Mike’s article it is dead right, sorry I meant DEAD RIGHT PERIOD. It would all be different if the 2nd amendment was written today, you are turning it into a religion but even the bible has been rewritten several times as the times and opinions have moved forwards.

                        • David Newcomb

                          “Banned guns were banned because they LOOKED and ONLY looked dangerous!”
                          Are you on crack? No government would go to that much trouble for aesthetics! I think you had better put the pipe down and pick up a dictionary to look up what a fact is!
                          Besides nothing in your response to Mike countered what he said. You effectively said “you are wrong and here is some unrelated material”. It appears that you’re trying to compare the total number of guns to the number of gun used as murder weapons and saying it is a very small percentage! Of course it is! An owner can have loads of guns, that’s why the rest of us have been trying to quote statistic that involve effected people. But even if you normalise your numbers, the UK still have proportionately less murder than US by a significant number and all the researchers say that this is because there is more access to guns in the US.
                          More access to guns leads to more deaths by gun irrespective of who is doing the killing.

                        • Poppov

                          Uh, you must be on crack, because that is exactly what dipshit gun control morons do in the U.S. Features such a pistol grips, flash suppressors, folding or telescoping stocks, forward pistol grip, length less than 30 in., a barrel shroud, a thumb hole stock.

                          http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=30001-31000&file=30500-30530

                          The simple fact that none of the gun ban nuts want to acknowledge is that the excessive guns deaths in the U.S. are due to gang violence. And none of the proposed laws are going to affect those individuals, gang members, that already have access to resources to import illegal goods like drugs. All the laws will do is take away weapons from law abiding citizens.

                        • David Newcomb

                          There was nothing in that link that said they banned the guns because of the way they looked. I suspect they listed grips and stocks to stop all the “it can’t be an assault weapon because it has a …” queries. That class of guns is banned because they are “A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine” with “has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings” – that’s why they are banned!

                          Although your point about all the deaths being gang deaths is far more reasonable.

                        • Poppov

                          So they just added items to the list that don’t increase the lethality of the weapon for what purpose? Most anti-gun nuts want guns banned because they look scary. As a group, the lack of firearm knowledge demonstrated by them is astounding.

                          http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/377555/abc-assault-weapons-bans-just-make-guns-look-different-charles-c-w-cooke

                        • Larry Mccarty

                          Sandy Hook was gang violence? Virginia Tech? the recent San Bernadino shootings? the Aurora theater or Columbine shootings? or the one that most affected me, haven taken place less than 3 miles from my home at the time. the 1985 McDonalds Massacre in the San Diego suburb of San Ysidro. You are talking about 1 on 1 crimes for the most part when you bring up gang violence. Most of us in favor of gun control are concerned with the MASS KILLINGS, which are most often a cause of the semi-automatics.

                        • Kyle

                          What about the Oklahoma City bombings? The Uni-Bomber? The Boston Marathon? All done without a fire arm.

                        • PJSL

                          Since banning guns has no effect, and firearms can be beneficial tools as well as recreational/sporting tools as well, why must you insist on taking guns from legal, responsible gun owners?
                          Until anyone can come up with a justifiable reason to change or revoke the 2nd amendment, your posit and Mike’s are useless. And all the angst doesn’t matter if not borne in facts and statistics (stupid analogies notwithstanding.)

                • Glenn Eric Johnson

                  i’d rather live in a country where you are allowed to defend yourself, and one with no history of thousands of years of obeying tyrants, and praising the death of someone like guy fawkes.

            • Joe

              Suicides went down because of less guns. Murder rates remained about the same, before and after gun control. This happened in several countries around the world showing that gun control had little or no effect, but DID restrict individual liberties by the governments…

              • nordicwinds1969

                I hate to say that when I was younger (teen years) and I was suicidal…the gun was not my choice. I wanted to go to sleep peacefully and not wake up… So gun laws would have meant nothing to me… and we had a handgun unlocked and loaded in our home.

            • MrApple

              I counter your “stats” with a video.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE

        • Glenn Eric Johnson

          according to the FBI, guns are used 350,000 times a year to PREVENT Crime, so there is nothing that a person from a submissive culture can tell me about guns in MY COUNTRY, mind your own country’s politics.

        • MrApple

          And what of the people defended through the use of a firearm each year? Interesting that you would leave that out.

        • William Snapp

          A better idea for you David is why don’t you qualify and reference YOUR statistics because “and you will PROBABLY see a huge spike over America” is nothing but blowing smoke. Talk is cheap unless you provide ref’s. that can be checked.

      • Randy Cullinan

        Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told.” Actually gun laws give an advantage to those that lead a lawful and proper life by being able to protect themselves from losers that long ago gave up their chance to lawfully own a gun. And rightfully so. If the government continues to allow a certain segment of criminals to carry without paying a price, more and more lawful people will solve the problem through other methods.

      • Joe Howell

        “… you need rifles to overthrow a government.” Right. Good advice.

        • William Snapp

          Hey Joe! Do you know what an AK47 looks like? The rest of the world does and it has brought down many governments including running us out of Vietnam.

          • Joe Howell

            Do you know what a tank or drone looks like? Having a rifle in AMERICA (coz that’s what the article is about) for the purpose of overthrowing the government is stupid. My previous comment was not directed at the act of HAVING guns, but at the argument that the possibility of having to overthrow a tyrannical US government is a legitimate reason for less gun control.

      • Bob Randall

        What this guy said in so many words is guns don’t kill people poverty stricken and/or morally bankrupt people kill other people by any means available. Obozo and the dems know what Russia knows you need rifles to protect your self from a crooked Gov’t and that is why obozo and the UN wants your guns so they can rob you blind and kill you if you won’t go along.

      • Dan

        What we need is a tax on bullets. Make bullets cost $10,000 a piece and suddenly casual killing will become to expensive.
        Ok, I don’t know if that would actually work or if it would just create a new black market for bullets. But it sounds like a a neat way to curb gun violence without taking away the right to own a gun. Frankly, I am not sure if anything is going to do the trick completely. It’s one of those things where we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Maybe We need to bring back torture and expand the death penalty to include all murders without exception. And when I say torture I mean like cut off murders genitals and force feed it to them and then let them bleed to death while beating them with clubs as their punishment for murdering someone with a gun. I just don’t think there is an answer. No matter what idea is proposed someone’s going to come along and say that idea isn’t going to work and then explain why it won’t work.

        • hammr25

          If the murder rate is the same with or without guns why does it matter?

        • SaraB

          It’s super easy to make bullets, bombs, etc…

        • Shod Pell

          Dan I believe that you have hit upon something with the tax,
          the torture, the beatings. No doubt these are far better and easer than
          the things that were running through my mind. My idea would not have
          worked any way if they did we would not have this problem we have today.
          I was reminiscing about when I was young how every kid in the grade school I
          went to was taught reading, writing, arithmetic, and gun safety. How our
          parents would bust our backside for back talking, being disrespectful to
          others, swearing, lying, and many other infractions of the mores of the society
          at that time. I remember the hard lessons of learning how to deal with
          the disappointment of loosing a ball game, not being allowed to do what the
          older kid got to do, that if you spent all your allowance money you where not
          going to get any more until the following Saturday, maybe not even then if
          you didn’t do the chores that each kid in the house had to do. I
          remember, at a young age, my Father trying to explain what honor and integrity
          was and how important those quality’s were to have and to look for in the
          people you meet. I also remember going hunting with my dad and how I felt
          inside the first time I killed a living animal, how dad explained that is how I
          should feel about killing while I stood there rifle in hand looking at that
          spiked buck with tears staining my cheeks. I remember a lot of things
          about growing up but some how I just don’t remember how many people were killed
          in mass shootings or from cops that the criminals tried to shoot, stab,
          strangle etc., must not have been that many. I guess because of the way
          we were raised.

        • Jj Martin Jr.

          Hahahahaha. LMAO. Hey let’s tax drugs, axes, hammers, bows and arrows, rocks, spears, BB’s, pellets and anything else that can be weaponized. How do you think that will work out?

          • Dan

            Well, like I said but apparently need to reiterate for all the reading impaired twits, It’s just one of those things where we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. The idea wasn’t really meant to be taken seriously but rather was just another idea that as I predicted in my original post that wasn’t apparently read beyond the first sentence, no matter what ideas are proposed someone is going to come along and pick it apart without offering any other solution. I actually got the taxing bullets idea from a stand up comedy routine done several years ago where a comic made a joke about how there would be no random shootings if bullets cost a fortune. It was a joke then just like it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously now. Sheesh. The only part of it that could may be taken seriously was just the idea that at least it’s an idea that doesn’t involve taking away the right to own a gun. Beyond that, pure commentary.

        • Phil Farnum

          Good point. Because no one would ever think to evade the taxes, it didn’t work for moonshiners or currently cigarette smugglers…oh wait…..Maybe thee are successful smuggling operations. Maybe we should use capital punishment and streamlined adjudication for all felonies. Kill a few million criminals and the allure of crime loses its luster. What will up and coming rappers do?…..

          • Dan

            See response to Jj Martin Jr. (Below) as the response pertains to your sarcasm as well. I guess I should put a disclaimer that my suggestion and my original post was not to be taken so seriously and also put a disclaimer that reactionary twits who can’t or won’t read past the first or second sentence should take two chill pills and read all my post and subsequent responses to other reactionary twits.

          • William Snapp

            Once apon a time there was drug addiction in China because England forced china to open up to it with America’s help (America sold an inferior grade of opium). The way MAO solved this problem was to go into the opium dens and shoot every one and then went out into the local community asking if anyone wanted dope and then when the newbie dopers went inside they shot them in the dens again. This the way China’s dope addiction was stopped from taking the whole country down.

        • William Snapp

          Instead of cocain bullets will be the choice of smugglers.

      • Kyle Sager

        What a butterfinger analysis of Australia post-1996. The population of Australia grew 31% over 19 years. Gun homicides per 100,000 residents fell off substantially and a sharp turn occurred with Australia’s 1996 law.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-gun-ban-shooting.html

        • Aussie Pub` Brawler

          rubbish!
          the peer-reviewed studies of Saurdi-Lee (Univ of Melbourne) and McPhearden-Baker (British Journal of Criminology) clearly proved that Howard’s illegal and hoax-based gun grab had ZERO net effect on gun homicides…..a very narrow and disingenuous criteria any-way because every other sort of violent crime (particularly, armed, violent home invasions) has EXPLODED since abt 2002/2003;
          its exactly as Prfrssr John R Lott predicted…..less guns==more (violent) crime!

          • donitee

            > hoax

            TOP KEK

            You can link a conspiracy nut facebook page but can’t link the actual study that would back up you claim on violent crime. Funny

            It’s actually bullshit http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/robbery.html

            • Aussie Pub` Brawler

              uh…you know how to !Google!, right?
              forget abt gov(dot)au ‘s bodgie stats…
              peer-reviewed studies or STFU!

              • Aussie Pub` Brawler

                sheesh!
                i shouldn’t even have to….
                but…..

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia ;

                • donitee

                  >asks for peer reviewed studies
                  >links to wikipedia

                  Funny. And Wikipedia doesn’t even support your claim. 27% decrease in total homicides, 3.7-fold decrease in gun homicides. Nice try.

                  If you don’t trust government statistics why don’t you link an actual study then? The only thing you’ve produced so far is a conspiracy facebook page and a wikipedia link.

                  • Aussie Pub` Brawler

                    look it up, arse-hole!
                    the cites/rfrns are in the external links….
                    or…don’t you know how to use Wiki properly either, you fckn dead-shite, eh?

                    (here’s some-thing else for you to look up, you effin’ blonk….”Assistant Commissioner Ken Jones resigns from VicPol over inaccurate violent crime stats”…..how long you been on the inter-webs, you shill, eh?)

                  • Aussie Pub` Brawler

                    read *the entire article*;
                    read the cites;
                    check the ext. rfrncs

                    you gun-grabbing fckn DEAD-shite!

        • Henry Simpson

          Gun deaths in Australia pre buyback were 1.8 per 100,000, Just after the ban it jumped, as expected, and then trended down to near 1.2 per 100,000 but in the last year it has shown a significant increase That takes into consideration any increase of population. as it is statistics per 100,000. Australia has a population of under 25 million so any gun deaths will affect the raw numbers greater than a population of 300 million. If you extrapolate the population in raw numbers Australia has a homicide rate about 1/3 of the US and that includes all causes.

      • George Plunkett III

        Mopst of his article can be summed up: Gun Control is only to protect the Regime !

        • Ernie

          That’s certainly true about the article, at least.

          Perhaps America has allowed its citizens to have firearms because it has the world’s largest and most technologically advanced military. A bunch of yahoos with assault rifles going up against a professional army with tanks with close air support enjoying total air superiority would be fun to watch from Canada. Too bad for the idiots who think they can magically protect their god-given freedoms with small arms though.

          • Justin

            You do understand that a fair portion, if not the majority of the military would support the coup if there was to be one right? Silly Canadians with their constant pretentious judgment.. You’re like the USA’s hat ! Just sit there and look pretty will ya !

            • SaraB

              Yes Justin, you’re exactly right. I said the same thing.

            • Rod

              While this is not to bash on our soldiers, I think it is foolish to believe that the military would not follow orders. Milgram’s experiment (and many others) show that people can be commanded to do terrible things by those in authority.

              • SaraB

                I truly believe, based on conversations with my enlisted family and friends, that this situation would be different.
                Same goes for the conversations I’ve had with the sheriff and local law enforcement.
                I’m aware of the experiments you’re referencing and agree with you in regards to good people doing bad things.
                Amazing how people will follow the leader.

                • Rod

                  I have had the same conversations with the same things said to me. All I am saying is unfortunately there is a lot of evidence showing that people can be coerced to do things by those in authority that they would normally find morally reprehensible in their day to day life. If you are not familiar with the Milgram experiment it is quite fascinating and has been replicated repeatedly with similar results. http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

                  I hope we never have to find out what would really happen.

              • Mitch Berg

                And as long as the American people have the means to resist (covertly, not in open set-piece battle), it’ll never be an issue. The military will not mix it up with a heavily-armed populace. The disarmed coasts, maybe; the rest of the country, no.

          • SaraB

            The US military (men and women) would never follow orders to disarm law abiding citizens. You really think these kids are going to take their grandpa’s guns?

            • Rod

              Milgram’s experiment (and many subsequent experiments) have shown that even the best people can be commanded to do terrible things, so don’t count on the military not following orders during a civil uprising.

          • Yeah, ‘cuz the Iraq insurgency was a total pushover, and everybody knows the Taliban was totally destroyed just in time for Christmas in 2001…

            • Ernie

              Let’s just say that the number of conflicts (or even individual battles) won in the past 100 years *without* total air supremacy is far outnumbered by those with it.

              The trouble with delusions like yours is what happens when they eventually have to come to terms with reality. If you want to believe in alien conspiracies and magic crystals, thats one thing. But this kind of thing only ends in a boatload of people getting killed very stupidly.

              • And yet, we still almost lost Iraq, and we are in the process of losing Afghanistan, all because of a bunch of yahoos with assault rifles. And let’s not forget about Vietnam, or how the French got kicked out of Algeria…

      • JoeCurious

        Not all gun violence is equal though. Here in the US we have gang problems in our inner cities which have the MOST strict gun control (see NYC, Chicago and DC). Would be nice to see the stats once gang related homicides were factored out.

      • thejumpingsheep

        I suggest you check your numbers again. You are off by a huge margin. Homicides by guns in Ausie dropped form around 0.8-2 (depending on how far you go back) to the current 0.11. Yes, that is not a typo, 0.11 per 100k compared to about 3.5 here in the USA and yes, they have more muslims than we do by %.

        • George Plunkett III

          Only 20% of the firearms were removed from the citizens there. Not complete confiscation which is what the Communist Left here would do !

          • W Wilson

            You said communist left, how very 1940’s of you.

            • irememberallthelies

              The communist party usa website is clearly a modern thing and they side with the democratic party too. Look it up.

        • gitoffame

          So… Do you realize you just re-stated the author’s point? GUN homicides went down, but HOMICIDES, in general, did not. Unless bullets follow you into the afterlife and kill you again, those people wind up just as dead, regardless of the thing with which they were killed.

        • Mitch Berg

          What Gitofame said. Same pattern happened in the UK after they banned most civilian guns: *gun* homicides dropped from low to a little lower – but non-gun murders rose, and violent crime in general (robbery, assault, rape, kidnapping) skyrocketed. “Hot Burglaries” – breakins when someone is home – rose to 50%; in the US, the rate is 12%.

          Why do you suppose that is?

      • Pingback: American Gun Laws | Nalates' Things & StuffNalates' Things & Stuff()

      • Scooter Tramp

        FACT : Criminals do NOT give a damn about gun laws. The only thing gun laws do is make law abiding citizens vulnerable. PERIOD.

        • Aussie Pub` Brawler

          the horrendous record of brutal murder inflicted on un-armed and defenceless citizens by psychopathic governments in the twentieth century (over 150million!) is the only argument you need to totally STOMP on gun control……for-ever!

          • Yes, because you can stop a government with a few rounds of ammunition and a couple of guns.

            • Aussie Pub` Brawler

              sure you can….if most people have guns;
              you use small arms to acquire bigger arms….either by raiding armories or interdicting supply columns….
              you following me?

              • No, because by the time you even think about doing that, it means that this country is done. You have a country with an arsenal large enough to actually destroy the entire planet. The idea that some psychopath will get in power and you’ll be able to stop him is laughable.

                If the USA wanted to kill you, you’d already be dead.

                • Aussie Pub` Brawler

                  really?
                  a bunch of camel-jockeys using 70-yr old rifles, 40-yr old “rocket launchers” and home-made bombs set off by oven timers, garage door openers and mobile ‘phones didn’t seem to do too bad of a job, eh?!?

                  • If the USA wanted to destroy the world, it would be able to do it, no riffle or army on this planet could stop it. It would be the end, period.

                    The only reason you are alive, is because the super powers on this planet allow you to.

                    • Aussie Pub` Brawler

                      thirty-odd yrs ago, i would’v agreed with you;
                      now, how-ever, the US mil’ is top-heavy with homos, wimmin and v low IQ non-whites and sycophantic jews;
                      the higher IQ, European-type alpha males have been ‘weeded out’ except for the v small “niche units” like Special Forces;
                      unfortunately, the type of ‘human’ material that the US mil’ now seems to favour is pretty much useless in high-tech’ combat…..
                      that’s why wimmin pilots frequently crash $multi-million$ carrier-launched jet fighters into the drink…..
                      didn’t know abt that?
                      i’m not surprised!…..
                      the Pentagon is keeping a tight a lid on it as they can…..
                      apropos the abv…..
                      its also why the US suffered catastrophic fatalities in Iraq and the ‘Stan…..(tens of thousands)
                      US mil’ was bad enough before they went all politically correct….
                      the Krauts, for instance, v nearly handed them their arses on several different occasions back in W-2 despite being outnumbered 10-to-1 in man-power and 20-to-1 in màterial;
                      although, to be fair, that was, in large part, due to the v poor leader-ship quality of their senior NCOs and mid-level officer ranks;
                      now….they’re just a joke…..
                      the only ‘advantage’ the US has is its hi-tech surveillance…
                      drones/sats &c……
                      if you neutralise that, they’re buggered!
                      and….the Russians already have an electronic warfare system that can do it….. khibiny

                    • Penghulu Manuk Manchal

                      Tell that to the Vietnamese…

                      • Tell that to the Japanese. Noticed that I said, “If the wanted to”. If they wanted to kill Vietnam, they’d boom it and be done with it. Now we have drones, and soon we’ll have robots, and more and more and more weapons that some silly riffle would never be able to stop.

                        Our founding fathers, had no idea about any of this when they wrote the amendment.

                        • Penghulu Manuk Manchal

                          Don’t get me laugh. Guerrilla warfare are the Achilles Heel for US military.

                        • Yeah, that’s why I said BOMB. If the US wanted to kill every women, men and child in the US, which is a horrific thought, they could do it in an instant.

                          The military can do ANYTHING they want.

                        • Penghulu Manuk Manchal

                          You’re wrong. US military have a right to disobey unethical order. Seconds after that order were given, US military will invoke 25th Amendment.

                        • Then what do you need the guns for?

                        • Penghulu Manuk Manchal

                          As a backup if things get south.

                        • Penghulu Manuk Manchal

                          Backup.

                        • Penghulu Manuk Manchal

                          Ever heard about Guerrilla warfare? That was US Military Achilles Heel.

                        • Who says they would even bother with that? What is to stop the military to go into their nuclear bunkers, and drop nukes in every single city in the USA?

                          NOTHING. if they wanted to, they put a million people into these nuclear bunkers and YOU would have NOTHING to say, you’d be GONE.

                        • Penghulu Manuk Manchal

                          And you assume those guerrillas stays at the cities, waiting to be slaughtered? One of the rule of guerrilla warfare was to disperse to the countryside. Avoid urban centers if possible, only use it to gather supplies and intelligence.

                          One more thing, when your nuclear force had to rely on 1970’s hardware and still using floppy disk that are bigger than CD case, you have a problem.

                        • Are you saying we don’t have the capability to completely destroy this planet?

                          Again, all they have to do is cut all food supplies, and the US population would be down to a few million in a couple of months. They don’t even have to deploy a single weapon.

                        • Penghulu Manuk Manchal

                          Wrong. You are severely underestimating what human ingenuity can do. There are other source of food that unused. Human wont die left and right just when the food supplies are cut. There is the other way to get food.

                        • Penghulu Manuk Manchal

                          You are severely underestimating human ingenuity to find food.

                        • Penghulu Manuk Manchal

                          Humans don’t all lives in the cities. Put a million in the bunkers? Assuming they don’t all revolt, glassing the whole earth is the opposite that they should do. Where do you want to put them when you glassed all the places?

                        • Penghulu Manuk Manchal

                          Assuming the people in the bunker are not partisan in disguise…

            • Mitch Berg

              That rifle and few rounds of ammunition deter the goverment from *trying* in the first place.

              • So if you were robbing a bank, and you had 5 other guys with you with fully automatic weapons, you could rob the bank? Or would a bunch of cops and swat teams show up and destroy you?

                If the US government wanted you, you’d be dead, no matter how many weapons you had.

                • Mitch Berg

                  That’s fascinating – and irrelevant.

                  The fact that the people ARE armed is what makes the likelihood of a military coup so low.
                  (And let’s try to be rational, here; if someone DID want to fight the government, they wouldn’t fight them on the battlefield. That’d be stupid. They wouldn’t shoot at the tank of the attack helicopter; they’d shoot at the truck that brought the fuel and ammo to the tank and chopper. They’d shoot at the warehouse worker who loaded the truck).

                  But the whole tangent is an inane irrelevant fantasy.

                  • Exactly, it is a fantasy, because guns for the sake of feeling safe against a government like the USA, in this day and age, is preposterous.

                    And no you wouldn’t have a chance to shoot at a fuel tank, they would boom or use chemical war fare.

                    If they wanted us dead, we would be dead.

                    • Mitch Berg

                      Oh, snap! I see what you did there! You turned and applied my answer to something I didn’t actually say!

                      Most of us stopped – or were urged to stop – that kind of “debate” “style” in junior high. But good on ya for keeping a little bit of your youth alive!

                      The military is the least of this nation’s problems.

          • irememberallthelies

            They will claim its a myth but say the Holocaust was real of course.

            • seven seven

              Americans have killed about 55 million of their own children for their greed, ambitions, lusts, and pride. Moreover
              your people have funded via UN contributions to WHO, UNICEF, International Plannedhood, etc about 180 million more global abortion murders, moreover, your people have trampled the world murdering and perverting the whole world. Americans are the most evil people to live anywhere on earth since the Aztecs. Via partial birth abortion, you use surgical high powered vacuums to evacuate your childrens braains from their heads. YOU ACTUALLY BEHEAD YOUR OWN CHILDREN FOR YOUR GREED!

              • irememberallthelies

                I’m sorry, I personally don’t perform abortions and don’t believe in them. Too many americans dont believe the rich at the top will do anything for profits. Many are waking up to this and it’s about time. Most americans are on a kill list and we don’t support anything you mentioned. Notice the communist tactics used currently in washington.

        • bondjam2

          So why are people in every other developed country safer than they are in the USA?

          • Scooter Tramp

            Really? Explain this? Switzerland is Europe’s gun capital. It has more
            firepower per person than any other country in the world yet it is said to be one
            of the safest places on Earth. … http://rense.com/general14/safestplace.htm …… The dubious distinction of having the most gun violence goes to
            Honduras, at 68.43 homicides by firearm per 100,000 people, even though
            it only has 6.2 firearms per 100 people. Other parts of South America
            and South Africa also rank highly, while the United States is somewhere
            near the mid-range.

      • W Wilson

        Start writing to your pro gun congress members to fund education and anti poverty measures.

        • David Pawson

          You mean implement a War on Poverty, or a Great Society plan? Start some kind of social welfare program to redistribute money to those who cannot or will not work? Sounds like you may have a unique idea there!

          • Kalsu

            Maybe if the government does what Keely Mullen suggested, take everything from the top 1% and redistribute it. Really won’t do much but in her words “it’s a start”

            • seedykay

              That isn’t right. If I work hard for my money I’m the only one who is entitled to it. We are NOT a communist or socialist country. If that’s what you want then go to Russia, China, North Korea, or North Vietnam. Don’t need the government in charge of my money. It’ll just cause the top 1% to move their money out of the US again. Then you end up with more poor people.

              • tawster

                Technically, we are a socialist democratic country. Your examples (Russia, China, North Korea and North Vietnam) are not examples of socialistic democractic countries. You are confusing things. This actually points out an issue in the USA today: Lack of education.

                But that is beside the point.

                Most of our welfare programs actually redistribute to the wealthy. Not to the poor. There are tons of ways to address wealth disparity in the USA. A safety net for the poor is merely one tool.

                • scottcrow

                  No, technically we are a Constitutional Republic. Welfare redistributes to the wealthy? Oh good lord.. food stamps have gone up from 15 million recipients to almost 50 million just since the Chosen One was anointed as King.

                  • Drake

                    Constitutional Republic LMFAO! That’s what we were founded as, now we are an Oligarchy. You go on and on about social welfare… What about double that amount going to corporations aka corporate welfare? I’m confused, you’re pissed about people getting help while we know some abuse it. All while corporations continue to pay min wage while their workers get welfare while we pay them corporate welfare on top…… The middle class is dying. Poverty and lack of education is on the norm a perpetual cycle.

                    • SaraB

                      Years ago the “middle class” families had one TV, a station wagon, maybe took a vacation and a house phone.
                      Now… The “middle class” people like me, all have numerous TV’s, nicer than we need vehicles, how many TV’s? Smart phones, lapbtops, credit card debt, etc..
                      Maybe the “middle class” is partly to blame?
                      35% of adults are fat, way too many smoke and diabetes is an epidemic.
                      We need to start looking at ourselves and doing our part to change.
                      My parents both worked 2 jobs to make ends meet. Read the papers, there’s tons of jobs. Maybe jobs that one might consider beneath them, but a job nevertheless.

                      • tawster

                        Those TVs, Smart Phones, Laptops — all add up to the cost of that *one TV* from years ago. So much cheaper now. As for the rest though, you are right. We are debt driven society. Debt used to be limited to homes, businesses, and … that was about it. That has changed dramatically.

                        I paid for every dime of my education for example. You can still do that relatively easily, but at some point it became “okay” and “easy” to acquire debt to pay for things.

                        So, there is some truth to that. But that doesn’t mean it is still okay for another party to exploit human weakness. Both need to be addressed.

                        • SaraB

                          I can assure u that 2 MacBooks, a family with 5 iphones, etc…. Is more costly than a TV was 20 -25 years ago. People comcomplaining, but have $450/month cell phone bills.
                          I agree with you… I’m considered middle class and have never received a dime towards higher education. Paid for my son’s college by staying home, going without “wants” and having him work full-time as a full-time student.
                          Not too many of us out there are willing to do this.

                        • LostInUnderland

                          With two degrees, I make around $40k/year. In state public college this year costs about $9k/semester… $18k/year. How do you think a person without a college degree can earn $18k/year above living expenses? And that 18k/year does not include housing.

                        • tawster

                          I did. Worked 3 different jobs most of the time. None of them flipping burgers. And if I was short, I skipped a semester or didn’t go full time and took 1 class or some such. I also did two years at a community college. Took longer, but zero debt.

                          Also, never ever had a car loan and didn’t have a credit card which helps tremendously.

                          It took a bit longer, but geez… I never had debt until a mortgage. Paid off one house in 7 years, got a nicer house. Will have that paid off in about 5 to 7 more. Well on my way with retirement investing now, etc.

                          It’s a mode of living that a lot of folks don’t even think is a possibility. Granted, I had no kids or other complicating obligations, which helps, but even if in harder circumstances, *most* people can do this if they set their minds to it.

                      • irememberallthelies

                        My CAR Is A 99 civic, I Have 1 TV And 0 debt. I also have money in the bank. Screw the debt/consume model.

                        • SaraB

                          Sweet!

                  • SaraB

                    Yup.

                  • tawster

                    “Constitutional Republic” describes how we are governed and says nothing about economic structures.

                    We are a lightly socialistic country and have been for many many years.

                    Chosen One: I don’t know what Jesus has to do with this, but yes, he would certainly be a fan of food stamps. 🙂

                    Seriously though. SNAP increased from 2009 on via legislature that was written before Obama entered office. It was a response to the economy downturn.

                  • SaraB

                    Exactly.

                • SaraB

                  Provide everyone the same education and give them the same amount of money. The same house, cars, health status etc…
                  Everyone starts on a level playing field. Do you honestly think it would stay that way? No.
                  Single “poor” moms get free daycare, free college, SNAPS, Medicaid, etc… We have safety nets. Why aren’t accountability and personal responsibility ever brought up?
                  I know a lot of “poor” people faking disability to get SSDI, having kids on Medicaid, eating very well on SNAPS, staying quite warm with fuel assistance, going to school for free with grants, etc…

                  • tawster

                    Read the comments on this board. We obviously don’t provide equitable education. No one is rallying for communism, silly. A very basic baseline though has proven to be hugely beneficial for many countries: Education, Healthcare, and economic safety net.

                    I know a lot of poor people. And they live crap lives. Our safety net is hardly one at all. Remove education and healthcare as barriers though and a tremendous quantity of people become less burdensome.

                    An aside: Also end the welfare programs for the wealthy. That’s would go a long way towards moving towards a more equitable world.

                    • SaraB

                      I’m a healthcare provider….trust me, poor people receive healthcare, free of charge!!!
                      They don’t even see the bills.

                    • irememberallthelies

                      Our govt took as a it over in the 70s and ruined education. We were warned by ex doe reps and heads who warned us this would dumb us down and it clearly has. Look at these rioting college kids using 0 critical thinking skills. They dont realize everything they are doing is communist strategy sadly that liberal professors have endorsed for a long time. Be conservative and go to college, I did. Its an indoctrination center that hated real thought and did most on “feelings” and salesperson I was taught you can sell anything to anybody no matter how bad a decision it may be.

                      • tawster

                        Education: Our system is not the greatest simply because voters, not The Government, simply do not allow it to be funded appropriately. Before public education, the US education system was in a miserable state. Vast swathes of the nation had ZERO education before the public education system. Don’t like the public education system? You don’t have to send your kids to it… send them to a private institution — there you go, just like the old days, except that now kids that had no chance to go to school… now can.

                        Communist strategy: Um, no. Across the board, our political system is highly resistant to communist influence. That being said, there are communists amongst us, and that is fine. It’s another voice in the room. We need folks with ideas from all corners.

                        College: Expands your mind. I went to three different schools. There were folks from all walks of life and zero “indoctrination”. I think you have some preconcieved notion going on there or simply were utterly shocked by open minded people. Conservationism relies on disallowing the introduction new ideas or conflicting thought… This is in direct conflict with the purpose of an educational system at any level. A high quality educational system will challenge anyone to question and be skeptical. I can see how a conservative would not respond well to that. Sorry, but welcome to the world of reason and skepticism. It’s not a “communist indoctrination plot”. Not even close. 😉

                • Mitch Berg

                  In re any argument that starts with the word “Technically”:

                  https://xkcd.com/1475/

                  • tawster

                    Ha! Indeed. 🙂

            • David Pawson

              Welcome to the top 1%, Kalsu! We want whatever you have. EVERYTHING. Well, you will be the top 1% after the first three or four rounds, anyway. Kleptocracy is such fun.

            • Feedback71

              What an incredibly retarded idea. Our constitution guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

          • W Wilson

            I mean what I said. The author says that violent crime and poverty are correlated and poverty is linked to education. According to him Clearly to stop gun violence we need to end poverty.

            • SaraB

              There will always be poor people. There will always be people behind the 8 ball.
              Not all people have the same ideas and standards.
              Many of the gunman in recent years mass shootings came from middle-class families… Not poor by any means. However, what did they have in common? Mental illness.
              We need to reopen the mental health facilities, which will in turn decrease prison population and crime.

            • Aussie Pub` Brawler

              The author says that violent crime and poverty are correlated

              rubbish!
              $gazillions$ have been lavished on blacks in the US over several decades, yet, they still fill up the US gaol system to over-flowing;
              the problem is with the blacks them-selfs….its genetic!
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzqbsAAa-k0 ;

              • Aussie Pub` Brawler
              • Feedback71

                Bullshit! It’s cultural. There is nothing inferior about genetics of black people.

                • Aussie Pub` Brawler

                  BULL-shite yr-self!
                  geneticists say OTW!
                  “Bell Curve”/”Race, Evolution and Behaviour” (J P Rushton) etc…..

                • Mitch Berg

                  “There is nothing inferior about genetics of black people”

                  Not to feed the troll, but…as PJ O’Rourke said, “it’s not as if you took Thurgood Marshall’s income away, you’d find him selling crack at Union Station”.

                  Black communities that have managed to maintain their family cohesion and avoid the penetration of the violence-happy “urban” culture have crime rates comparable with everyone else; low.

                  By the way – while “non-violent resistence” got all the headlines, the Civil Rights movement would have been drowned in the crib without lots of armed black people, who did the heavy lifting of the movement outside the major cities and their media spotlight.

                  Recommended read: “That Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed”, a history by someone who was there:

                  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IHGVQNY/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

                • Aussie Pub` Brawler

                  geneticists say OTW, i’m afraid!

          • tawster

            We already redistribute wealth. Sadly, it redistributes to the wealthy.

            But yes, violence in society centers on problems in wealth disparity. And in the USA we have a tremendous wealth disparity. That is the real problem.

        • W Wilson

          Look, If the pro gun lobby in congress started working on the issues that, they say are the cause of mass shootings and inner city violence, something might get done. Instead we have hand wringing and empty platitudes from the right. I am not anti-gun, I am fine with people owning guns but in our culture where there is little social cohesion you can’t assume that the guy with an arsenal at his house is not going to use it on people he has philosophical differences with. If taking guns away won’t put an end to the epidemic of mass shootings what will? I am all ears.

          • SaraB

            Not all conservatives are walking around packing pistols and not all liberals are against the 2nd amendment. Some of the most generous people I know are conservative, whilst some of the most intolerant are liberals. Why do people assume conservatives aren’t funding or promoting campaigns to address poverty and inequality.
            The breakdown of the nuclear family and poor parenting is a huge problem. Not to mention the fact that mentally ill people are freely roaming the streets. Whereas, 25 years ago, before the mental health facilities, many of these people were institutionalized.

            • W Wilson

              I am mostly aiming my ire at congress. I know a lot of very generous people in both camps.

              • SaraB

                I agree.

          • Aussie Pub` Brawler

            If taking guns away won’t put an end to the epidemic of mass shootings what will?
            almost all “mass shootings” are fake!

            gun violence, how-ever, can be reduced by racial segregation….viz: apartheid;
            most violence in the US is ‘down’ to young, black males; viz: gang-bangers….

          • Mitch Berg

            “If the pro gun lobby in congress started working on the issues that, they say are the cause of mass shootings and inner city violence, something might get done”

            They did. They pushed sentencing enhancements at the federal, state and local levels that added significant hard time for using guns in crimes.

            Where the upcharge was applied, gun crime dropped.

            Most cities, of course – being Democrat sinecures – pled the upcharges away wholesale. Why? *They didn’t want to give the right and their boogeyman the NRA a victory*.

            So how about we let the anti-gun lobby be accountable for a while, shall we?

            • W Wilson

              In the above article the author states that poverty and education are correlated with the murder rate. The NRA’s response to several of the past mass shootings has been to site the lack of adequate support for mental illness. These are the issues that I am referring to not actual gun control.

      • Yokohl Yokel

        Very good points, but it is pretty absurd to think having an armed citizenry is going to stop a government army with ICBMs, tanks and drones..

        • Belasarius

          You need an extremely large Army many millions more than we have now. You have to be willing to be completely ruthless. You need for your Army to stay on your side. So, no. It’s not absurd at all.

        • Philip Attisano

          I agree. It is very possible that a population could overthrow their government. If a government truly is a terrible regime it ends up with an army that loses the will to fight for it. If there was a major uprising against a government who truly is bad, how many soldiers are willing to bomb their own neighborhoods to support a bad dictator. Add to that, we see now that a small group of citizen militias will then start to get support from outside sources. The USA has helped several miltias in their attempts to overthrow their own governments. Imagine Russia and China lending a helping hand to american militas in another civil war.

        • Jonathan Allen

          Outnumbered, under-armed bands of insurgents and rebels have done a pretty good job in recent years of causing a great deal of pain and setback for much larger conventional armies, actually. Turns out winning a war involves a lot more than simply having technologically advanced firepower…

          • z kulinski

            See the history of the war in Vietnam Nam, our government allowed us to be defeated by a near stone age society.

            • Gene Warren

              The Vietnamese that were killing our soldiers (and the French before us) were far, far more advanced than a “stone age society”

              • z kulinski

                Ahhh, not so, if they were not armed by the chineese, supplimented by the chineese and russians, they were actually a stone age society. When we went into the areas were China and Russia had no influence. They used stone arrow points and hand made crossbows, they cooked in stone vessels over open fires. Stone age by definition.

                • Gene Warren

                  You can’t judge an entire nation by its hillbillies. Pick up a history book – the Vietnamese had advanced bronze (tools, weapons and art) 3000 years ago. Plus there really weren’t *any* sections of Vietnam untouched by the Chinese – they conquered and ruled Vietnam with no more than short interruptions since the Han dynasty ~ 2000 years ago up through to the French takeover at the end of the 19th century.

        • David Pawson

          As I told a friend who asked if I “need” a bazooka … No, I currently have no need (or desire) to possess a bazooka. HOWEVER, come the day I do, I will remove it from the body of the anti-freedom soldier I just shot with my rifle or handgun.

        • tawster

          An armed guerilla population can mount an effective campaign against a state army. There are many examples of this.

          Also. The alternative is grim: A citizenry that has zero defense.

          In the USA we have more guns in circulation than people. On paper that means every single man, woman and child (in theory) could be armed. A state-run tyrannical regime doesn’t stand a change.

        • SaraB

          Do you think the military personnel is going to disarm their family’s, friends and neighbors. C’mon most of the young people serving would laugh.

        • Peter Quinn

          There are roughly 4 million active duty members of the US military. The military’s own studies show that about 10% of those military personal – some 400,000 – would fire on the American public if ordered to do so by a superior officer. There are 85 million registered gun owners in the US, with at least that many gun owners which are unregistered, and between them own some 300 million guns.Add those numbers to the majority of the active military members who would side with the public.
          So, does the name Custer ring a bell…?

        • Mitch Berg

          It’s an utterly academic question, and a fairly absurd tangent.

          But if it hypothetically came down to that, the armed citizenry wouldn’t attack the ICBMs, the tanks and the drones. They’d attack the truck bringing fuel to the tank. They’d attack the warehouse where the drones spare parts were stored. They’d attack the ICBM crews when they were off duty.

          “The people are the sea that the (rebel) swims in” – Mao Zedong.

          But again, it’s academic.

      • Al Willig

        “Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked. In short, we don’t have a gun problem in the United States, we have a cultural problem”.

        Poverty rates are virtually equal between the US and the UK, and yet homicide rates are 4 times higher in the US. You’re going to have to go deeper than that in defining our cultural problem.

      • Pingback: San Bernardino Shooting - Close to Home! - Page 7()

      • Dannielle Wood Hixson

        I don’t know where Mr. King is getting his idea that pro-gun folks ever use stats saying that banning guns causes murder rates to rise as their argument against gun control. The point we always use against gun control is exactly what he concluded: the only reason governments want to control firearms is to make it harder for it’s population to overthrow said government.

        • ShadowSandy

          People do get diverted in arguments by this thought though. I used this article just today to explain to someone its a ‘violence’ problem not an object problem. Gun control people love to cherry pick data and then divert the issue to a strawman. You and I are unlikely to fall for it, but others do, frequently. I thank this person for providing the article.

        • Belasarius

          I don’t know if you need to go as far as “overthrowing the government.” An armed citizenry can prevent the government from imposing its will. What has been the result of gun/magazine bans in NY, CO, and CA? There has been very little compliance. Those guns and magazines are still out there.

      • jon doe

        Excellent reporting.

        We need more news like this in America where facts aren’t skewed to fit an agenda.

        • RDPS

          This isn’t news, it’s an editorial, opinion piece.

          • disqus_AVDYxhWaoU

            That’s pretty much the news today lol Except their opinions are bought.

      • Person

        That has to be the most neutral article I’ve read in I don’t know HOW long. Very intriguing and sensible.

        • bondjam2

          Neutral? It is written from one viewpoint only and is hopelessly biased.Uses selective and distorted numbers to make its one sided argument and comes to conclusions which it had decided upon before a single word was written. Your confirmation bias is blinding you to reality.

      • Pingback: What the left really means when they say they want “reasonable” or “common sense” gun control… | Batshit Crazy News()

      • Pingback: More gun control isn’t a solution. | leigha lovely()

      • Nicusor Chirca

        Very well put and written.

      • Ben

        He forgot to include that all other crime in those nations went up, rapes, thefts and assaults, so yes it does nothing to murders.

        • Belasarius

          That’s the major problem with the article. Its not just about murders. Its about every other kind of crime, carjackings, home invasions and burglaries, etc. I lived in Naples, Italy. Many of the ordinary houses I saw were like fortresses. They all had walls with broken glass on top, steel doors with heavy locking bars in steel frames. Thieves over there go after houses with wreckers and pull the doors out of the frames. I tend to think people defending their homes with firearms would reduce the need for physical security measures that double the cost of house.

          • Gene Warren

            True, but Italy has also long had pervasive issues with corrupt, ineffectual law enforcement that far exceed anything we have here.

            • disqus_AVDYxhWaoU

              So you are suggesting the US is to large to fail?

        • bondjam2

          Sources for these outragious claims?

          • Ben

            The government websites of course!

      • Pingback: Domestic terrorism - Page 5 - Warpath()

      • Rob Richardson

        brb, looking up “homemade AR15” on youtube. Thanks for the tip.

      • peter knight

        Good article, however if gun control didn’t work, Wyatt Earp and other sheriff’s would not tell all riding into town to check their guns in at the sheriff’s office until they left..there was a reason the called it the old wild west..
        Clearly at some point in our past the law of the land saw fit to temporarily restrict gun carrying while within town limits..

        • Thomas Frey

          Your suggestion that Wyatt Earp and other sheriff’s did what they did to protect other cowboys and girls is amusing. It was to protect themselves in that they would have an advantage to force others to comply with their demands. Crazy cowboys still had plenty of weapons like knives and clubs to kill each other in their drunken state. Besides if that gun control really worked, the gun fight at the OK corral would never have happened. Maybe our founding fathers were really drunk rowdy cowboys?

        • jon doe

          Our culture has way more to do with our propensity for violence than guns. This is why we cannot compare ourselves to other nations when it comes to gun violence and control.

          The second amendment is here to stay. This article exemplifies, in a non partisan way, why reactionaries on both sides are wrong.

          And even if we did create more laws to restrict firearms, what happens when another shooting happens? More cries for gun control. It’s a never ending cycle so Americans need to stand up and resist.

          And most, if not all of the laws that people want to enact are already on the books, they’re just not being enforced…kind of like illegal immigration

        • Mark Close

          And when an outlaw was released from the pokey, the first two items that were returned to him?

          His horse and .. his gun!

          Sounds like a plan. 8)

      • No Hyphen American

        Stop it, you’re not going to get our guns.

      • Responsible carrier

        To answer your question teejay, I’m smoking a big pipe of reality.

      • R Smith

        The Anti-2As’ creations, the gun-free zones & gun free citizen cities, have by being brought into existence, increased the incidence of murder and mass murder by firearms, within these zones and cities. While the rest of the country, as a whole, has seen a decrease of violent crime, if I understand the stats correctly. The continuation of these gun-free zones, and gun-free citizen cities, do two things. They increase the likelihood of people being murdered by firearms, within these areas, and they provide real life sources of carnage, for their creators to use as instruments of terror, to terrorize voters, in the hope of gaining voter support, for their unrelenting crusade against the 2A and our constitution. The Anti-2As have unceasingly ignored the stats, and sound discussions, in opposition to these Anti-2A laws, while citizens continue to be murdered at a higher rate, within these areas, than the rest of the country. What does this suggest to you all, about those who lead the Anti-2A efforts?

        • skeptical123

          So for the hundreds of mass shootings this year, how many private citizens took out the crazed gunmen? what’s that statistic?

          • Danny

            Well could be because almost all happened in a gun free zone. Mr 123. No one but the murderers had guns.

          • Danny

            Not that if would matter to you but that us the way hiylers,nazi Germany started they took sll the people’s gun. And the sheep went along with. We have a government in america that is raping our country . Our forefathers knew this could happen and put the 2nd amendment in our constitution for that purpose.

            • Gene Warren

              The Nazis actually loosened the previous gun laws, unless you were a Jew (or Communist etc).

          • skeptical123

            There’s been 355 mass shootings (scenarios with 4 plus people hit) in the US this year and in all of those cases, they were all in gun free zones. I saw a guy who carried a pistol on him legally in Oregon at the Junior college, former military and he said, he didn’t want to get shot by the cops, so he was willing to defend himself, but not others. Maybe we ought to arm everyone when they get their social security numbers, more guns will solve the problem, I’m sure that’s the proper solution

            • Kalsu

              Using long weekends in Chicago to pump those numbers does nothing but create a false narrative. The source of the stats is an unofficial, crowd-sourced compilation of
              news articles of shootings by members of the anti-gun Reddit sub-forum
              GunsAreCool which is also mirrored on the Mass Shooting Tracker website.

              • skeptical123

                Are you saying that if you went to those cited incidents and asked to see the police reports, that would be inaccurate data? how do you define 355 incidents where 4 or more people got shot? 355 shootings?

                • Kalsu

                  Does that include kids playing paintball and shooting each other? Because that stat site sure did.

          • jon doe

            A better question how many of these new laws would’ve stopped these mass shootings?

            And how many shootings happened in gun free zones?

            Hint to question 1: less than how many were killed by law abiding gun owners like the one in Texas.

            Stop being a partisan hack. Even when faced with nonpartisan statistics you just can’t help yourself, proving the author’s assertions that you gun control nuts know nothing about firearms. Zip guns and bullets can be made by an idiot w access to YouTube. It’s the culture, not the guns

            If you want a gun free society move. Our constitution states we have a right to protect ourselves, we are afforded these rights until the point where it’s proven we cannot handle them and that’s handled on a per person basis. That’s called living in a free society

            • skeptical123

              Can you point me to where I said anything about passing gun legislation? As a former gun owner, I could care less whether your rights are regulated or not. Doesn’t affect me, your the ones that are so damn worried. Maybe you gun owners oughta figured out how to make mass shootings not the norm and stand up for those who own them and don’t cause trouble and find a solution to the high gun killings that your culture’s responsible for. It’s your rights that are at risk, not mine, I’m not worried as much as you and the wack jobs at the NRA are.

          • Belasarius

            There weren’t hundreds of mass shootings this year. How many of them took place in areas where personal carry was allowed? Ans: Almost none…all gun free zones except for the ones used by the murderers.

          • disqus_AVDYxhWaoU

            hundreds this year?

          • R Smith

            Hundreds? Almost all mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones, I believe there may be 1 exception or few at the most.

            • LostInUnderland

              yes… hundreds.

              • R Smith

                Here’s some interesting info that national media mostly ignores. http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/the-armed-citizen/

                • LostInUnderland

                  I am unsure what information you were trying to share. That is a site with a compilation of many articles.

                  • R Smith

                    Armed Citizen

                  • R Smith

                    Exactly!

                  • R Smith

                    Exactly.

          • R Smith

            http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/the-armed-citizen/ This is a good place to view articles about bad guys being foiled by armed citizens.

          • R Smith

            How many private citizens are allowed to carry a firearm in the gun free zones and cities, where most of these mass murders have happened?

      • Mike Breen

        The UK firearms reform act changed nothing. It could not be responsible for any increase in crime, any decrease. Banning one type of gun from licenced gun club members forming 0.1 percent of the population who would have gone to jail for as much as threatening a person with that gun, changed nothing for criminals.
        Those who go to great efforts to find things to blame on the UK handgun will be making fools of themselves until they understand what the situation was prior to the ban, who the ban effected and what difference it made to criminals. Once they understand that, they will stop blaming the ban for anything at all.

        • $2264802

          This article is too old, and I revived it. D’oh!

          • R Smith

            Yep!

        • Responsible carrier

          I didn’t see anybody blaming this ban, just pointing out that it accomplished nothing. Why alienate the populous from the government for no effect? I’m not well versed in what’s going on over the pond there, what was the point then?

          • Mike Breen

            “”Why alienate the populous from the government for no effect?””

            What makes you think the government alienated the populace? They didn’t, far from it. NRA propaganda may suggest otherwise, but they are liars.
            1: Very few owned the banned guns, roughly 1/960 or 0.1 percent of the population.
            2: Nobody in the UK could legitimately use one for defence, much less carry one.
            3: When one of the 0.1 percent went on a rampage with a handgun killing 16 children and a teacher, a weapon with no legitimate use outside of a gun club, the public were not angered at a proposed ban, they were all for it.
            There are plenty of claims that the UK gun ban caused an increase in everything from murder, to violent crime to the increase in the price of bananas. It’s all a load of crap.
            A ban effecting one type of gun owned by 0.1 percent of the population who could not use those guns for defence changed nothing when it comes to crime. The 1997 firearms reform act changed nothing for criminals.

            • LostInUnderland

              From what I gather, the British just like living in a society where they do not have to bother about guns. No one has them and they are happy with that situation. My children may be safer playing on a playground surrounded by armed guards, but would they be happier? I think we are setting the bar for ourselves pretty low when we let fear decide our course.

              • Mike Breen

                “”From what I gather, the British just like living in a society where they do not have to bother about guns. No one has them and they are happy with that situation.””
                Bingo.;-)

      • Pingback: I-Search Rough Draft (VERY Rough Draft) | jpaulineenglish()

      • cowcharge

        AND “we have a generation of people that do not have the coping skills necessary to deal with reality”? AND? THAT’S THE WHOLE PROBLEM!

        • jon doe

          It’s a big part of it, yes. Our culture is the main reason why we’re violent.

      • Pingback: Planned Parenthood and Gun Control | New(s)()

      • Truth Slinger

        Tench Coxe,
        a delegate to the Continental Congress from Pennsylvania, who wrote in 1789,
        “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt
        to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to
        defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow
        citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and
        bear their private arms.”

      • Truth Slinger

        Let’s get something straight; the NRA doesn’t NOT and NEVER HAS stated the “gun ownership prevents murders”. This is ABJECT SPIN and willful deception to state such an open lie. The NRA openly states that gun ownership SAVES LIVES and keeps the GUN OWNER from being murdered not that it prevents any particular crime. Strange how liberals can’t connect the dots on a simple sentence when there are only TWO DOTS. The same applies to blaming “poverty” for crime. Poverty is an EXCUSE to commit crimes but is NOT and never has been the origin of gun crime. This article stinks because it is rotten to the core and it’s probably the author’s dead brain that smells.

        • jon doe

          Move to Europe if you don’t like the second amendment.

          Oh wait, even the EU allows gun ownership. It’s the culture, man. You partisan hacks are so brainwashed you deny what’s right in front of you. Politics have truly become poisonous in America

      • Pingback: Possible solutions are provided | The Insight Site()

      • Pingback: This Week’s LOWs (Liberal Outrages of the Week) | The Cactus Conservative()

      • DuckyRider

        What I, as a reformed liberal, cannot fathom in all of the anti-gun arguments is that the right to possess a firearm is burned into the constitution. Yes, guns can be dangerous. They can get into the wrong hands and be used to cause ill. But preventing them from being in the hands of a sane and healthy citizen is not within the purview of the government to prevent.

        There is no constitutional right to drive a motor vehicle. No one would dispute that motor vehicles annually create massive carnage. Even cell phones result in distracted and dangerous driving. No one is thinking about eliminating either one. We don’t even call out for the phone makers to install a defeat switch that prevents a phone from being used when driving.

        Maybe you get my point. Life is full of dangerous things. Very few are codified in the constitution; but the right to bear arms is. Thinking that guns should be banned is ludicrous. Frankly, it would be more in line with the law of this nation to prevent us from driving or owning cell phones than from purchasing and possessing guns.

        And the second or any amendment to the Constitution doesn’t say, if guns become implicated in societal ills, then all bets are off and the government can decide to make them inaccessible to citizens.

        • Truth Slinger

          You need to pay attention. Your socialist brainwashing is showing and it’s making you look silly. All you have to do is simply read what the framers of our nation wrote. It’s all spelled out in utter simplicity. Gun ownership WAS BURNED into the psyche of ALL of the early Americans because the KNEW that it was NECESSARY for 1) survival 2) self-protection (DUH) 3) a well-regulated militia (NOT A STANDING ARMY which they all feared and which they advised against). If you do your homework instead of just carrying your books to school, you’ll find that the matter is extremely simple and quite LOGICAL (a thing that liberals seem to have tossed into the ocean and forgot….the very reason they are called “the loony left” since they can’t connect the dots when there are only two of them).

          • Kathryn Hager

            Hey, Truth Slinger (not), since when have you been a member of a well-regulated militia? It’s an AMENDMENT. We have changed our constitution before, as we evolved as a society (slavery) and we can always do it again. The 2ND Amendment is not religious doctrine, although folks of the insane Right believe it is. We need to find realistic new ground on this issue. We are currently in free-fall with gun violence in this country and we have no need to further support the NRA and gun lobby at the expense of more lives. Shake yourself out of that paranoia about our gevernemtn coming to get your guns and control your life and join us in the real world.

          • Kathryn Hager

            Hey, Truth Slinger (not), since when have you been a member of a well-regulated militia? It’s an AMENDMENT. We have changed our constitution before, as we evolved as a society (slavery) and we can always do it again. The 2ND Amendment is not religious doctrine, although folks of the Insane Right believe it is. We need to find realistic new ground on this issue. We are currently in free-fall with gun violence in this country and we have no need to further support the NRA and gun lobby at the expense of more lives. Shake yourself out of that paranoia about our government coming to get your guns and control your life and join us in the real world.

            • Stacy Flit

              The Bill of Rights are the the first ten amendments to the Constitution but there were 14 to start and the intent was to put them in the Constitution, the debate you can read in The Federalist Papers. So in actuality they are part of The Constitution of the United States of America and ratified by the states. They did not “amend” but gave power of Rights to the People, 10 of them and that is all we have but it is enough. Government has power but it has no Rights. Government works very hard to take away Rights and that IS the real world. Nobody will protect you and your life, which is your inherent Right, but you. The NRA supports all our Rights and they promote safety and training which is the most logical thing to embrace especially for those that keep saying “common sense” but display none. Most who oppose our Rights have never touched a firearm and have an unhealthy fear that threatens us all. If they were to participate in training they would find as most do a certain relief and enjoyment that while dangerous and deadly, firearms can be fun. Above all the sense that one can defend themselves if necessary is comforting. But training is the key. Young children who learn vary rarely are injured or killed unlike those who are taught fear but have natural curiosity that leads to tragedy. from firearms use. A free society giving up the Right to own firearms is a mistake they can make only once. That IS the real world. You cannot guarantee what will happen to generations to come yet you want to take that chance for them? You do not have that Right nor can you see into the future. It is you that will be spending the lives you claim to hold sacred, sacred but stupid is basically what you are saying. You have not learned from the past but you want to control the future and decide for them even though you will not be there. I won’t gamble with those odds the past has taught. Laws do not stop the action or the intent by any means but only enable and justify a punishment. When a government starts making laws over citizens that have no Rights or power or the tools to control that government then punishments will be administered often and severely. That will be your real world if you fail to think it through and the real world for a long time after you are gone.

            • Trbig

              Kathryn, you are incorrect. On all points. The Federalist papers point out exactly what and who the “Militia” were. Not the standing armies, not the reserves, but we the people. An armed populace. The first 10 “Amendments” to the Constitution are our Bill of Rights. These aren’t rights granted to us by anyone, they are rights given to us by our creator, and as such, are not for amending by a 2/3 vote. Sorry to burst your hope bubble on that one. Also, the NRA isn’t some large behemoth corporation with an out of touch select few making the decisions. The NRA is millions of law abiding citizens, supporting the fight against the destruction of our rights by uneducated zealots like you.

              Lastly, we are not in a free-fall with gun violence. We’ve actually been dropping and since Obama came to office and the nation has been buying up firearms at record paces, gun violence has continued dropping. What has increased is the liberal reporting of every shooting to politicize something to try to take the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. If you take out just 3 lib controlled cities like Detroit, Wash. D.C, and New York where gun control is highest (How’s that working for them?) then the U.S. is one of the lowest countries in the world for gun violence. Funny you speak of those on the “Insane Right” as you spew off ignorant, unintelligent, insane drivel you’ve obviously been too lazy to actually check the facts on.

              • jon Mark

                What a beat down you gave that Looney!! Your Fantastic, but please, you are arguing with an idiot.

              • Chester

                While I agree with a lot that the NRA does, it HAS become very much an out of touch corporate giant, just like GM and IBM. The “leadership” has all but abandoned the original aims of the group and has decided all nuts, loonies, and other problem personalities should be just as free to buy and sell guns and ammunition as the properly vetted and licensed firearms and explosives dealers.

              • john_willow

                Sorry, bud. The Constitution was made by people, and can be amended by people, as it already has been. All it takes is majority vote of the states. The NRA are shills for the gun industry. Shameless shills, at that. The federalist papers are not the Constitution. They are opinions by different delegates. The militias were trained white landowners. They were not the garden-variety paranoid, potentially dangerous gun heads we see today.

            • Icorps1970

              The militias were nationalized to form the National Guard which is NOT THE MILITIA. Its a Federal Reserve force. This was a HUGE mistake in the light of the NG being mobilized and deployed for long periods during the war on terror. This even the limited scope of their duties under the governors of the various states was lost. If you dig into enough laws you may find that you could STILL be called out if it came to it. So far as the gov’t. How about FEMA bringing in foreign troops if they need them for an “emergency”. Don’t tell me this is a “black helicopter paranoid dream” its detailed in the material studied for tests some federal employees take. Yeah, I have personally seen it direct from a Federal Agency. Personally I would take offense if foreign troops or police (you HAVE heard about the foreign police working in the US right?) patrolling my area to “protect me”. I do not require protection of this sort. Your problem is that you have forgotten or never knew, that one cannot plan for what someone’s INTENTIONS are, one must plan based on their CAPABILITY. I don’t worry about the Gov’t coming for the guns of the population in general. But individual groups are at risk and HAVE had their firearms take with nothing other than an order given. AND there WAS a blanket confiscation during Katrina that cost the owners thousands in some cases due to damage and neglect over the long period it took to get them restored (if they all were) to their owners. So your condescending statements about “paranoia” is based on lack of information or willful ignorance. ITS ALREADY HAPPENED.

              • john_willow

                Militias were used in colonial times to put down insurrections. Read your national history.

            • Icorps1970

              Actually violent crime and murder is WAY down in the US. But you need to look for the data, its from the FBI BTW, since its not going to be in the “news”. So you might want to cut the NRA some slack. Australia’s gun confiscation did not increase or decrease murders in the long run but they have had a massive increase in violent crime including rapes. Australian women are 3 times as likely to be raped compared to American women. Gun bans in various countries have resulted in no change in the murder rates. According to my readings. Though in the immediate aftermath there were significant increases (double in some cases) in murders lasting 1-2 years then the rate fell back to the preban levels. Look it up. Its all out there.

              • Mike Breen

                “”but they have had a massive increase in violent crime including rapes. Australian women are 3 times as likely to be raped compared to American women.””

                Absolute nonsense and a case, yet again, of not comparing like for like. Closer scrutiny will show you why it’s nonsense but I suspect the result would not suite you. It’s along the lines of claiming UK “violent crime” is through the roof and increased after the ban of 1997.

                The act of the matter is comparing FBI UCR figures and UK Home Office figures gives a bull droppings result because the FBI record only four categories of very serious and truly violent crimes, whereas the UK Home Office record playground squabbles between children with no injuries involved, offensive emails and texts.

                Of course, the face value result of just looking at headline figures may suite Gun Owners of America and the NRA nicely, but the claims they then make to the general public based on these comparisons are nothing more than lies and they know it.

                Google “Why is the rape rate in Australia so high?” and you will get the real reason why women are three times more likely to be raped, it’s about reporting and false conclusions by fools and those with an agenda using that reporting for there own means.

              • john_willow

                I’ve read the Australian crime statistics. You are peddling false information.

            • Responsible carrier

              The fact is, the government is restricting our rights, the amendments to the Constitution are inalienable unit abolished, therefore the government is using control tactics, and will continue until met with resistance ( not necessarily violent either)

            • Thomas Frey

              Gun violence is not in free fall and to say as much only proves you are not doing your homework. Gun related violence and crimes are only a small percentage of all crimes and violence. Gun control does nothing to stop criminals from having guns or stopping criminals from selling guns to other criminals. We have all the laws we need to prosecute violent perpetrators of crime. It has been proven over and over that gun control has no effect on preventing crime and only makes victims more appealing for a criminal knowing that the victim is likely unarmed. If you want to curtail violence then the two most obvious real issues are mental health care and education. Your suggestion that gun owners suffer from paranoia and are likely to be the next mass shooter is offensive and only affirms your lack of knowledge on the subject. I guess by your standards our founding fathers were paranoid gun loving crazies too. Btw, since you are so fond of gun control or banning guns maybe we should insist that all dumbacrats and retardicans have all their security details hand in their firearms. This would be a great show of faith in their belief that possession of a firearm is tantamount to a person likely to become a violent criminal.

              • Yokohl Yokel

                Since when were mass shooters not gun owners? Who else is likely to be the next mass shooter?

                • Thomas Frey

                  So all gun owners are a mass shooter about to happen?
                  By that logic you must be a serial killer about to happen?
                  Or you are a drunk driver about to happen since you drink and have a licence to drive.

                  Its called due process.

                  • Yokohl Yokel

                    Before he pulled the trigger, Robert Dear was a law-abiding gun-owner.
                    Before they pulled the trigger, the husband and wife team were (perceived) law-abiding gun-owners
                    So why didn’t the FBI and other LE find it suspicious as these murderers armed themselves to the teeth and, in the case of our Muslim friends, bought legal supplies to manufacture bombs?
                    Because arming yourself to the teeth is business as usual in a culture of violence. Because we shrink at registration, and shriek that it’s the next step towards disarming our populace. Frankly, if you think a bunch of yahoos who watched one too many Rambo movies can stop the largest most sophisticated army in the world, just ask Iraqis or the Afghans how well that turned out.

                    • Thomas Frey

                      If you want to hold someone responsible for the situation then point the finger at your government and LE. It is there job to do good old fashion police and surveillance and develop information assets. Just because our government and LE have an intelligence void will never be justification for continuing to erode our rights.

                      Fact is that the Muslim community in this nation is a threat and has to be monitored. Anyone that is not willing to face that fact is the problem. Our government and LE can make the effort to do their job before they cry they need more gun control.

                      Also the men and women in our armed forces are our mothers, fathers, daughters and sons. Regardless of what the government promises, the majority of those will keep their oath and uphold the constitution. The same cannot be said of UN troops that are beginning to show a presence in our nation.

                      • DanD

                        You do realize there were more ideologically motivated violent crimes targeted at Muslims last year than there carried out by them. By an extremely significant margin?

                    • Frankly, if you think a bunch of yahoos who watched one too many Rambo
                      movies can stop the largest most sophisticated army in the world, just
                      ask Iraqis or the Afghans how well that turned out.

                      From the perspective of ISIS and the Taliban, it turned out pretty well, actually…

                    • john_willow

                      At the first sign of the SWAT team, these self-styled Rambos would come out with their hands up.

                  • LostInUnderland

                    Mass shooters are a subset of gun owners just as drunk drivers are a subset of drivers.
                    People that do not own guns are not going to be mass shooters.
                    People that do not drive will not be drunk drivers. (or people that do not drink)
                    However, that does not mean that all drivers are going to drive drunk or that all gun owners are going to be mass shooters. The thing is, we cannot know which ones (of the relevant set) will and which ones will not. That is not an argument for banning guns, driving, or drinking. It is a call to be reasonable. Your hyperbole is dishonest.

                    • Thomas Frey

                      Your assumption that mass murder is only committed with a gun is out right not true. Only a fraction of all mass murder over the course of a year or time span of years involves a gun.

                      We also don’t know which police officer is going to kill an innocent person anymore than we know who the next murderer will be. Does that mean we should ban law enforcement?

                      Your concerns regarding gun violence are not more important than others desire to exercise their right to self-defense.

                      The continued idealog that guns only in the hands of LE or the government equals a safer society is false.

                      Maybe you should put more energy into asking our government leaders why they have failed to stop mass murder and terrorism in the USA. Isn’t that their job?

                      Don’t tread on us.

                      • LostInUnderland

                        How does the statement “Mass shooters are a subset of gun owners” lead you to assume that I believe all mass murder is committed with a gun? Also, why do you assume that I want to ban guns? Can you provide support for your statement that “Only a fraction of all mass murder over the course of year or time span of years involves a gun”? That may be true, but seems unlikely. http://www.shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
                        I do not have the answer to a less violent society, but I have never advocated banning guns. However, denying that there is a problem is less than helpful.

                        • Thomas Frey

                          Your right. I was thinking mass murder and not MASS SHOOTING. Mass shootings could be gang bangers going at it and as such not relevant to the gun debate. Mass shootings have little or nothing to do with mass murder stats even though Hillary C. would like us all to not make the distinction. Law abiding citizens don’t have mass shootings as often as criminals.

                          Read this document by the Federation of American Scientists report that is published by the Congressional Research Service.

                          https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf

                          Read it and then you can verify the stats yourself.

                          America being a free nation has always had a culture where people kill each other, just like all other societies. Ever heard of the Wild West? I think what makes us different is that our culture is more free than any nation ever has and with that freedom comes a price. That price is that people will do what people do, and as long as we are a free society, they will continue to do those things.

                          Our current situation only seems worse due to the number of people we have in the nation now and the obsessive less than accurate mass media coverage. As I understand crime rates, while we have had some ups and downs, when considering population numbers and densities, we are not really experiencing more crime. We are experiencing higher frequency due to the volume of people.

                          Problem or not, any ideas that more gun control or banning of guns will have a significant impact on crime is false and has been proven. Switzerland is a developed nation with almost every citizen owning a gun and crime rate is very low. France (EU) has some of the most excessive gun control in the developed nations and still terrorists managed to get real assault weapons and explosives. None of which could have possibly come from the USA unless it was military ordinance from the Baltic wars.

                          If you want to hold someone responsible for the situation then point the finger at your government and LE. It is there job to do good old fashion police and surveillance and develop information assets. Just because our government and LE have an intelligence void will never be justification for continuing to erode our rights.

                          The only problem I see are Americans that are uninformed and are too quick to give up rights because they don’t understand how important the Constitution and Bill Of Rights are to the continued existence of our free democratic republic. I am convinced this is the result of all the government cut backs to education. Uninformed people are easier to manipulate and control.

                        • john_willow

                          In the Wild West you had to leave your guns at the edge of town. Yet another American who knows nothing about his own history. And you don’t know anything about Switzerland. Guns are very highly regulated there, and designed to be used by the national militia. You likely couldn’t even get a gun there.

                        • Thomas Frey

                          LOL, not every town had that rule and for you to suggest as much only proves your lack of knowledge. The towns that did, didn’t do it for safety, they did it do that only certain people would have guns. You know Law Enforcement. Oh and not like all LE was above reproach in the old west either. Your utopian view of the wild west is misplaced at best.

                          Switzerland does not have a society that is a free as ours either.

                          Last I checked the only way anyone visiting a nation other than theirs could get a gun was illegally. Assuming you are visitor and not moving there. Even moving there highly unlikely especially in socialist areas like EU.

                          Btw, the gun debate is not a debate. See we have a guaranteed right to own a fire arm. The constant attacks by the anti-gun nut jobs in the face of undeniable facts is nothing less than sedition.

                          Facts like:
                          Violent Crime rate lowest it has been in 40 years.
                          More guns owned by Law Abiding citizens than ever before.
                          Most people in our nation than ever before.
                          Homicide / Mass Murder rates that make us the safest free nation on the planet.

                          Destroying the foundation of the constitution will only invite tyranny.

                          If you think there is a place to live where you can be free and safer than the USA, move there.

                          BYE!

                      • john_willow

                        You are nuts, bud. You cannot commit mass murder with a knife. All the mass murders in the U.S. are being committed with guns. “Don’t tread on us”? Paranoid much?

                    • john_willow

                      You have far more mass shooters than any other Western country. Don’t delude yourself. No one outside of the military should be able to get their hands on automatic weaponry.

              • john_willow

                There are plenty of stats to show how often guns are used to commit suicide, to inflict domestic violence, and in disputes that turn deadly. Everyone is a “responsible” gun owner. Until they’re not.

                • Thomas Frey

                  We live in a free society, so nothing you can do, or laws you can pass, that will stop suicide. That is up to the people around that person, if there are any.

                  Disputes with guns? So like two groups of gang bangers going at it?

                  Domestic violence can be for allot of reasons that are social in nature, period.

                  Your logic here is a complete fail. Just because some people cannot control themselves or choose to become a criminal, will never be a good reason or excuse to take rights away from law abiding citizens.

                  How long before a similar argument is used to take away the 1st, 4th or 5ht?

                  The 2nd amendment guarantees our freedom. That you fail to see this just means you are uneducated with respect to our constitution.

            • Peter Quinn

              In the “real world”, you are more likely
              to die by accidental drowning than by
              being shot and killed by a stranger.
              Those are the FACTS, are they are not
              in dispute. Stop buying into the media hype…

          • Manni

            What is your definition of freedom?

          • Chester

            Sounds a lot like you are describing the righteous right, the ones that only know one answer to any question, the preacher says its so.

          • john_willow

            I’m really glad you’re not a cop anymore (assuming you’re not lying). You are hostile and ignorant. You know nothing about your own country’s history of gun control, nor do you seem to understand the difference between a world of muskets and the world of modern weaponry. And you are an obsessive gun head. Dangerous combination.

            • Mick Price

              Notice that you call him “hostile and ignorant” while being far more hostile and not providing a single bit of information that contradicts him. As for the history of gun control in America, it’s a sad one of brutal racism and murder.

        • Truth Slinger

          Here; I’ve done some homework for you: Tench Coxe,
          a delegate to the Continental Congress from Pennsylvania, who wrote in 1789,
          “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt
          to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to
          defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow
          citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and
          bear their private arms.” What the previous (at least) TWO administrations have done and what the current one is doing should be met with armed resistance so as to preserve our rule of law and right protected by (not given by) the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This isn’t even considering the fact that we have a natural RIGHT to protect ourselves from lunatics and criminals. I just don’t understand why liberals have such a suicidal attitude thinking that criminals will obey the law (an oxymoron if there ever was one) and why they think that someone else will protect them (e.g. “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away). I was a police officer. NONE of the 300 officers on our department ever saved anyone’s life that was lost by gun violence. We showed up, took a report, and called the coroner. Time to face the fact, liberals; you “logic” is illogical and it’s preventable with only a small amount of homework (eg Google).

          • jon Mark

            Thanks for the homework TS, but don’t you know that the liberal mind does not turn on evidence or reason, or common sense. While they fancy themselves educated, they actually have very little sense, common or otherwise. They stand at the window and proclaim to the see the world, not realizing that they only see what world is exposed through their little window. They are of the lot that will read some puffed up propaganda showing some country that by getting ride of guns, reduced gun violence, never mind that non-gun violence in general skyrocketed, and proclaim that this model if applied in America, would likewise reduce violence, (notice how they shift the debate from gun violence to violence hoping no one notices). And then they will hide any evidence that may show the lunacy of their claim. They also do not mention anything with regard to the second amendment, and it’s role in restraining tyrants.

            I for one would rather go up against another man with a gun, having a gun myself, than I would go up against someone with a baseball bat, I not having a bat.

            Liberals are capable of looking at violent criminal gun crimes and blame law abiding citizens for their access to guns notwithstanding that guns are already outlawed for criminals. They are the same people that say you can’t legislate morality. That if you deny something like alcohol, or drugs, it will only drive that market underground. But then think that you can make guns illegal, and those criminals who desire to gun, will not be able through the same blackmarket to get one. That liberals are stupid does not spell tell the whole story. Fact is they are dangerous

            • LostInUnderland

              The inability to legislate morality applies to gun ownership also. Just as some may want marijuana legalized and regulated, many want guns to stay legal, but be regulated. No one (that I know of; anecdotal) wants children to be free to buy marijuana. On the other hand, No one (same unconfirmed no one) wants guns to be completely banned. I believe most people want sensible regulation since we cannot count on the morality of our fellow citizens.

              Unrelated, but serious question: How CAN we make society more moral? You cannot force it or legislate it.. but how do you nudge it that way? The answer to that question would solve the entire gun debate as well as a few other cultural debates we struggle with as a nation.

            • john_willow

              Stupidity should be your middle name. The other Western countries have far lower levels of gun violence than the States. The stats are easy to find if you have anything resembling a brain. There is no magical black market. That is another delusion of yours. Criminals either steal guns from improperly secured houses or they get straw buyers. Both of those problems can be dealt with.

          • john_willow

            You don’t even know the difference between one delegate’s opinion and the actual policies of the original government, which I have described in another comment. You’re in no position to be trying to educate people. And you have NO evidence that vigilantes with guns are preventing gun violence. But nice try.

        • jon Mark

          Actually, Ducky you may want to do a little research on the subject of your statement “no constitutional right to drive a motor vehicle”. I think evidence may exist to show this is an actual constitution right or rather natural right. I will let you arrive at you own conclusion. Just wanted to make sure you are aware that there is another side to that argument.

          “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
          transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or
          automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited
          at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life,
          liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty
          one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination
          along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting
          himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor
          disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his
          person, but in his safe conduct.”

          http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

          http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml

          http://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/

          • Icorps1970

            Try doing it without a drivers lic. The license removes it from being a “right” and makes it s privilege granted by the state.

            • jon Mark

              I hear you. Tons of internet links say, “no license needed”, but nearly zero show evidence that anyone actually gets away with their advice.

          • Responsible carrier

            Driving is absolutely a privilege, only citation I need is the letter from Pennsylvania department of motor vehicles to my brother stating simply, your driving privileges have been revoked.

            • jon Mark

              May I ask why it is that you are desiring that you brothers driving privileges be revoked?

              • Responsible carrier

                I’m not desiring, they have been. the letter from penndot simply said, your driving PRIVILEGE has been revoked. Maybe my post was unclear.

        • john_willow

          It’s obvious you know very little about the history of your own country. The Founding fathers wanted there to be TRAINED state militias to put down insurrections. Read up on the Whiskey and Shays rebellions. George Washington sent a 13,000 man militia to neutralize 7,000 citizens who refused to pay taxes. They did not allow black people or British loyalists to own guns. Virtually every district court and Supreme Court throughout American history until 2008 has considered the second amendment to refer to militias. The Founding Fathers were sensible. Never would they have wanted a country in which psychopaths could get their hands on assault weaponry and untrained, paranoid idiots could stockpile weapons.

      • john dozer

        Obviously the gun control advocates must assume or want to assume everyone is killed by a gun and has nothing to do with education, poverty, hunger etc… I guarantee you if the social order broke down for an unlimited number of reasons the murder rate would go up with or without guns being available. Drug addicts will want to get their hands on their favorite drug with or without guns being available. etc.. The many reasons for murder still exist with or without a gun… and criminals have a lot of drive to obtain guns legally or not to commit their crimes.

        • Truth Slinger

          OK…so what do we do about now……when social order has NOT broken down? You logic is far from impeccable and your post says nothing and proves nothing. Even when you take the existing stats about murders committed with guns, the US is 111th in the entire world in murders per capita. Virtually ALL of those above us are countries with strict gun control laws. Now…..consider this. When you remove ONLY the 8 largest cities in America (that would be the ones with strict gun control laws), America falls all the way down near the bottom of the chart for the entire planet. Your focus should be on cleaning up the “MURDER MENTALITY” of those in large cities and not the “gun culture” of America as no such culture exits except in the minds of loony liberals who hate common sense, truth, empirical evidence, and 15,000 years of human history. They NEVER allow the truth to interfere with their anti-American narrative and I find that unnecessary
          .

          • Dark Crevase

            Write a book. Please.

          • Kathryn Hager

            You don’t want to quote the stats about gun deaths in COMPARABLY developed countries, do you.. Hummm…. I wonder why that would be? ..

          • MacrameTrumpToupee

            “Even when you take the existing stats about murders committed with guns, the US is 111th in the entire world in murders per capita”

            This is just straight up wrong. The US is 15th for gun homicides and 11th for all gun deaths. And 1st amongst the developed nations. Gotta be proud of something I guess.

          • Stacy Flit

            Read my comment above please.

      • Pingback: The Right to Bear Arms and the Responsibility that should accompany it | rejectingthebinary()

      • TeeJae

        Disappointingly weak arguments, Justin. Gun control advocates aren’t concerned about “total murders” in general. They’re concerned with mass shootings. Big difference. How about rewriting this to include stats of mass shootings only. That would change the picture entirely, wouldn’t it?

        Also, you think Russia limited its ban to only rifles because “you need rifles to overthrow a government?” Seriously? You think some silly little rifles will take down the Kremlin? Or the White House? What are you smoking?

        From there, your arguments get belligerently worse. “Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms.” Where are your citations to back that up?

        And the Home Depot nonsense? Your average ammo-sexual isn’t interested in building his own gun. He’s interested in what the manufacturers are selling; fully assembled specimens he can fondle in gun shops and gun shows.

        “We have a generation of people that do not have the coping skills necessary to deal with reality.” What does this even mean?

        Or this? “If you want to change society, you have to actually change the whole of society.” Exactly what would that entail?

        Bad article. I’m surprised (and disappointed) MintPress even agreed to publish it.

        • Grumpy Guy

          Are people who die in “mass shootings” MOAR DEAD than kids who die in Chicago every day? Your dismissal of rifles as a tool of revolution is disingenuous, as the AK-47 is the Very Symbol of armed revolution across the planet. Your counter-argument ignores the cost of daily shootings in minority neighborhoods in favor of a narrative that concentrates on white suburban children. This is racist.

          • TeeJae

            Grumpy, unfortunately it takes a lot more than “symbols of revolution” to mount an actual revolution. It’s the height of delusion to think a group of citizens armed with AKs stands any chance against the arsenal of weapons, equipment and training that our military and police state (er, departments) have at their disposal.

            Racist? LOL Nice straw man.

            • Grumpy Guy

              LMAO. EVERY successful revolution EVER has basically won using rifles to take down soft targets, making that government arsenal essentially useless. Ask the Soviet Red Army or the Kuomintang. Private citizens outnumber the security forces about a hundred to one. And I don’t have to shoot down an F-35. I can sabotage the spare parts supply chain. Or we can slit the pilot’s throat in his sleep, or bring him over to our side. You understand NOTHING about revolution except that you are afraid and therefore docile. But you keep on worshiping the government and hoping it will send you to GULAG last.

            • Bobby Tyron Jr.

              Yea i gotta agree with grumpy on this one. Rifles make revolutions far easier and their are far more angry citizens then a couple of politicians in the Kremlin or white house. Remember the people give the government the power ^^. It has been done before as well

              • TeeJae

                What year do you live in? Certainly not 2015. You think those “angry citizens” would only be up against “a couple of politicians?” More importantly, you really still believe “the people give the government the power?” Forget the year. What planet do you live on?

                • Responsible carrier

                  Starting to think that about you, are you even a us citizen? Yes, in fact, the people do empower the government, if the population of “angry citizen” hits critical mass, your right, there wouldn’t be many shots fired, just a few important ones. The government would have no choice but to conform to what the people want, without the people, there is no government.

                  • TeeJae

                    That’s what I used to think. Like most people who haven’t yet awoken, I believed we lived in a democracy, where the people had the power, as our forefathers granted us by drafting the Constitution.

                    But… after many years of advocacy work (and the requisite research that goes along with it), I have learned some very disturbing things about our “great nation” and others that comprise the “Western” world; things that not only do NOT make me proud to be an American, but also made me realize it is in fact NOT the people who hold the power, but rather an elite few who are truly in control. This diagram perfectly illustrates the REAL system.

                    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9a1c81b4053120d228553fc6c761bfcb31680a62df28e12cc35ebcdb87fcac2e.jpg

                    THIS, unfortunately, is the planet we live on.

                    • chris

                      “Like most people who haven’t yet awoken…” Statements like that are typically made by those who are in the deepest sleep. You know that not everything is as it seems, which is great, but remember “believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see.” You understand the first part, but not the second. Your own bias and opinion can pollute what you believe which is why “only half of what you see.” You’re not special. You’re not “awake” while the “masses are asleep.” I respect that you can tell we live in a system of profit and deceit, but don’t act like you have it all figured out. You don’t. If you can’t back up with evidence the argument your illustration is presenting then you’re merely contributing to a worthless and unintelligent debate. You present some good arguments, several of which I agree with, but comments like this one make you look like a nutter. Hopefully, you take this constructively.

                      • TeeJae

                        It would seem you’re being roused from your sleep. That’s good. Keep an open mind. You’ll get there.

            • Tracy

              The part you are missing is our military and police are not a bunch of robots. Many of them like their private guns and would never turn against the American public. We would be at war with ourself, both sides would have equal access to weapons. It could be the end of life as we know it with lots of dead people. Based on your comments you have never been in the military and should probably do some research on John Milton so you can understand why the Bill of Rights is so important.

              • TeeJae

                I come from a military family, so I have a pretty good idea how it works. Your fantasy of how this “civil war” will play out is naive at best, dangerous at worst, as it demonstrates a lack of understanding of how governments actually operate, and for whom. Tell me, who would each “side” consist of? And how exactly would each have “equal access to weapons?” You think the servicemembers and police who ‘defected’ to join the ‘revolution’ would still be granted unfettered access to the Security State’s arsenals? Better yet, you think they would turn on their comrades-in-arms over a silly piece of paper that our government only pretends to honor? You think NATO would be cool with it? The UN?

                We live in a drastically different world than the days of Milton. There’s a reason the US is currently the world’s leading superpower. Think about it. If no other nation on earth stands a chance against it, how would a small minority (yes, small, relatively) of its own citizens? Maybe in the ‘good ol days.’ Maybe in Hollywood. Not now.

                • Tracy

                  I will attempt to answer your questions. Coming from a military family and serving in the military is two different culture’s. The sides already consist of those who want to keep their freedom, indivdual rights, and that includes the right to own guns versus those who want to take them. As far as equal access if half of the police and half the military choose to uphold the constitution and the other half choose to destroy it then who gets control of the weapons? (Each police chief and Major General will help with that decision. Not to mention that millions of Americans would protect their own homes and help out neighbors. The majority of military and police will tell a politician to fly a kite before they try to seize weapons. (Many would choose life) And that silly piece of paper is the only reason you get to even express your opinion. You really need to take the time and do some research so you understand the Bill of Rights. Yes it was drafted in 1789 but it was based from the works of scholars dating from the time of Plato. That is over 2360 years ago. Now how does the rants and raves from people from this decade stack up? (not well) Please understand that guns have high sentimental value to many (millions) people. They are passionate about their freedoms and will not give them up. They can not be persuaded, bought, and certainly not forced.
                  And you need not ask questions like what planet do I live on or if I am having a fantasy. Those type of statements reflect immaturity and a lack of ability to have a debate.

                  • Kathryn Hager

                    No, his asking if you are having a fantasy reflects concern that you are out of your mind.

                    • Tracy

                      Often when people struggle in a debate or argument they start using insults. If you wanted to prove that your thought process was correct and mine is wrong then do some research on your own. Survey about 50 military members and 50 police and ask the right questions. Become Socratic and investgate matters for yourself instead of relying on the words of others or just assuming.
                      An American that is expessing their own opinion and calling the Bill of Rights a silly piece of paper in the same paragraph needs do some critical thinking.

                      • Responsible carrier

                        Well put Tracy! Tens of thousands have died defending that “silly piece of paper.”

                  • LostInUnderland

                    Has anyone personally attempted to take your guns? Do you have any reason to believe that is a realistic fear? Even in Australia, there was a voluntary gun buy back. Australians were willing to give up their guns because they felt safe enough without them, right or wrong. Why do so many people seem to think that there is going to be some government raid to take their guns? Has this even been hinted at outside of fox fear mongering?

                • jgh59

                  I love the overthrow of the government theorists as if that is a defense for unfettered gun ownership. With their 300 million guns, private citizens are going to take down the US military to stop tyranny? Private citizens are going to get their hind ends bombed out of existence before many shots are fired. An AR-15 doesn’t stand a chance against a military grade automatic weapon in the hands of a trained serviceman. An organized militia as outlined in the 2nd amendment, the national guard, might stand a chance since they also have access to bombs / private citizens – no.

            • cowcharge

              It’s not the height of delusion if that “group” of armed citizens outnumbers the military by millions.

              • TeeJae

                LOL. Yes,it is. And so is that statement. Pure fantasy. Come out of your little revolutionist bubble and join the rest of us in the real world. Really take the time and think of the actual logistics involved. How can you substantiate that “millions” number you’re throwing out there? Have you actually spoken with (let alone gotten a commitment from) MILLIONS of people to know that many people support your cause?

                These are all rhetorical questions, of course. I’m just trying to get you to really think and delve deeper into the issue, beyond the empty rhetoric you guys like to throw around.

                • cowcharge

                  I didn’t say I wanted a revolution, or that I believe one is coming. People are still too comfortable to take that kind of risk. Nor did I say that there ARE millions waiting. I said that if there WERE millions, it wouldn’t be fantasy. Any more than it was fantasy for civilians to take on the world’s greatest military the first time.

                • Responsible carrier

                  You keep enjoying your fantasy. The rest of us will stand for our rights, enjoy life on your knees.

              • Yokohl Yokel

                Population of Iraq in 2002: 25 million
                Pop of Afghanistan 1999: 20 million

                They sure have done a swell job against the US Military

            • Responsible carrier

              WE ARE MANY, THEY ARE FEW. FROM OPPRESSION STEMS REVOLUTION. Citizen militia has, and will again, overthrow tyrannical government.

        • Aaron

          One “Silly little rifle” and 3 shots in Dallas changed the course of our nation when it was wielded to kill JFK. You really should brush up on your knowledge before making arguments that don’t jive.

          • TeeJae

            Probably not the best example. Whether it was Oswald or someone else, it was not a “revolutionist” intent on overthrowing the government.

            And with today’s surveillance-state-on-steroids, it’s highly unlikely any covert operation would go undetected. To think otherwise is fantasy.

            • Responsible carrier

              Highly unlikely any covert operations would go undetected? “Covert” operations are ongoing everyday in this country, and largely undetected.

        • JoshN7

          +1

          Many mass shootings were done by STUDENTS who were not affected by poverty. The easily availability of firearms and lack of mental health awareness allowed those tragedies to happen.

          • Bravo VoF

            It is poverty, and the gang culture that comes out of it that is responsible for the majority of gun violence. Somewhere around 70% of committers and victims, varies a bit by sources, have prior records or affiliations.

            Mental health DOES need to be reformed, and the system of disqualification NEEDS to be fixed. Roof was under investigation for another felony, Lanza was dismissed from mental treatment by a judge, Holmes’s psychiatrist went to the police for concerns of violence, Cho had been seeing doctors for various different disorders and began submitting works that concerned faculty and students, the UT tower sniper visited multiple different people because of increasing violent urges.

        • Bravo VoF

          “You think some silly little muskets can take on the entire British Empire?”

          • TeeJae

            You can’t seriously be comparing 2015 to 1775.

      • Pingback: Reports of 10 dead, 20 wounded in mass shooting at Oregon community college - Page 3 - REVscene Automotive Forum()

      • Premise wrong – it is not to stop only “murders” but to stop death by gun for any reason plus shootings which harm people who do not subsequently die. Dumb article

      • spookym

        So I guess we need to keep guns easily accessible to shoot women breast-feeding in public.

        • Barnslayer

          That makes perfect sense!
          It’s a good thing unarmed people never get murdered. Even better that murderers always use guns.

          • spookym

            Amen!

        • Truth Slinger

          Typical reply by a typical brain-dead liberal. It always amazes me that liberals can’t parse a simple sentence to derive the common sense meaning of the author. That’s why they continually earn the accurate sobriquet “loony liberals” and no one can prove that wrong that I can tell.

      • Simon Palmer

        It’s pretty clear where your bias lies. As per Steve T. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
        This calls into question your whole article as suspect.

        • Rob

          What exactly is that bias… advocating that we attempt to deal with poverty in this country?

        • Aradragoon

          Simon,

          I am not sure what your point is with that article.

          First it shows a generally stable downward trend of homicide incidents dating back prior to a gun ban. Second it does show a spike in homicides immediately following the gun ban but lowering back down. It is hard to draw any reasonable conclusions just from these facts.

          Second the change of homicide victims is statistically insignificant to state that the gun ban worked. It rather asks the question “were there additional factors that may have lowered the homicide rate” because all it says is successful homicides lowered. E.G. medical advances, quicker response time from first responders, location of homicide successes etc. can all have an impact on a successful homicide versus a homicide incident.

          Third the only thing that is potentially plausible is that the gun death rate went down due to the ban but that the general homicide rate did not go down specifically due to the ban.

          This seems that rather it supports the argument that gun control laws have no real effect on homicide rates.

          Of course additional data could change the meaning of this data.

          Additionally it must be clarified that Australia never had a “right” to possess firearms like the U.S. does.

      • Steve T.

        You, sir, are full of it. Check the facts – Australian murder rates have dropped. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

        • RJ

          So have America’s. Dropping murder rates don’t mean there’s a correlation, and I believe that’s exactly what the author expressed. Did you read the article?

          • Steve T.

            The author expressed a view that passing gun control does NOT impact murder rates. That’s not the same as saying correlation != causation. If he’s citing that the rates don’t drop, why does he point to a source (which I just highlighted) that states the trend is downward – and then say it really isn’t significantly downward at all?

            To me, this article reads like pro-gun propaganda. A headline that promises balanced argument, then sets up a straw-man on the side of gun-control and proceeds to knock it down. I find this neither balanced nor convincing.

            • RJ

              What part of the following statement didn’t you comprehend: “only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.”

              In statistics there are controls. He’s indicating that, controlling for the simple factor of falling crime rates EVERYWHERE (including in the “wild wild west” also referred to as Anarchistic America), the slight hiccup in Australia is STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. It is not a drop that can be linked to a gun ban. This isn’t a shill for the gun lobby, it’s a balanced, truthful assessment of the role guns play on instigation of crime: none.

              Everybody who loathes guns (99% of the time without having any shred of understanding of them) loves to shout “High Crime! GUNS!!!” from the rooftops. This is not statistics, this is not science, and this is not true. If you would like to see some thoroughly researched and unbiased support of this claim, please read this study from Harvard:

              http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

              In the meantime, careful what you infer.

              • Steve T.

                Nice try. That isn’t a “study from Harvard.” It was not peer reviewed. It was published in what the masthead says is: “one of the most widely circulated student-edited law
                reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian
                legal scholarship.” Hardly a source for unbiased scholarship. And, if you read the citations, about half of them are by articles from the co-author, and the other half are misleading half-truths. The co-author I refer to is described on Wikipedia as clearly very pro gun rights. Just check the article for many diverse citations of his approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates

                His article states that Russia, after the collapse of the USSR, had a soaring murder rate despite strict gun controls. Is that supposed to represent a valid comparison to the situation in Europe or the US? It cites Russia and Luxembourg(?!?) as having higher rates than the US (where the rate is about 4.5/100K), while every single country in Europe has a rate that is half or less the US. And somehow, this is supposed to show that the strict gun laws in Europe have no effect on the murder rate?

                I can see that we aren’t going to convince each other – we’re both fairly certain of our positions, and I haven’t seen any real evidence that makes me consider changing my mind. Somehow, I doubt anything I can write will change yours.

                • Aradragoon

                  Steve…. did you really just quote Wikipedia as a source after talking about, paraphrasing here, how RJ’s source wasn’t essentially a valid source…… the irony… and here I was trying to talk to you in a respectful and intelligent/though provoking manner.

                  Are you biased to your position or are you capable of having a well thought out discussion without any pre-conceived notions? I don’t mean that as a slight but rather a legitimate question.

        • Beowulfe

          Um, your own source confirms PRECISELY what he wrote. Following the 1996 gun ban, there was an uptick in the murder rate, followed by it returning to the pre-ban rate, and now it’s trending slightly down…like in almost every other first world nation….EXACTLY like the author said. Are you illiterate?

          • Steve T.

            The article states that the rate in Aus “ticked up” after the ban, when in fact it dropped in ’97, immediately after the ban, then ticked up in ’99. Since then it has been trending down, as he notes. Not enormously, but significantly. The article implies that gun control has no benefit because murders don’t precipitously decline immediately upon enacting gun control legislation. That’s a clear straw-man argument, IMO.

            Further, almost half of gun deaths are suicide. No one is going to argue that suicide (just like murder) will massively drop when gun control is enacted, but taking an easy method out of people’s hands seems like a no brainer, to me.

            Thanks for ad hominem, BTW.

            • Aradragoon

              Steve,

              As I already said previously to Simon (please see my response to him for my full reply)

              The chart shows a general downward trend prior to the gun ban. The gun ban actually did nothing to cause any noticeable/significant change in that trend.

              The homicide incident rate failed to change however the homicide victims rate did lower slightly.

              The amount it lowered is NOT statistically significant enough to say that the gun ban caused it as there are a multitude of other potential causes such as medical advances.

              The only thing the source really shows is that while homicide in general did not change in a significant way the method of homicide did or another way of saying that is gun deaths dropped while other homicide methods increased. Even with this it was dropping prior to the gun ban so it would be difficult to say the cause was the gun ban.

              The source by and large supports the article we are replying to. That is that gun control has not statistically significant effect on homicide rates in general.

        • Justin

          The numbers spiked after gun ban and then it went down by a unnoticeable amount years later. It barely changed anything.

      • Dan

        This is not about controlling guns in the hands of bad people this is about mental illness in America. We have a big problem with this. In Los Angeles alone there are 25000 homeless people many of which are known to be mentally ill. Mentally ill people are roaming the streets. Unfortunately we have no way of telling who is mentally ill until they are diagnosed or until they do something violent. You restrict gun ownership in America it will not stop mass shootings what will stop mass shootings is awareness of mental illness in our society and treating it properly not putting mentally ill people in prison with the general population. They need their own facility like they had back in the 20’s 30’s and 40’s before they were banned and deemed unconstitutional. You can blame this on liberals who pushed for it

        • Kathryn Hager

          Or- Keeping guns out of the hands of gun owners who some how think it’s OK to not only train their mentally ill sons to shoot but then make many, many guns available to them. Yes, THOSE “responsible” gun owners.. And don’t even get me started on the parents who make loaded guns available to their pre-school and elementary age children. Ah, yes, more “responsible” gun huggers.

      • Pingback: How Do You Even React | New to NY again()

      • eSildur

        Gun control is designed to make commoners less dangerous for the ruling class. It always was and it always will be. In modern democracy an average citizen is an equivalent of a commoner, while politicians and the richest 1% are an equivalent of the ruling class. Gun control is meant to protect their interests – otherwise they wouldn’t even care about it. Unarmed society is simply far easier to control for armed enforcers of the ruling class.

        • TeeJae

          With the world’s largest military and an increasingly militarized police force, the ruling class (and their interests) seem to be doing just fine already in the nation with the highest gun ownership per capita in the world.

          No, their REAL means of control are by misleading and distracting the public through their media outlets’ fear/hate-mongering. Keep us (irrationally) afraid of every boogeyman and fighting against each other, and we’ll gladly trade away our rights and liberties for (clearly fake) “security.”

          • Responsible carrier

            Their means of fear you speak of are real, and obviously working on you.

          • Responsible carrier

            And not we’ll gladly trade our liberties, you’ll gladly trade your liberties, the men who founded this great nation obviously would rather die on their feet than live on their knees, this is astoundingly clear that this is not the cloth you were cut from.

        • Responsible carrier

          Well put!

      • Pingback: Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 | notes of grace()

      • WuzYoungOnceToo

        – “Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked.”

        Will most of the article is spot-on, the above claim is not as clear-cut as many pretend. The fact that U.S. homicide rates during the Great Depression where lower than they were during the dot-com boom of the late ’90s would seem to suggest that the alleged causal link between poverty and violent crime (especially murder) is either far more complicated than supposed, or is simply another illustration of causality-does-not-equal-causation, with variables like culture playing a more meaningful role in the equation.

        • Amy

          It seems logical that during the depression everyone was poor as opposed to the 90’s when the “have not’s” wanted what the “haves” possessed. Poverty mixed with frustration in the fact other people seemingly “have” more.

          • WuzYoungOnceToo

            I’m not sure what point it is that you’re trying to make here.

        • Aradragoon

          edit for you: correlation-does-not-equal-causation

          That is what you meant.

          • WuzYoungOnceToo

            I have no idea what you’re talking about. 😉

      • Pingback: Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned (Bibliography) | BauschardDebate()

      • Bobo Brazil

        You Sir need To Chexck Your Facts Or Go Home And Polish You Toy Gun

      • kreggied

        Though I disagree with his premise there are a number of areas on which, I believe, we agree. Before beginning a discussion of the relative efficacy of firearms regulation is bears restating that, regardless, state and local governments retain legitimate authority to promulgate and enforce firearms regulations. It is the Federal government which is limited by the 2nd Amendment in its authority in this area.

        From my reading of the article the author’s main premise rests on three basic points. First, gun bans are advanced to prevent violence and are ineffective as they have no effect. Second, gun control is advanced to stop people from killing each other and is likewise ineffective. Finally, that governments pursue gun bans/control in order to prevent attempts to overthrow government.

        I disagree with these basic points. First, because gun bans aren’t being pursued here nor do I seek or support such bans. Therefore, I don’t believe the point relevant. Second, gun control is not intended, nor could it be expected, to halt all or even most murders. Instead gun control, broadly speaking, is intended to influence the behavior of law abiding and non-law abiding citizens in relation to firearms and to reduce the number and severity of firearm related injuries and deaths. Finally, while Democides have happened around the world I believe the likelihood of this happening here is exceedingly low and, at any rate, entirely irrelevant to the point.
        Regarding the authors supporting evidence for the above premise I find areas where I agree and disagree with the author.

        Regarding whether or not gun control can be shown to have any effect on reduction in firearm related killings there is certainly evidence for this here at home without need to seek evidence abroad. For example, comparing firearm related deaths per 100,000 in the top three most stringent gun control states to the top three least stringent gun control states 2 of 3 of the most stringently regulated states show less than 50% the number of killings as do the least stringently regulated.

        Regarding the various cultural and situational justifications the author states for why gun control will never work only one, availability and simplicity of production of firearms, should be considered as arguments against the advisability of gun control. Ready availability and home production are concerns, no doubt. However, not as arguments against gun control as reminders of the need for gun control as but one part of a multi pronged approach to violence and as reminders that gun bans are progressively less effective. Regardless, gun controls can and do positively influence the behaviors of citizens in a way desired by society.

        As to the remaining supporting facts, e.g. poverty, education, etc., these have nothing to do with the success or failure of gun control, per se, and everything to do with the need, again, for a multi pronged approach to effectively reduce the frequency and severity of overall violence and criminality. No one approach will address this issue. However, given that roughly 77% of “mass killings” involve firearms versus other methods of killing, gun control is an effective way of dealing specifically with firearms as a component of overall violence and deaths.

        • ‘Finally, while Democides have happened around the world I believe the likelihood of this happening here is exceedingly low and, at any rate, entirely irrelevant to the point.’ Actually, your belief that “the likelihood of this happening here is exceedingly low” is entirely irrelevant. No one can tell the future, let alone the infinite future.

          ‘given that roughly 77% of “mass killings” involve firearms versus other methods of killing, gun control is an effective way of dealing specifically with firearms as a component of overall violence and deaths.’ Mass killings may be the one outlier we have. However, it accounts for a very small number of the total murders, so it would NOT be effective against the OVERALL rate of homicide.

          http://peopleofarms.com/

          • kreggied

            Thank you for your reply. Regarding Democide let’s cut to the chase and assume that Democide is likely. What relevance would that have to the legitimacy of firearms control or any of the points I actually make? Regarding mass killings this is but one example of the why of emphasis on firearms over other forms of killing ( I.e. Efficiency). The point is not that the only example is mass killings. So, while you are correct on the scale of mass killing you’ve not addressed the main point. Regards.

            • It’s not a matter of likelihood but possibility, and the responsibility of the people for safeguarding their liberty.

              Guns do not – indeed cannot – cause anything to happen, and it is not surprising gun control has little effect on homicide one way or the other. The only real chance of changing anything in my opinion is with mass murder, primarily through better and more comprehensive mental health treatment, no to identify killers in advance (difficult if not impossible) but to help them steer a different course in life. Of course not everyone wants to be “helped.” Another thing we should do is stop subsidizing mass murder by giving the perps the publicity and attention and reaction they want.

              Generally, guns are only a tiny part of the problem, if any, compared with sociological forces (black on black, etc.), breakdown of family and education, cultural decline, that tend to wash out any effect due to “easy access” of guns.

              More on the principles of private gun ownership and the likely consequences for public policy and gun legislation:
              http://peopleofarms.com/

              • kreggied

                Thanks again for your reply. I hear what you are saying regarding Democide even if I have serious doubt regarding it’ s likelihood. Better safe than sorry after all . Which is why I don’t support gun bans specifically. However, I persist in insisting that a desire to feel “prepared” for such a possibility does not address my basic point which is firearms regulations, generally speaking, are constitutionally permissible and thus legitimated tools for state and local government to use. The efficacy and/or advisability of any such regulation is another question entirely.

                I tend to agree with your statements regarding the other causes and possible solutions to societal issues. I simply do not rule out the possible use of firearm regulation as an adjunct tool where and when it may be deemed effective.

                Regards

                • Thank you as well. I don’t think most people have a problem with the idea of a prohibited possessor – convicted felon, mental defective, dishonorable discharge, etc. – and to the extent we have the NICS system we can help make it function as designed, improving the reporting and submissions apparatus so those legally barred would be denied a purchase. I don’t expect this to have much effect on the criminal underworld but many of the mass killers are not connected with that society and get their guns through legal channels.

                  Mostly we have to rely on the deterrent effect of arrest and prosecution, and we may well be lacking in that regard. Some 1/3 of all homicides are not firearm related (and if we include the 1/2 of suicides by other means there’s some 25,000 people dead from suicide and homicide each year and they don’t need guns to do it – as opposed to about 30,000 by gun).

                  The trouble with weapons bans is they tend to amount to “gunfight handicaps” for the citizen, vis-a-vis the criminal or tyrant’s henchmen, and no one wants to accept a handicap in a gunfight. Does that mean Glocks and AR-15s with full capacity magazines for everyone? I find it hard to say no, unless we could turn back the clock to the days of the revolver and riot shotgun. Most of our civilian police carry Glocks with 15- or 17-round magazines and have AR-15s in the trunk of the cruiser. The people have always tended to use the same firearms as police for their defense needs. Splitting us into police and “civilians” would be an ominous departure from tradition.

                  • kreggied

                    Thanks again for your reply. From the sound, especially of your most recent post, you seem well reasoned and reasonable in the sense you don’t seem to rule out regulation as flat out unconstitutional. Further, your ideas are ones I could reasonably get behind and find little trouble understanding or accepting. I think we are, in large part, either on the same page or within negotiating distance of getting there.

                    The only point of clarification I would reiterate, because it seems to keep coming up, is with regard to banning of firearms. While I do support firearms regulation, within constitutional limitations, I do not support bans. Nor am I, generally, in favor of things like magazine limits and the like. Though I believe they are or may be constitutionally allowed I don’t believe they are or would be particularly effective. Bottom line for me is that regulation is allowed and each should be judged, on a case by case basis, to determine if a specific regulation is allowed and, if so, whether that specific regulation is demonstrably effective for its stated purpose. If it is, good to go. If not, politician ought to favor the most effective available remedy/-ies for a given problem whatever that might be, versus defaulting to a particular regulation.

                    As for parity between the civilian population and police/military I don’t think it is likely nor particularly desirable. Nor do i believe it is very relevant. More relevant to me is does a specific weapon have a reasonable use, whether recreational or otherwise, for a civilian, is it likely that it will be safely utilized, what is the relative level of risk should it fall into the “wrong” hands, and how is the particular weapon viewed within society? These seem reasonable considerations for thinking about what should and should not be allowable. All are subjective and all would need to be worked out within the constitution and in open public discussion before being employed.

                    Best regards.

                    • I usually avoid the word “intellectual” to describe my blog writing approach to this subject but as you are a kindred spirit in this sense I figure we might as well. It helps a great deal to be objective, to think of communicating across barriers and educating instead of simply advocating, and there are already plenty of people doing that.

                      If we look at the core principles of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, particularly with an emphasis on the people’s responsibilities entailed, then there are certain consequences in terms of public policy and gun legislation that follow logically, or at least must be considered seriously. For example, as we were saying for the type of weaponry permitted, since one of the functions and intents of the right of the people is to resist tyranny through force of arms if all else fails, it’s hard to deny citizens (or “civilians”) have a reasonable, legitimate reason to have the same technology (at least!) as our (civilian) police, even if they have few occasions to actually put them to use. It’s a matter of eternal principles and eternal vigilance. And then of course criminals get whatever they want and again no one wants to accept a handicap in a gunfight. (You’re probably familiar with the risible kerfuffle over magazine size with the NY so-called SAFE Act).

                      http://peopleofarms.com/

      • Linda Gonzales

        “This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun
        problem, and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem.”

        ― Joe Rogan

        • Linda Gonzales

          “Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and

          strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a

          woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.”

          — L. Neil Smith

          • angie497

            Which sounds good, until you realize that statistically, the woman with the gun in her purse has it taken from her, leaving her dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her pantyhose, and leaving her rapist with a shiny new toy to use to ‘persuade’ his next victim.

            • RJ

              False.

              • TeeJae

                Actually, true. Studies show gun owners (especially women) have a much higher chance of their own gun being used against them. Here’s one: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099?journalCode=ajph

                • pyrodice

                  No, it’s false. You’re using a survey which conflated cause and effect. Their methods were only to take people who HAD been shot in an assault, instead of people who do and people who do not carry firearms, and compare them.
                  See:
                  “Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.”

                  Yes, you read that right: They took a control sample of people living inside a city where there are significant restrictions to carrying a firearm. I wonder how many of those 684 carried? Clearly ALL of the 677 did…
                  Look, what happened here is like turning up the gain on static noise until you think you’re hearing a signal. It’s tinfoil hat alien nonsense applied to psychology.

                  • James

                    They took a sample of people who had been shot and then applied their findings from that sample to the population from which it was drawn (ie people who have been shot). There is not issue with the study on those grounds.

                    • pyrodice

                      Unless it’s JUST POSSIBLE that the people being shot were also aggressors, like gang turf disputes?
                      In any case, the misleading claim is “a much higher chance of their own gun being used against them. ”
                      Reading your survey, you’ll see that they do NOT attribute the shootings to the victim’s own firearm. As gets pointed out often enough, this is reversed causality because those who know they ARE at an increased risk of violent attack are also those who are most likely to get guns to defend themselves. This survey may as well have been taken of the population who were right.

                      • James

                        It is not my survey -and sure the post was misleading – I was simply responding to your claim that findings from a sample of people who had been shot cannot be attributed to a population of people who have been shot and so such a study would be invalid

                        • pyrodice

                          That’s worded oddly… or it’s just later at night than I thought. “findings from a sample of people who had been shot cannot be attributed to a population of people who have been shot ”
                          but they do have to draw from a database of people who had been shot, in order to ensure they were getting respondents who had been shot…

                        • James

                          That is exactly my point. You seemed to be claiming their sampling was flawed. That the sample should not have only included people who have been victims of shooting. I pointed out that since the findings from the sample were being attributed to a population of those who were victims of shooting then the sampling was quite correct.

                        • pyrodice

                          yes but USING a sample of people who have all been shot does not teach you the same thing as sampling 10,000 people, say, and determining what percentage of the population gets shot, run through a venn diagram next to the overlapping circle of people who were firearms carriers. THAT diagram would give you an accurate portrayal of the ratios involved.

            • Davehere

              You aren’t giving a statistic that proves the need for gun control, you are giving a statistic that proves the need for training. You should never carry anything you do not know how to use, I don’t care what it is. I’d like to see anyone try to take my wife’s gun and she is far from a fighter. They would only get a small part of its contents.

              • angie497

                “You aren’t giving a statistic that proves the need for gun control, you are giving a statistic that proves the need for training.”

                You don’t think that requiring proper training should be part of effective gun control?

                • Davehere

                  They are two different issues. You do not restrict someone from buying a car, but you can’t drive it unless you prove you can. No responsible gun owner will oppose restricting “carrying” a gun to those who can prove they are responsible and skilled in using it. This should not require an assessment as to whether or not one can buy a gun. “Carrying” a gun should be practiced by no one who is not skilled in the ways it should be carried and handled. I may get back feed for that comment, but nowhere that I know of (I have had carry permits in 5 states) can you carry a gun without registering to do so. I believe what should go along with that is not a restriction of who can do so, but like a car, you should be skilled in its use before you “carry” a gun.

                  I have several vehicles. No one cares if l have twenty vehicles. No one will stop me if I buy twenty more. If I get in one and drive it, I better have the proof that I have passed the tests that show I can drive. No one is going to say, “We have too many hit and runs in Jeeps! You have to buy a Smart Car.” I can get in YOUR car and drive it as long as I have that card that says I have proved I can drive. If I get stopped, and have your permission to drive, no one cares because l have that little card.

                  Cars kill more people than guns, by the way.

                  • angie497

                    “Cars kill more people than guns, by the way.” Actually not true anymore – thanks to improvements in auto safety combined with a spike in gun sales, they’re now neck and neck. It’s also irrelevant, because it’s very much an apples-to-oranges comparison.

                    And I hate to tell you this, but there are a *lot* of states that don’t require that guns be registered. There’s also no shortage of states that don’t require a license to carry a gun in public, including 6 states that have eliminated requirements for training or a permit for concealed carry.

                  • john_willow

                    There are far more car owners than gun owners in the U.S. Cars are not designed to kill. Irrelevant analogy. Proper gun use requires far more training than most people have. And your wife’s gun wouldn’t save her if someone walked into a mall with an automatic weapon.

                    • Davehere

                      Both your comments do not address the issue. Car owner vs gun owners etc. “Owners” does not seem to be the issue here, “guns” seem to be the issue here. Proper use of “guns” is what ‘l’ addressed and classed it with proper use of cars, both of which require extensive training. If you do not have the time for training, then you should not “carry” a gun. Let’s stick with the point.

                      By the way, rocks aren’t designed to kill, knives are’t designed to kill, dogs aren’t designed to kill, beer bottles aren’t designed to kill, ball bats aren’t designed to kill, tire tools aren’t designed to kill, and so goes with 50 other items that can be named. So “designed to kill” is not the issue.

                      On a side note, if someone walked into a mall with an automatic weapon and did not shoot my wife first, she would most definitely save the lives of other people that might be shot otherwise. She knows how to use her gun and THAT was my point, not the other noise.

                      And just to restate, CARS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS!

                      • James

                        You tell me the last time someone walked into a nighclub with a rock, knife, dog, beer bottle, tire iron or bat and killed 49 people and wounded 54 more.

                        • pyrodice

                          Knife. China.
                          Except if memory serves me, it may have been an elementary school, not a nightclub.

                        • James

                          in Nanping? Try 8 – not 49

                        • pyrodice

                          Kunming. I had the wrong venue, railway station. “left 29 civilians and 4 perpetrators[1] dead with more than 140 others injured”

                        • James

                          Kunming – there were 8 of them. So 8 knives in Kunming brought about half the death count of 1 AR-15 in Orlando. Let’s imagine for a second what 8 semi-automatic rifles in the hands of 8 madmen could do. Seriously – nobody can possibly try to argue that the weapons you list can be as lethal as that rifle.

                        • pyrodice

                          It was pointed out a week ago by a reporter who independently goes to forward-deployed areas in so many conflict zones you wouldn’t believe it… that if you were to succeed in banning guns, you’d wish you had them back. Where it has happened, the insurgency has moved on to using bombs, chemical weapons, flammables, improvised explosives, landmines… You think the club was bad? If they’d used 4 oz of C-4 inside a gallon jar of napalm, the survivors would BEG for death. And you know where that can be hidden? Inside a keg.
                          By the way, these were the weapons *you* listed. The weapons I would list would come from the military’s improvised munitions manual. Styrofoam takeout boxes and gasoline are basically napalm. Not hard to make. Plenty more in there.
                          Bonus point: the chinese cop response.
                          “The sole member of the team with an automatic weapon shot five of the attackers in rapid succession, killing four of them, after two warning shots were fired”

                    • pyrodice

                      Proper gun use can be taught in an afternoon. Boy scout camp does it in under 2 hours.
                      I’m not going to equivocate, here: Your claim is actually wrong.

                      And yes, my wife’s gun would save her if someone walked into the mall with an …wait: automatic?… weapon? Really? Automatic weapons have been used in approximately TWO shootings, ever. Perhaps you mean semi-automatic, like a sporting rifle… an AR-15, or equivalent…
                      Anyways, I submit:
                      “the Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon, in which a psycho with a semi-automatic rifle opened fire. Nick Melli, a young man with security guard training and carrying a .40 pistol on a permit, drew and took aim at the gunman. Melli didn’t fire, for fear of hitting innocents behind the perpetrator, but the gunman at that point fled through an employees-only doorway and down an inside hall, where he then committed suicide. What could have been a high-casualty mass murder was apparently aborted by the mere sight of an armed citizen.” – See more at: http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/03/10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/#10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-2

                      • DanD

                        You do realize there was an armed guard at Pulse, right? And that the results of an armed, drunken, populace in a crowded noisy night club would not have been fewer deaths?

                        Yes, occasionally, armed individuals stop attacks. Fortunately, sometimes they even known enough not to shoot into the crowd (although there is no actual evidence that the Clackamas Mall shooter saw Melli). For every time that happens, hundreds of people die because of convenient access to fire arms. Either by suicide or by accidental shooting or by a heat of the moment shooting.

                        • pyrodice

                          “the results of an armed, drunken, populace in a crowded noisy night club would not have been fewer deaths?”
                          This assertion is endlessly repeated, and never shown to be true.
                          Here’s the problem. For something to be considered viable as a scientific theory, it must be falsifiable. When the antis put up the challenge that “no mass shooting has ever been prevented by a civilian with a gun”, or some variant thereupon, one must ask what this means. Is there a mass shooting that we know will happen? How do we know that? Do we no longer know that, because the shooter is stopped? How do we affect a control for this survey?
                          The answer is that this claim was never intended for falsifiability. It’s spurious. ANY person who stops a spree shooter before they’re out of ammunition, running away, or committing suicide would be considered as a successful defense if we were using a countering standard.
                          Here’s my recommended reading.
                          http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

                        • pyrodice

                          I realize there were also police at Pulse.
                          http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06/28/orlando-police-held-positions-as-islamic-terrorist-reloaded/
                          That they didn’t DO anything is one more indication that we needed armed TRULY “first” responders, inside.
                          “And that the results of an armed, drunken, populace in a crowded noisy night club would not have been fewer deaths?”
                          This is an assertion that comes from a belief rooted in emotion, and no knowledge whatsoever.
                          You should either listen to professionals, or admit to me that you are not interested in listening to professionals.
                          http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=400

                          “Yes, occasionally, armed individuals stop attacks”
                          Are you referring SPECIFICALLY to mass-shootings? Because in deterrence of COMMON crime, they are SPECTACULARLY common.
                          “For every time that happens, hundreds of people die because of convenient access to fire arms.”
                          Actually, for every time each of THOSE happens, hundreds of people use firearms to repel an attack or prevent a crime. We can whip ’em out, if you really want to compare numbers, but it always seems to end with laymen refusing to believe accredited criminologists.

                    • The new cleavage

                      What’s your address so I can come rob you?

                  • terrorist96

                    …but nowhere that I know of … can you carry a gun without registering to do so.

                    You must not have ever heard of Constitutional carry. There are 9 (or 10) states where you can carry concealed without any government permission. See here:
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry

                    That also doesn’t include the list of states that you can carry openly without government permission. See here for that (look at the “permissive” states in the chart):
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States

                  • pyrodice

                    “but nowhere that I know of (I have had carry permits in 5 states) can you carry a gun without registering to do so”

                    Arizona has constitutional carry, I can’t even FIND data on the number of people who are presently carrying concealed weapons down here. Nobody knows.
                    Fun related fact: The police DID NOT assault the OWS protestors down here. They knew better.

                  • James

                    Good point about cars. So lets treat guns like cars shall we? The ownership of guns, like cars, shall be strictly controlled. Owners shall be registered with each gun having a unique registration number that must be plainly visible whenever the gun is outside the owner’s property. For people to be in possession of a gun in public they must all first pass a written and practical test and be subject to relevant medical tests. This license and the testing that goes with it should be subject to periodic renewal.
                    Remember – it was your idea.

                    • The new cleavage

                      You’re gonna get robbed

                  • DanD

                    I think you’ll find that, while cars are not taken away because they are unsafe, new cars are heavily regulated with regards to safety features.

                    So yes, the government does say “we have to many fatal accidents with the 2016 Jeep, the 2017 Jeep will have this additional feature”.

                • Phil Farnum

                  No one can force someone else to learn anything. Otherwise there would be no dropouts and everyone would earn straight As. Education and training is a personal choice that we can try to influence but not require.

                • Vince Edmonds

                  “You dont think that requiring proper training should be part of effective gun control?”
                  Thats the nail on the head of this entire issue. NO … YOU HAVE NO PLACE TO TRY AND ADD RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND TO MY GUN RIGHTS.!
                  “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is the only words you need know. Its not up to YOU or any libtarded left-wing anti-American anti-god traitorous racist terrorist what i do with MY guns. I have the right to keep (that means “own” for you uninformed people) and BEAR (that means carry … notice it never specifies “concealed”) arms.
                  Your approval is not required. .. nor is it solicited. Move along little one

                  • angie497

                    I also know that before it gets to your favorite words, the Second Amendment specifically refers to a well-regulated militia.

                    Well-regulated.

                    Piss off.

                    • pyrodice

                      “regulation” implying exactly what it does in boxing or football. Everyone’s gear shall be equivalent, to avoid imbalance.
                      By all means, “regulate” the militia https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
                      “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.”
                      such that they are equipped, AS INTENDED, with the same ordinance as the “regulars” (the standing army)… It won’t be SEMI automatics anymore, it will go from the civilian AR-15 to the military M-16, or M-4. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d62aa38b440579d5abef98557e8580f3010597adac3a9fab774b1133297625c.jpg

                  • DanD

                    So you’re fine with civilian ownership of nukes?

                    Because that’s what zero regulation on the right to keep and bear arms means.

                • phil box

                  absolutely not. training is needed for gun ownership not gun control. think think think

            • Enderby

              Aside from the fact that your “statistics” seem convenient for this argument , even If they were true, the woman without the gun is no less raped than the woman with the gun who had it taken from her. From your righteous perch, you have no standing to tell another woman that she has no right to try and shoot the guy who would try to violate her even if she isn’t successful. In other words, mind your own business. Go without a gun if you chose, but don’t tell others they can’t carry if they want.

            • phil box

              that is why when you pull you weapon you empty it into your assailant without saying a word.

            • Ron

              Personally, I’d like to see your statistical research on the subject. I have research from reputable sources that says differently.

          • LostInUnderland

            I think it is morally superior to be raped and killed than to kill someone. The woman that is killed has done nothing immoral. The woman that kills her attacker has done something immoral even if the reason is justifiable. I do not think morality has any place in the debate.

            • philosopher 299792458

              Killing is not immoral. You’re morally retarded for thinking the way you do.

              • LostInUnderland

                You do not believe killing to be immoral under any circumstances? I have never heard of a moral paradigm that condones killing. Can you tell me more, please?

                • philosopher 299792458

                  I never said all killing is ok. Unjustified killing, aka murder, is wrong.

                  But there’s nothing wrong with killing, in and of itself. The act of ‘killing’ is itself, a morally neutral act. This is because the context of the act, and the circumstances surrounding it, are the only criteria that determine whether the act is right or wrong. If someone simply says A killed B, there is nothing that can be said about whether the act was right or wrong. That can only be determined when the context and circumstances of the act are specified.

                  The majority of societies around the world recognize this fact by having an entire body of laws and legal theory devoted to ‘justifiable’ homicide. So yes, the intentional killing of another is justified in certain situations. It’s sometimes necessary to kill, and can even a good thing, in certain instances. The majority of religious and philosophical traditions acknowledge this fact as well.

                  Also in your original comment, it actually is immoral to not protect and defend your life. Life is the most valuable thing a person has. Not attempting to defend your life against someone who is trying to kill you is essentially aiding and approving of murder. You have a right to life and no one can unjustifiably take it from you. The very act of them trying to kill you removes their right to life, therefore nothing wrong is done by killing them to save your life.

                  Those are the views I live by.

                  • LostInUnderland

                    That is an interesting point of view. I should clarify that I do not find it immoral to defend yourself, but I also do not find it immoral to try to defend yourself and fail. However, my belief is that thou shall not kill. I can defend myself and leave the person alive and that would be my goal. I do not expect everyone to share my view, but I did find it curious that you thought killing someone could be a moral act.

                    • philosopher 299792458

                      I don’t find it immoral to TRY to defend yourself either. It’s not trying and just letting someone kill you that is immoral.

                      Since you phrased your belief, “thou shall not kill,” if you’re basing your belief on the biblical commandment, the actual translation is “thou shall not murder.” In the bible, killing is seen as quite ok and actually advocated in certain situations.

                      An obvious example of a situation where killing is morally good would be assassinating the leader of a country who’s killing innocent people and is going to kill more if they aren’t stopped.

                      You seem to find value in the life of someone trying to kill you. I do not. The very fact that they’re unjustifiably trying to take my life, removes any right to life they have at that moment. I have no obligation to respect the life of someone who doesn’t respect my own life. And if killing them is necessary, one can kill in these instances and be completely justified. One’s conscience should be clear and one should have no regret for killing in such a situation. It’s the fact that the vast majority of humans are hardwired to be strongly against killing their own species, an evolutionary adaptation that many species share, that makes some people feel guilty and bad for killing even when they’re completely justified in killing that person.

                      Also sometimes it’s just not possible to defend yourself without killing the other person. You can try to defend yourself using a level of force less than deadly force, but in doing so you assume a much greater risk that you’ll be killed yourself before you can stop the threat. When the threat is at the level of deadly force, the proper response that gives you the highest probability of success is to respond with deadly force.

                • Vince Edmonds

                  According to you idiots … abortion is justified murder of a human being

                • pyrodice

                  “self defense”

            • Vince Edmonds

              Baaaaahahaha haha hahaha hahaha haha hahaha hahaha haha hahaha hahaha haha hahaha hahaha … oh wait. ….YOU’RE SERIOUS! ? …. BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA … you’re a damned liar and freako perv. Lol you leftist pigs and your “grasp at anything to try and silence the right” bullcrap cracks me up

            • pyrodice

              I think you’re doing something really weird, if you can separate moral and just.

          • James

            So since that woman would not have had room in her purse for an AR15 you would have no problem with a ban on semi-automatic long guns then?

            • Linda Gonzales

              Even if you banned everything that can possibly be turned into a
              weapons, you still would be aiding the criminals. Here’s why, criminals
              will always have the upper hand when it comes to selecting their
              targets. They are the perpetrators, hence, they get the choice of their
              targets. 100% of the time, the perpetrator of a crime will choose a
              target that is more vulnerable than them, and that comes in the form of a
              physically weaker person or a person that is outnumbered. The victims
              do not have that choice of choosing their perpetrators. My point is, let potential victims empower themselves by selecting what they want to protect themselves and their families. My AR15 is my home defense rifle. That same firearms in the hands of a perpetrator is an ‘assault rifle’. I hope you can appreciate the difference. If not, it’s really not my problem. I have the US Constitution on my side.

        • R Smith

          If you get the time to read the book “Brain Maker” please do. I think it reveals possibly the biggest underlying reason for mental instability in the modern world. Of course without other contributing factors, there are many, this primary underlying reason may not by itself account for such a proliferation of mental illness in the U.S.. imo

          • Author?

            • R Smith

              Dr David Perlmutter

              • john_willow

                Perlmutter’s claim in the Grain Brain that gluten causes neurological problems is considered pseudo-science in the medical community.

                • R Smith

                  Brain Maker is his latest book. The medical community, as a whole, follows behind cutting edge research and knowledge.

          • john_willow

            This has nothing to do with a proliferation of mental illness. It has to do with far too many guns in your country, obtained far too easily.

            • R Smith

              I disagree. The more our food supply differentiates from nutritious, and the more our government differentiates from sanity the higher the incidence of mental illness, easy math 1+1=2. The various control freaks(sociopaths) have been hacking away at our entire system for decades and the extent to which it shows(an in crease in mental illness) has increased also.

              • john_willow

                Your opinion has no scientific basis.

                • R Smith

                  Oh there’s plenty of scientific basis, many have just not yet seen that the dots connect, and many do not want others to see that the dots connect.

            • R Smith

              And this was accomplished with no guns possessed by the perps, just gov after the fact as always.

              BEIJING (AP) — Authorities in southwestern China on Tuesday executed three men convicted of masterminding a knife attack a year ago that killed 31 people outside a railway station in the city of Kunming.

              Iskandar Ehet, Turgun Tohtunyaz and Hasayn Muhammad were put to death after China’s Supreme Court upheld their convictions for the crimes of murder and organizing and leading a terrorist organization, the Kunming City Intermediate People’s Court said in a notice.

              Five knife-wielding assailants hacked 31 people to death and injured 141 on March 1, 2014, an act of violence that shook the country as tensions between the Uighur Muslim minority and the majority Han ethnic group spread beyond the Uighurs’ homeland of Xinjiang.

              Four of the assailants were shot dead at the scene and the fifth, a pregnant woman, Patigul Tohti, was captured alive and later sentenced to life in prison on the charges of joining a terror group and murder.

              Authorities said Ehet, Tohtunyaz and Muhammad were arrested two days before the attack while attempting to flee across the Chinese border. Having lost contact with the three men, the other five members of the group mounted the attack as planned, the Kunming court said.

              Beijing has blamed Uighur separatists and religious fanatics for a spate of recent violence that has caused hundreds of deaths over the past year.

              Critics say heavy-handed Chinese rule and economic disenfranchisement have pushed some Uighurs toward extremism.

              Dilxat Raxit, spokesman for the Germany-based World Uyghur Congress, said he did not believe the defendants had a fair trial. “China is evading the root cause for the problem through the political means of the death sentence,” Dilxat Raxit said. “The defendants were not granted a dignified trial.”

              • DanD

                Five attackers, 31 deaths.

                Pulse: 1 Attacker, 49 deaths.

                If you’re trying to make the point that firearms don’t increase deaths in such incidents, you’re failing.

        • john_willow

          No, you have a gun problem. A big one. Rogan is about as far from an authority on the subject as you can get.

        • Scott Mack

          Exactly! And it is happening in other countries around the world!

      • PaulineCBrown

        22222Ultra Income source by mintpressnews < Find Here

      • roccolore

        “Gun control” activists are hypocrites who have armed security at their anti-gun rallies.

        • Lexington Goyle

          Can’t argue with that. At least the ones that call for total gun control that’s insane. Reasonable gun control laws like what’s up in Canada? Not a problem.

      • James D

        This was actually a well balanced article, not something you usually get about guns. Not that the anti gun people really care about the safety as much as the control part.

        • Ryan McLaughlin

          No, it wasn’t. More bullshit propaganda.

      • hanspy

        Gun control is maybe not getting murder rates down(what is not true,they go down) but gun murders go down and special the number of accident killings. Criminals shooting each other will never go away.But at least kids and normal people don’t get shot, as it is in the States. And is that the reason why you not write down the real nr’s according Australia? ZERO mass shootings after gun control. Beat that.

        • James D

          I guess shootings by muslim extremists don’t count in Australia. Plus you say criminals shoot each other but innocent bystanders never get hit? Seriously? You believe that? Get out of your bubble and look around.

          • hanspy

            Reading and understanding my English is not easy , I know. But one thing I did not say.”Never” is not the word I have used.Read again. I say.It is not as bad as it is in the USA. So. Who’s bubble? Look around and you see?

          • nunya

            Confirmed, hanspy is a leftist agitator.

        • justsaying

          Having lived “down under” people have no idea about the crime in Australia. I have lived there sir. It is not the safe utiopa you think it is. The bikers(they are called bush rangers) have guns and the average citizen dose not. Gun crime is Australia’s dirty little secret. While you won’t see it reported hear in the states gun smugling is so brazen that the bikers had a fake post office just for shipping guns into. Women outside of the city can not walk alone at night for fear of rape.

          • Jo C

            Simply not true, and I highly doubt you have lived in Australia just based on you use of ‘fake’ language. Gun crime is not the dirty little secret as you put it. Of course Australia is not a utopia, and has many problems also related to violence. However living in a metropolitan area (that’s a city to you), I can assure you that we do fear for our safety and I personally do not know a single person who owns a gun.

            • justsaying

              So I see that you opened up a comment account just to post about gun control today. I wonder why you are posting on media that is over 13 days old and on a dead thread? But I do like the liberal liar liar debate tactics. When you can’t debate the facts just say that those facts are lies. A simple google search with the term “fake post office Australia Sylvania Waters” will show what I said was true.

        • Hundie

          Who cares about mass shootings? Why is that always the topic with people that want firearm bans. Didn’t some dude stab 8 people in his house in australia not even a year ago? He killed a mass amount of people with a knife. Also, they talk about shootings, but what about violent crimes, such as battery and rape? Those did go up significantly in those countries where they banned guns, because the animals that do that stuff know people cannot defend themselves, hence no fear. Plus, the people have no way to defend themselves if their governments turn tyrannical, which has and will continue to happen in this world. So, if overly strict gun control isn’t reducing murder rates, violent crime is increasing, and we cannot defend ourselves, then what good is it? Want the woman in your family being raped?

          Like any other utility, we will lose people, but the benefit outweighs the losses. A perfect example of that is driving a car, where over 42,000 people lose their lives per year in the US, and over 200,000 are permanently injured from car accidents. Americans will never give up their guns, and the police, nor will military personnel be able to accomplish disarming America, because most cops and military believe in an armed society, and they are totally outnumbered by the people with guns in this country.

          • hanspy

            Don’t give up your guns. You do such a fine job controlling your cops and government. You live in a country with 33 killings per 100.000 and I in a country with 3 per 100.000. Live your life as you wish.

            • Hundie

              Killings, as in murders? Might want to go back and look at those numbers. Most of those are suicides. The majority of those murders are gang on gang violence in Horrible areas. The way the makes america sound is like it dangerous do anything at all. i will live life as I wish and I am most happy living in a country that gives me the freedom to climb the capitalist ladder as high as I want to go and that allows me to protect myself from bad guys, if I ever needed to.

            • nunya

              And how many of those were gun deaths? The leading implement in the US for murder is a hammer. You know the same one used to build houses, schools, and hospitals. So tell me though. As a non citizen of the US, where do you get off telling them how to conduct themselves? You strike me as one of those who would rail against the US for deploying it’s troops to assist another country while telling them that they should abandon their whole system of governance and adopt a form of socialism. Are you not content to dwell in your own nation and live your ideal way?

            • Freedomcomesfirst

              The vast majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides.

              The UK is a perfect example since their per capita suicide rate is virtually identical to ours even since the passage their draconian gun laws. The English simply prefer to hang themselves.

              A huge percentage of firearm deaths in the US are criminals killing each other. Primarily gang members and other criminals in mid to large sized cities.

              • Ryan McLaughlin

                I don’t think you understand the definition of “draconian.”

                Thanks for playing!

                • Freedomcomesfirst

                  I am clearly aware of the definition. It applies to my post.

            • RJ

              Uhhhh…wuht? America has 4.7 homicides per 100,000 people BEFORE you separate out the killings involved in legitimate self-defense scenarios, police shootings, etc. Where you got your 33 per 100k is both baffling and laughable. This is the kind of crap that makes people think there’s a gun problem in America, when there’s really just a thinking problem among industrialized nations.

              • RJ

                In case you’re interested in at least an attempt at factual data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

              • hanspy

                Live your life as you wish. Is here something you do not understand? Do I need to putt a gun against your head before you get the message? But do not spread the BS that guns are good and are such good way to protect yourself. They do not. You have a gun problem. You have a mental healthcare problem. You have a Police problem. You have an income problem. You have poverty problems. You have drugs problems. What the heck. USA is one big problem.

                • Responsible carrier

                  I agree with everything there, except the gun problem, guns have no effect on any of these things. Each of these examples, except for drugs and guns, are ideals, not physical properties. Steps to solve the ideals mentioned here, would effect the drug and gun problems oversly, I’d bet by 50%. You can connect the dots, no sense in writing a book here.

                  • hanspy

                    Except on the nr of people shooting each other. But with a responsible guy as you it may not be a problem to get rid of that problem.