I’d like to both agree (on one view) and take issue with Susan Stamper-Brown’s Guest Commentary of Aug. 3 (“The Futility of Gun Control”). I find several of her views to be very closed-minded and illogical, as I do those of many people who advocate no attempt at sensible gun control.
First of all, we do have gun controls right now. They just haven’t prevented mass-murders such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and Aurora. In my mind, that means that a rational and sensible public should look at what we might do to address that deficiency.
Second, before we go any further, let me state the following:
• I am not a gun control “activist.” I’m just a citizen interested in making our world a better and more safe place in which to live.
• My view of the Second Amendment is that it was wise and correct for its time, and still is (with modification in implementation for the changes in weaponry over the years). When it was written, the most deadly weapon an individual could carry could be shot roughly three times in a minute by a marksman expert at re-loading. It was also a time in which military states imposed their will over “rebel” colonies by military might. In those days, that was much more of a concern in the USA than the actions of a lone individual of questionable mental stability. Our Founding Fathers wisely divided our military into multiple branches to reduce the potential for military oppression. They did not take into account the multiple-round weaponry available to individuals today.
• It is illogical, if you think about it, to reject any reconsideration of “weapon control” at the same time as our government steadfastly is pursuing a goal of preventing nuclear weapons capabilities in other countries. It’s a matter of scale (i.e. how many people can be killed with this weapon?). So, as guns and other individually operated weapons increase in their potential to kill, we ought to think about who should be allowed to possess them.
Back to the Second Amendment: Grenades, IEDs, chemical weapons, etc., were not addressed, but certainly could be used by citizens as a defense against an overbearing government or a potential home invasion. Yet, those devices are not allowed to be possessed by ordinary citizens. So, what’s the difference? It’s probably the combination of what was explicitly inked in the Second Amendment (the weapons of that time), and the financial clout of the NRA.
My view is that “gun control” should involve increased scrutiny and background checks as a weapon’s potential to kill increases. For example, if you want to buy a rapid-fire, large ammunition volume “assault rifle” or large clip handgun, you need to “pass” a higher level of scrutiny than if you want to buy a non-concealable, single-shot rifle used to hunt.
If you are undergoing mental counseling for violent tendencies, for example, you are not permitted to buy an AK 7. And, some weapons may be restricted to that “well-regulated militia” (National Guard?) and simply not be allowed to be sold over-the-counter. Sorry, gun dealers, but it isn’t just about your profits. It’s about safer schools, malls and movie theaters for all of us.
My one area of agreement with Stamper-Brown is that it is people behind the trigger that we need to be most concerned about. But, I’m also concerned about the people who gain financially from guns sales and who really don’t care about balancing their financial gain with societal safety interests. One broad statistic that Stamper-Brown did not mention is that gun-based homicide rates in Europe (where guns are much less available) are roughly 1/4 or less than in the USA and that the average of 35 other higher/middle-income countries is 1/8 that of the USA. Availability is not the only factor, to be sure, but it’s impossible to deny the correlation.
I reject the premise that gun control is futile just because what we have right now has not prevented multiple tragic incidents. I don’t suffer from the illusion that all mass-murders can be prevented, but I am willing to consider what we might do, as a society, to make destructive weapons less likely to end up in the wrong hands.
I believe that this issue is worth continued examination and that we, as a society, can do better than live with the status quo and intransigent (and/or profit-motivated) gun rights views.
• Bob Beane is an economics graduate of the College of Wooster and an MBA accounting graduate of Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. He is also a bicycling advocate and has been a resident of Ahwatukee since 1992.
wangly posted at 8:39 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.
Both lawsuits request that Hogan be given the sex tape tape designer replica handbags tape so it can be destroyed.A lawyer for Gawker told
"We intend to fight the lawsuit and we're confident that that replica designer handbags that a court will throw it out because it's basically
under the first ammendment."According to Todd Clem, Hogan was in in cheap authentic air jordans in on the sex tape from the beginning. On his
show this morning, Clem said he was "brainwashed" by Hogan Hogan cheap authentic jordans Hogan into letting the WWE champ have sex with his
As for Hogan's claims that he was secretly being taped taped replica designer handbags taped during the act, Clem said, "You can't play the
like that."Clem's lawyer hopes the two men can work it it designer replica handbags it out. Attorney Stephen Diaco told The Associated Press that
was the best man at the Clemses' wedding and is is replica designer handbags is also a godfather to their child."My hope is that
two can preserve their friendship," he said. "I can't comment comment cheap jordan shoes comment on the suit. This has caused harm to Bubba
he didn't release it. He didn't condone the release of of discount designer handbags of it. He wants to find out who did that
he wants that person to be held accountable."Hogan's not the the cheap authentic air jordans the only star to go on a legal warpath because
a sex tape. Click through for four more memorable celebrity celebrity authentic jordans celebrity legal battles over raunchy recordings. Given some of their
wangly posted at 9:14 pm on Tue, Nov 6, 2012.
it will likely be around the same price range.Apple has has cheap real jordans has also set the event just three days before Microsoft's
8 and Surface tablet are to be released. Windows 8 8 cheap authentic jordans 8 is Microsoft's first real competitor to Apple's tablet dominance
the market. Apple is also rumored to announce some new new cheap jordan shoes new computers at the event, including a MacBook Pro with
13-inch Retina Display.ABC News will be at the event in in cheap designer handbags in San Jose, which will be held at the California
and starts at 10:00 a.m. PT. Stay tuned for all all replica designer handbags all our coverage live from the ground.Hulk Hogan and 4
Memorable Lawsuits Over Celebrity Sex TapesHulk Hogan Sues Bubba the the knockoff designer handbags the Love Sponge, Gawker Over Sex TapeBy SHEILA MARIKAR Oct.
2012 — Hulk Hogan is ready to take some new new replica designer handbags new opponents to the mat.The former pro wrestler has sued
friend, disc jockey Bubba "The Love Sponge" Clem, the DJ's DJ's knockoff designer handbags DJ's ex-wife, Heather Cole, and Gawker Media Monday after a
tape involving Hogan and Cole was posted online.In two lawsuits lawsuits cheap replica handbags lawsuits filed in Florida, Hogan (real name: Terry Bollea) said
had consensual sex with Cole six years ago in the the cheap authentic jordans the home she shared with Clem but did not know
was being recorded. He's also seeking $100 million in damages damages authentic jordans damages from Gawker, which posted a portion of the tape
Desert_Doom posted at 7:55 pm on Sat, Sep 1, 2012.
Another myopic, educator who is blind to the one important fact. Whatever restrictions you place on gun ownership the only ones who will suffer are the law bidding citizens that acquiesce to those restrictions.
Or do you really believe that evil lawbreakers buy their guns from gun stores? They will still have what they need to rob and kill and it will only be harder to protect ourselves.
Hey Badg-uys . . . You can find Mr. Beane's address from Net Detective . . . My bet is you can break in whether he is home or not as if he lives as he preaches he won't have a firearm and is relying on 911 . . . . Like that wor;s well
sockratties posted at 7:55 am on Sat, Aug 25, 2012.
LackofReason
I see leon’s ruse worked on you… as expected.
VofReason posted at 12:52 pm on Fri, Aug 24, 2012.
Maybe the Government can help this group not to have to make these difficult decisions.
VofReason posted at 12:51 pm on Fri, Aug 24, 2012.
"There is no “pro-abortion” lobby. That issue is about such issues as the right to choose, when life begins, sex education and access to resources." This is the most assinine statement I have seen here in some time- and there have been some dooseys (Dale). "Right to choose"- ah choose to murder your unborn child becuase you could buy a fifty cent condom? "Sex education"? If you have unprotected sex, there is a good chance you will get pregnant. Is there any guesswork left here? "Access to resources"? Like fifty cents to buy a condom? Sorry, I guess I assumed most people were born with sense. Our friend Sockratties points out that there may be some that don't have any.
sockratties posted at 3:38 pm on Thu, Aug 23, 2012.
california leon…
There is no reason that those two entirely separate issues cannot be addressed independently. That would be like saying we shouldn’t work on a cure for cancer because more people die from heart disease. Your contention that there is no murder by weapon problem because of the four to one ratio in incidents belies your logical prowess.
There is no “pro-abortion” lobby. That issue is about such issues as the right to choose, when life begins, sex education and access to resources. There have been no issues with “drive by abortions” or people threatening a theater full of people with forceps. The best approach to and solutions for these two issues require very different inquiries.
Trying to muddy the waters of one discussion by inserting your own is disingenuous. Either subject is important and deserves to be discussed in its own forum on its own merits.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 2:43 pm on Thu, Aug 23, 2012.
Dear Mr. Beane,
That taking of any human life (except the death penalty) is reprehensible. There were;
31,347 Murders in America were committed with a gun.
1,300,000 Abortions in America through medicines, vacumn instruments and of course the pointed end of a pair of forceps.
It would seem to my "high-school diploma" self.. that America doesn't have a "murder by weapon" problem.............AMERICA HAS MURDER BY ABORTION PROBLEM
DonMey posted at 10:41 am on Thu, Aug 23, 2012.
Just because it has never worked before is no reason to assume we can't find a magical order of words which will prevent people who are willing to kill another human being from obtaining a gun illegally.
Wow. Talk about denying reality.
sockratties posted at 8:11 am on Thu, Aug 23, 2012.
Bob… Thanks for sharing your views. I think you are correct in thinking that although the genie is out of the bottle, something can be done to reduce the carnage without infringing on our constitutional rights. I have had guns all of my life and currently have a .38 semi-automatic pistol in my home. My favorite was a Browning 22-250 lever action with a 10X scope; a great varmint rifle.
Gun control doesn’t have to mean banning guns. Registration of legally owned guns does not infringe on our right to bear arms, just as registration of motor vehicles does not infringe on our right to own a car or truck. Registration means that illegal guns can be identified and taken off the streets.
Many more people are killed every year by gangs, drive-by shootings and criminal activity than by the sensational events that make the big headlines. These are the killings sensible gun control would reduce. Gang-bangers are breaking no law even if they have a car full of stolen or black-market guns unless the guns can be identified as stolen. If serial numbers are filed off they’re home free even if stopped by the police. Same is true for the criminal on the way to hold up a local mom-pop store. Unregistered firearms could be confiscated on the spot and criminals could be arrested for illegal possession. This would include everything from Saturday night specials to AK-47s. Firearms are almost always found when drug dealers are busted but possession of these guns is not currently a cause for arrest.
Comprehensive gun registration would mean that only those who legitimately own firearms can carry them without fear of discovery or arrest. This eventually takes felons, gang-bangers, and legally restricted individuals out of the picture and gives law enforcement another tool to work with.
Registration of firearms has no negative effect on legitimate gun owners and can even help ensure that proper storage and trigger locks are used to reduce accidental discharge. The fear that such registration gives “Big Brother” another peek into our lives is only a complaint of those with something to hide or a symptom of agoraphobia; typical of those who shouldn’t have access to weapons in the first place.
VofReason posted at 1:08 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.
More logical and likely more impactful is to figure out how to identify the wackos and get to them before they go crazy. My sense is there were overwhelmingly more people who have the assualt rifles etc etc then walked into a school or theater and shot up a bunch of people.
VofReason posted at 1:06 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.
"First of all, we do have gun controls right now. They just haven’t prevented mass-murders such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and Aurora. In my mind, that means that a rational and sensible public should look at what we might do to address that deficiency." We also have Air Traffic Controllers and that hasn't prevented airplanes from occasionally crashing. I agree that there doesn't seem to be sensible reasons why some weapons can be sold, but it is a farce to think crazy people will not go off and kill people.
Maddog posted at 10:03 am on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.
I'll give up my guns when you LIbs give up your right to free speech and quit voting!
k33j88 posted at 7:02 am on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.
Bob, when a criminal breaks into your home and holds your wife or children hostage, what will you use? A peashooter? Maybe a slingshot? Keeping a liberal nearby to diffuse the situation might help. Same situation in the real world. Would you cry like a baby and plead for mercy while those around you are being murdered? Would you take the "high road" to prevent the slaughter of innocents by using your weapon of choice? Remember, there was a child gunned down by that evil lowlife in the tuscon shopping center.
mrconservative posted at 10:53 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
I never said she used a knife. I simply stated that as an example of "arms". I never even mentioned what kind of weapon she used.
samkat posted at 6:01 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
I have an idea. Lets start by banning all cell phone use unless a hands free device is used. Then, lets ban all texting while operating a vehicle. There are more accidents from the use of these devices than there are for gun related deaths. All military installations ban both devices so why not the general public?
spencer60 posted at 2:51 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
Commenter Dale, you are pretty much incorrect on every point you bring up...
Nothing proposed by the gun control industry has ever passed the 'sensible' test.
That's simply their code for 'what I think is sensible and everyone else sees as repressive'.
Gun bans, mag limits, registration. None of these so-called 'sensible' gun control measures have reduced crime in the past, or will in the future.
All gun control laws violate the fundamental reality that laws don't stop criminals from doing criminal things.
Criminals are already breaking real laws, like murder, rape and robbery, to worry about having a magazine that holds 11 bullets.
As for exporting guns to the cartels, the current administration and the ATF are the only ones guilty there.
The cartels don't need our overpriced, semi-automatic firearms.
They can buy fully automatic, military weapons by the container-load anywhere in the world at a fraction of the cost.
Does anyone really think the cartels are being armed by Walmart and Bass Pro Shops? Talk about not being 'sensible'.
Lastly, the NRA is a powerful lobbying group because the 4 million NRA members vote!
Last I looked, voting for candidates that support the Constitution was still a 'sensible' thing to do...
EthanPDX posted at 2:39 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
A couple things jump out here. First, the linkage between citizen ownership of firearms and militia was rooted in the desire to avoid the need/practice of maintaining a large standing army (which could then be used against citizens themselves). We moved away from the original militia model around the turn of the last century, and strongly towards a large professional standing army during the cold war . . . so we kind of blew that one. Unfortunate wars like Iraq and even Afghanistan would have been much harder to start and prolong if we had the old system. Bob seems to ignore the fact that when militia were called up, they were expected to show up with a full infantry kit, including weapon (if not they were issued one and charged for it)
Within that context, the muskets of the founding fathers' time were indeed the assault rifles of their day, ask any redcoat at the receiving end of accurate sustained fire from revolutionary minutemen. If citizens can own and thus "bear" arms in a manner sufficient to serve as a foot soldier . . . then the semi-auto rifles (often mistakenly ID'd as "assault rifles") are actually already a grade less capable than they would need in military service, or face in the hypothetical confrontation with a tyrannical government.
As someone who thinks the likelihood of needing to call up a citizen militia or stop tyranny is remote at best, I nevertheless support the perhaps archaic provisions of the 2nd Amendment because is it our Constitution. I was equally offended by the wanton disregard paid to our privacy and due process protections after 9/11. I don't hold truck with anyone playing fast and loose with Rights they don't agree with or value, on the left or right. If we as a society have come to a place where our codified gun rights are truly inappropriate, the path forward is clearly constitutional amendment, not end runs.
Neither gun control or gun rights advocates seem able to meet in the middle and discuss common sense laws that don't abridge rights. The NRA and it's ilk have a zero compromise approach (while taking zero responsibility) and gun control advocates are disingenuous about their ultimate goals (disarmament through general and specific weapon/carry bans). Both groups severely disappoint.
parks207 posted at 1:38 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
Bob, what does shall not infringe mean to you? So, your understanding of shall not infringe means as long as you agree that it's sensible gun control it's not infringing? The Founding Fathers were inventors, lawyers, intellectual giants, how dare you assume they hadn't the forethought regarding weapons advancements. They also had the forethought to know frauds like yourself would try to erode The Constitution, that is why they made it so difficult to amend. So your type try to change the meaning of the words, now shall not infringe doesn't mean shall not, it means may, so long as it is sensible. I could have sat here all day breaking down how flimsy your position is. Really, your facts are just way off and your arguments are tried and failed at best.
chatmandu002 posted at 12:51 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
Bob,
You would have to violate the patient/doctor confidentially to implement your restrictions. Not all violent tendencies lead to murder. What happens after you qualify for the weapons, then you suffer some mental problems?
I say go back to the drawing board on this one.
Willbill posted at 12:35 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
“They did not take into account the multiple-round weaponry available to individuals today.”
They did not take into account modern media like radio, television, photography, the internet, etc. Does that mean that the First Amendment does not count for these media? Also, the Second Amendment does not grarentee a right to keep and bear obsolute arms, and I believe that the framers of the Constitution would support citizens keeping and bearing modern arms. They placed more faith and trust in the people than the government and its officials.
“…we ought to think about who should be allowed to possess them.”
We have not only thought about this but it was decided and made into law that citizens are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms if he/she:
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is a fugitive from justice
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
“Back to the Second Amendment: Grenades, IEDs, chemical weapons, etc., were not addressed, but certainly could be used by citizens as a defense against an overbearing government or a potential home invasion. Yet, those devices are not allowed to be possessed by ordinary citizens. So, what’s the difference?”
When the Bill of Rights was ratified Arms was defined as rifles, pistols, and swords but not cannons, and the same applies today. That is what the NRA supports.
Citizen disarmament zealots and organizations use the nuclear weapons, grenades, IED, nuclear, Etc. argument to confuse the issue and an attempt to deceive the public into believing that those who support the Second Amendment support owning such weapons which is false.
“For example, if you want to buy a rapid-fire, large ammunition volume “assault rifle…”
When I purchased my AR-15 over thirty years ago no one called it a “Assault Weapon” or “Killing Machine” “Battlefield Weapon,” “Rapid Fire Weapon” Etc. It was the semi-auto (Fires one shot per one pull of the trigger) version of the semi-auto plus full-auto (Fires continuously as long as the trigger is pulled) M-16, but citizen disarmament zealots and organizations found that they could gain support for gun bans through semantics. For example, they called affordable handguns “Saturday Night Specials” or “Junk Guns.” So, that started calling AR-15s and the like “Assault Style Weapons” and later just “Assault Weapons” in an attempt to deceive the public into believing that they were advocating banning machine guns. A semi-automatic firearm is not a rapid fire weapon, and they have been available to the public for over a hundred years.
As Josh Sugarmann, the executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center, put it in Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988, “The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
The inconvenient fact is that in 2010, Aks, ARs, Uzis and all other semi-auto “Assault Weapons” as well as all other rifles accounted for 358 murders nationwide. That is less than three percent of all homicides and comes to less than one homicide a day. Not only does that mean that no one in you state will be murdered by an “Assault Weapon” or any other rifle this month but likely not next month, or even the month after that.
By contrast, over four times the number of murders, 1,704, were with knives or cutting instruments, over twice the numbers of murders, 745, were with hands, fists, feet, etc, and more murders, 540, were committed using blunt objects like clubs, hammers, baseball bats, etc.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/20 10/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
Additionally, a study funded by the Department of Justice concluded, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
In an April 5, 1996, column in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, who forthrightly supports total gun prohibition, wrote, "Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
You are far more likely to be killed with a weapon other than a firearm than one of those so called “Assault Weapons” or any other rifle.
Of course, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they are trying to frighten the public into banning all firearms one class of weapon at a time.
“And, some weapons may be restricted to that “well-regulated militia” (National Guard?) and simply not be allowed to be sold over-the-counter.”
The National Guard is not a Militia. It is a Federal military force under state administration. Furthermore, the Second Amendment speaks of two separate groups the Militia and the People. If the right to keep and bear arms was meant ONLY to apply to the militia it would read “The right of Militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Or, it would read “The power of the States to maintain armed militias shall not be infringed.” It reads “The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It calls for a “Well-regulated Militia” and not a well regulated populace, and all other references to “The People” in the Bill of Rights are also rights of individual citizens.
See also: DC v. Heller
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
This decision wasn’t reached in a vacuum. Most law review articles dealing with the Second Amendment conclude that it protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
“It’s about safer schools, malls and movie theaters for all of us.”
We had an “Assault weapons ban” and that did not make us safer. The fact is our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well.
Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl04.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/december/crime-stats_121911/crime-stats_121911
By contrast, The United Kingdom enacted extreme firearms bans years ago, and gun crime in the U.K. has double in a decade.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html
Criminologists have found that U.S. citizens use firearms for self-defense 2.5 million times a year, and for every life that is lost to firearms violence 65 lives are saved by firearms in self-defense.
Firearms are used thousands of times a day for other lawful purposes like hunting, competitive shooting, recreational shooting, and collecting. Shooting is an Olympic and NCAA sport as well as in the Boy Scouts, ROTC/JROTC, 4-H and others. With all of this taken into account it is clear that the vast majority of firearms are used for lawful purposes.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm
Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer
Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48.
Combine the uses of firearms for self-defense along with the other
It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx
“One broad statistic that Stamper-Brown did not mention is that gun-based homicide rates in Europe (where guns are much less available) are roughly 1/4 or less than in the USA…”
It has also been found that there is no correlation between firearms ownership and homicide and suicide rates, and many of the countries with the strictest firearms prohibitions have higher homicide and suicide rates than nations without such restrictions.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
According to Smallarmssurvey.org, the United States ranks first (88.1) in per capita civilian firearms ownership per 100, so the casual observer would believe the U.S. would be in top 10 in murders, or at least the top twenty. However, the U.S. is not even in the top 30. The U.S. ranked the 35 in the World murder rate. In 2009 that came to 5.0 per 100.000 in 2009, and 4.8 in 2010.
Switzerland ranks third (45.7) civilian firearms ownership per 100, and it unlikely that military weapons kept in Swiss homes are included since they are property of the Swiss Government. Yet, their murder rate was an extremely low 0.66 per 100,000 in 2009.
By contrast, El Salvador ranked 92nd in civilian firearms ownership (5.8) per 100, so the casual observer would believe that they would not be in the top fifty murder rate. However, they ranked first in the world murder rate at a staggering 71 per 100,000 in 2009, second in murder rate in 2010 with 66 per 100,000 in 2010, and second in 2011 at 71 per 100,000. Honduras ranked 88th in firearm ownership per 100 and they were first in 2011 world murder rate at a staggering 86 per 100,000.
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate
April 26, 2002 - GERMANY - In Erfurt, eastern Germany, 19-year-old Robert Steinhauser killed 12 teachers, a secretary, two pupils and a policeman at the Gutenberg Gymnasium, before killing himself.
November 7, 2007 - FINLAND - Pekka-Eric Auvinen killed six fellow students, the school nurse and the principal and himself
September 23, 2008 - FINLAND - Student Matti Saari opened fire in a vocational school in Kauhajoki in northwest Finland, killing nine other students
March 11, 2009 - GERMANY - A 17-year-old gunman dressed in black combat gear killed nine students and three teachers at a school near Stuttgart. Two additional passers-by were killed and two policemen seriously injured, bringing the death toll to 16 including the gunman.
June 2, 2010 - BRITAIN - Gunman Derrick Bird opened fire on people in towns across the rural county of Cumbria. Twelve people were killed and 11 injured.
He didn't have an "assault weapon".
He didn't have 6,000 rounds of ammunition.
He didn't have a pump action shotgun.
He didn't have two Glock handguns.
He didn't have a 100 round magazine.
He had a 22 caliber bolt action rifle of the kind used to shoot squirrels, rabbits, and for target shooting.
August 30, 2010 - SLOVAKIA - A gunman shot dead six members of a Roma family and another woman in the Slovak capital Bratislava before killing himself.
April 9, 2011 - NETHERLANDS - Tristan van der Vlis opened fire in the Ridderhof mall in Alphen aan den Rijn, south of Amsterdam, killing six before turning the gun on himself.
Please note that most of these mass shootings occurred in nations with strict gun control laws.
“…can do better than live with the status quo and intransigent (and/or profit-motivated) gun rights views.”
The vast majority of us that support our right to keep and bear arms as well as the vast majority of NRA members are not motivated by profits. We defend our right to self-defense and other lawful uses of our firearms.
Dale Whiting posted at 12:04 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
Bob,
Of course, you are right. We could reduce deaths by enacting sensible gun control legislation. But who ever said US citizens were sensible? We make and export guns to the drug cartels and they export to us illegal drugs. The NRA is perhaps the strongest lobying group in the US. And most importantly, us boys like our toys!
Engaged Voter posted at 11:07 am on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
Y'know mrconservative, although I agree in theory with your Second Amendment claim, after checking multiple sources it would appear the law does not.
It will take someone getting arrested for carrying a knife, and a lengthy court battle, before the unconstitutionality of knife bans is addressed.
And in any case, the example you mentioned...the Houston woman? She stabbed the guy with a BBQ fork, not a knife.
mrconservative posted at 9:40 am on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
Y'know Bob, the Second Ammendment is not only referring to guns.
It is referring to all weapons, such as knives, scissors, etc.
We have a right to keep and bear arms. 'Nuff said. Did you hear about that 70-something woman in Houston, Texas? Talk about awesome. You don't want to mess with that woman. She defended herself, and had every right to do so. I applaud her.
chuckles3 posted at 8:30 am on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
'But, I’m also concerned about the people who gain financially from guns sales and who really don’t care about balancing their financial gain with societal safety interests'
Take the word "gun sales" out and replace it with a "blank" and replace the word "people" with "politicians".
That should be one of you main concerns Sir.
The Constitution can be amended. It has not in regards to the 2nd amendment.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:50 am on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
So there should be different " qualification " levels for more advanced weapons?
Which fails to deal with the problem of how to prevent that " advanced " weapon from being stolen like any other, and then it's in " unqualified " hands.
And, when the owner of the weapon dies -- how do you deal with that?
Some pleasant sounding ideas but totally impractical.
And his ideas fail to deal with the possibility of a rogue government or even a rogue political party.
Just this morning I read an article where the Virginia Republican Party called for armed revolution if Obama wins re-election!!!
Really.
It was on an admittedly anti-Republican web site -- but that doesn't make it untrue.
http://www.politicususa.com/virginia-republicans-call-armed-revolution-obama-wins-november.html
You could write a series of books about governments that oppress the people.
There is no reason to believe it could never happen here.
spencer60 posted at 5:29 am on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
Sorry Mr Beane, but you are simply wrong.
The Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It could easily have been written to include specific types of arms (say pistols only, or rifles only, or no cannons), but it was left open for a reason.
The founders knew that the foes of liberty would try and weaken this amendment, so they left it as inclusive as possible.
To argue that this needs to be revised to take 'modern' weapons into account is ridiculous.
That's like saying your First Amendment rights don't apply if you speak through a megaphone. Or that your vote doesn't count unless it's written with quill and parchment.
The intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the law abiding citizens rights to own arms, which you'll notice isn't even limited to firearms.
Terminology wise, it's an "AK-47", not an AK-7". And you talk about 'assault rifles', when those are fully automatic firearms already limited to the police and military.
The gun control industry likes to try and scare people with the thought of 'military' rifles in civilian hands, but it simply isn't true.
The AR-15 used in the CO murders uses the same, semi-automatic operation as many common deer hunting rifles, is actually far less powerful than those as well.
As for the gun manufacturers 'pushing' firearms, that's just ludicrous.
After 9/11, a significant number of people in this country realized that the government couldn't always protect them, and that they were responsible for their own safety.
That is when firearms sales started increasing.
Each new failure of the illogical and deadly 'gun free zone' law makes more people realize that they are their own first responder.
The manufacturers are responding with better, safer more effective firearms, ammunition and accessories, but they are hardly the root cause for the massive growth in firearms ownership over the last 10 years.
And lastly, you should be ashamed trotting out a statistic as lame as the one you mention.
First, 'Europe' may have a lower 'gun based' homicide rate, but that' (as you should know) is irrelevant. You need to look at the overall homicide rate, using all methods.
Once you do you will see that some countries have higher rates, and others are lower.
If you try and correlate murder rates with firearm ownership rates, it actually tends to refute your argument. Legally armed societies tend to have lower overall crime rates than those that ban firearms outright.
Last but not least, you fall into the same logical trap that has always been the root cause of the gun control industries failure.
You want to pass laws restricting what law-abiding citizens can and can't own or do.
But law abiding citizens aren't the problem. They never have been and they never will be.
The problem is the criminal and the crazy, and no law you pass will ever have an effect on them.
So you pass repressive laws that do no good, and then wonder why no one supports your cause?
People gave 'gun control' a try over the last 50 years and it failed.
It's time to start respecting the Second Amendment, and let people be responsible for their own safety again.
JohnM posted at 11:02 pm on Mon, Aug 20, 2012.
I get my tax info from accountants, not my gun facts. [smile] I doubt that the author of this little editorial has any experience on the subject and is just writing what sounds good as most uninformed people do.
JohnM posted at 10:57 pm on Mon, Aug 20, 2012.
We can pass all the gun laws we want but growing up everyone knew where to buy a gun illegally. With so many guns in circulation that ship has sailed and the only ones who will obey the law are the law abiding citizens. The rest will get their guns out of the back of someone's trunk at lower prices than I can buy them legally.
I can also apply your "logic" to prevent certain people from buying a truck as that can kill more people than a car if driven into a crowd. Your logic can be taken to an absurd level to determine what each person can and cannot own due to its potential to hurt others. England banned guns and is now trying to ban knives with sharp points. Next will be pointing sticks. A lot more people have died from non firearm weapons in the history of man than guns. Humans kill whether liberals acknowledge it as part of our humanity. Our government does it all the time but only when we are in the right which seems to be every time we enter or start a war. Seems that we never wrongly kill people. What a great government we have so it puzzles me as to why they do not trust its citizens to be just as correct when they apply lethal force as they are.