Quoting from the article:

"Nearly three times more kids (15,576) were injured by firearms in 2010 than the number of U.S. soldiers (5,247) wounded in action that year in the war in Afghanistan (source: CDC, Department of Defense)"

"82 children under five years old died from firearms in 2010 compared with 58 law enforcement officers killed by firearms in the line of duty (sources: CDC, FBI)"

If facts like these do not shock the senses of even the most ardent gun owners in America, ... then what is it going to take? How many more children need to become victims of guns in order to persuade Americans that our society has a problem?

Do our children need to keep dying and suffering grievous injuries from guns just to avoid introspection about the validity of our ideologies?

Please, folks. Let's put our pet catch-phrases in the closet, have a calm and rational conversation, and actually RESPECTFULLY LISTEN to each other.

Robert, I totally agree. Let's put the rhetoric aside and talk facts. Let's not only have a civil discussion, but an educated one without bias.

I've looked in detail at the same data referenced here and the author of this article is torturing his reference data for sure. For example:

• Handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2011; 4.1 percent were with shotguns; 3.8 percent were with rifles; 18.5 percent were with unspecified firearms.
• 13.3 percent of homicides were done with knives or other cutting instruments.
• 5.8 percent of homicides were from the use of hands, fists, feet, etc. (source: FBI)

While all true, these numbers look very different when you look at them as a comparison to total murders and not murders by firearms. For example:

• In 2011, more people died from getting punched, kicked, stabbed, or killed with a weapon other than firearms (32.23% of all murders) than rifles [assault weapons], shotguns, or unknown firearms (18.66% of all murders). I'm using the same FBI data.
• According the the FBI data table referenced, firearm violence has been generally on the decline since 2007.
• If I was to get emotional, I could even say that I believe but have no evidence that most of the 49.12% of murders in 2011 committed with handguns were done by criminals and those who should not have them. I would love to see hard data on this.
• Oh, and according to one study only about 3-4 bullets were used in handguns (not including revolvers) in the instances of gun violence measured. I'll admit this study is a bit old, but I can draw a conclusion from my second point above that as gun violence is on the decline in the U.S., than this statistic is likely still valid. (Sorry, as a new user I'm not allowed to post links. Search for "Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers")

• If you look at the details by state, some of the states with restrictive firearms policies (i.e. CA, CT, D.C., MD, NY, etc.) there are some stark realizations that gun control laws do not work. If you compare the two states of approximately the same population and metropolitan mix, you find that something doesn't look right. For example, the state of MD which has moderate gun control laws (i.e. mag cap) had 272 murders by firearms in 2011 with ten (yeah that's 10) by rifle, shotgun, or undefined firearms. Again, most with handguns but remember there's a magazine cap in MD. The state of MN in contrast has 43 firearm murders with 36 by handguns and the rest by..., well I won't push the point anymore.

So, if I wanted to cloud the argument about gun violence in the U.S. and get people worked up emotionally I would massage the statistics to my advantage. In fact, using the very same data I've drawn very different conclusions. Quoting statistics by an author who is leaning toward more gun control isn't very balanced.

The facts are that assault weapons and magazine caps have no impact on gun violence. So why is that a priority for our politicians? Shouldn't we be looking at the root of violence in society (i.e. bullying, lack of employment, poor economy) vs. taking advantage of a national tragedy and make an emotional attack at a false source of one small part of the real problem?

Why are we focused on gun violence when forcible rape happened almost 10 times more often than murders by firearms and six (6) times more than murders in general? In 2011, for every 100,000 people in the our country, 4.6 murders happened and 26.7 rapes occurred, likely largely against women. Where's the outrage for the safety of the women of this country? Oh, and I'm using the same FBI data for 2011 (last full year of measurement) compiled from tables 5 and tables 20.

So again, I would love to hear more facts about violence in our great country. I would also like calmer heads to prevail. Let's talk about what really will prevent violence.

So, 13.3% of homicides were done with knives and other sharp objects, but only 3.8% were done with rifles. Yet, people are demanding a ban on assault rifles and nobody cares about knves. Huh?

All that information. I wonder how much of it was/is due to gang violence. Maybe if there was more action taken against gangs there wouldn't be such figures... nah better to just blame the guns.

takenaka-That would be known as sarcasm.

Kids = 0-19????

Wounder what it would look like without gang banger stats included. An 18 year old gang member getting shot by other 18year old thug from rival gang are kids. Might as well add in all 18and 19 year old getting shot in Afghanistan.

Ok, so which facts are missing? How about how many of these are committed by legal gun owners? This article would be better titled "Just selected facts." The fact is, most gun deaths are the result of illegal weapons in the hads of people who should not have them in the first place. If you want to control gun violence, focus of keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, instead of punishing responsible gun owners. Universal background checks, including at gun shows - reinstitute the 7 day waiting period - require proof of appropriate storage capability (gun safes) prior to issuing permission to purchase a firearm. Require follow-up checks periodically (I have to renew my drivers license every 4 years, I should have to do the same for owning a gun.) Restricting magazine capacities and banning assault rifles will not eliminate the 3% of injuries due to these types of weapons - it will only ensure that law abiding citizens do not have them. Do we really have to fear responsible citizens? And manadatory, government certified training bfore you can purchase a firearm.

Ban idiots.

Why not state what percent of gun violence is gang and/or drug related. This is the real problem...not the average law abiding American carrying a gun to protect one's family from the street punks. Why doesn't Obama take on the real problem with gun violence...because it's a tough nasty dirty job. My god, the district in Chicago he represented as a state representative has the highest murder rate in the nation due to gangs. When America had the street thugs like the Capones, etc running rampant, killing in the streets like today the feds did the real, dirty work...they went in and killed the punks...not turn the ordinary citizens trying to keep their families safe into criminals.

Ok, so you show the statistics for weapon crimes. Where are the statistics that are a huge part of the problem? Nobody mentions that in almost all of these cases there was mental disease with the shooters. The problem does not lie in weapon ownership, the problem lies in all of the loopholes created by our government agencies that do now allow parents to get treatment for mental health issues when these people are children. Tell me the statistics on how many children are in foster care? How many of these children have diagnosed conditions such as Reactive Attachment Didorder, Conduct Disorder, Bonding Disorder etc... etc....How many people have children not in foster care, have children with these mental health issues? People, we are talking about children growing up with no ability to bond, cruelty to animals and others, firestarters, beastiality, self harm, no empathy or remorse. Many of these children develope Personality Disorder by the time they reach eighteen years of age. Goggle these disorders and find just how terrifying they truely are. The President needs to take control and start at the root of the problem. Gun control is NOT the answer. The answer is to provide treatment for these people who show symptoms of and are diagnosed with mental health issues. The answer is to find an answer for where these people go when they become so bad even their own families fear them. Does anyone even realize that once a child turns eighteen, it does not matter what their mental state is. Many of these kids are out there living in the streets. Many are still at home like our most recent shooters. The parents have no ability to control or do anything for/with them because they are adults! Shooting your own mother in the face and then going to a school and shooting teachers and children. Come on people, you know this man had a mental disorder!!! Why is this not an issue here??? Everyone needs to write to their members of congress, not just to stop this idiotic gun control issue, but to get the government involved in assisting families with children who suffer from these mental disorders and assistance for them when they reach adulthood. Parents and family members can and do get murdered by these kids due to no ability to feel remorse or empathy. Most criminals who commit violent crimes have these disorders!!! Forget Gun Control!~~~Provide Mental Health for these people before they have the ability or foresight to commit these violent crimes~!

I will quote President Obama here, "“The truth is, there's only one voice powerful enough to make this happen: yours. If you think we've suffered too much pain to allow this to continue, put down the paper, turn off the computer, and get your Members of Congress on record,”

Ten years ago, a Republican sponsored (Todd Tiahrt R-Kansas), NRA written bit of legislation was inserted into a funding bill. It gutted the ATF's ability to track firearms and enforce existing gun laws. It required that background check information be destroyed within 24 hours, restricts inspection of gun shops to once per year, cuts funding so that actual inspections only occur once every 17 years on average. It also removed any requirement for gun shops to take inventory or keep track of their products. Republicans have blocked Senate confirmation of a director of the ATF for the last 6 years. (this requirement was inserted into the Patriot act by John Sensenbrenner R-Wisconson. He won the NRA's defender of freedom award that year.) The total number of ATF agents has remained at 2500 for the last 35 years and they have 100,000 gun sellers to monitor, not to mention the alcohol and tobacco.

57% of guns used in crimes were traced back to only 1% of gun dealers. This information was obtained 20 years ago, but since then the ATF has been barred from collecting and using such a database. The NRA has little credibility after these attacks upon very reasonable gun legislation.

Gentlemen,Gentlemen (and Ladies),

As me dear sainted Grandmuther used to say,

"Figures don't lie, but Liars can figure." (Old Celtic Proverb)

I notice that most of the children are of prime gang activity age. Where is that stat? I'm all for restricting access to gangs.

What is so interesting is the fact that:

Every year in the U.S., an average of more than 100,000 people are shot, according to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence.

We also know that every year in the U.S. an average of 98,000 people die from preventable medical errors. Our government knows this figure is much higher because there isn't enforcement to report these errors (i.e. less than 1/10 of medical errors are reported). It's also in the news.

Our government is putting a lot of effort into banning weapons - where is the effort (by the people and our government) to save the patient (a lot of these are children)? Why not ban bad doctors and hospitals too since they kill more than guns?

How many are shot committing crimes?

How many are shot by people defending themselves.

Statistics can make 2+2 =5 so dont believe all you read

Your talking apples and oranges....most of those killings of teenagers are just gangbangers in the major cities, why don't you worry about the inner city youth instead of grand standing on "numbers"

"Would it make you feel any better if they were all pushed out of windows instead?" -- Archie Bunker

It would be interesting to see how many were justified homicides and also to break out the number of people killed not just by rifles, but specifically these "Assault weapons" with "high-capacity clips" they keep talking about. I am guessing most of the rifle deaths were hunting accidents or home defense that were using something other than an assault weapon. I am not a gun nut, but it seems they are not taking a logical approach to curbing the violence.

Guns clearly kill people and children are people. But what do we see in response to these brutal statistics: EXCUSES! The time for excuses is long gone. It's time for someone to take extreme measures because of the irrational response to horrifying figures on gun violence in America. The gun nuts will make excuses even if THEY'RE SHOT!

Gun control is needed now more than ever. The figures speak for themself. No more excuses, no more lies, ban ammunition of all types, magazines of all types and let them have their guns, empty!

Gun control is needed now more than ever. The figures speak for themself. No more excuses, no more lies, ban ammunition of all types, magazines of all types and let them have their guns, empty!

Would somebody please define what they mean by "gun control"? How are you going to accomplish this without violating the 2nd amendment? Keep in mind that if you can remove one of the amendments, they're all on the table.

Responding to CMcCrary, #1.3: "While I am saddened by the tragedy that took place in Sandy Hook, I have friends who live in Sandy Hook, and know a few parents who lost their child to this tragedy."

Sorry, but I have to stop and point out a pretty glaring inconsistency here - the SCHOOL is named Sandy Hook Elementary School, the TOWN is Newtown. You're saying you have friends who live in a school? And then you have the gall to claim you actually know people who were personally affected by that tragedy? Please spare the BS. Once you're caught in a lie like that, anything else you have to say loses all credibility.

If you're going to troll, at least put a little effort into trolling intelligently.

The ability that some people have to rationalize doing nothing about gun violence is astonishing.

Yes, much of the gun violence is from gangs. Much of the proposed regulations are intended to stem the tide of guns into the hands of criminals.

Regulating guns is perfectly legal, and constitutional, as pointed out by the Supreme Court's most conservative justice, Scalia, in D.C. v. Heller.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand the very basic logic that gun violence has everything to do with guns? Not because we're blaming the guns - that's just a stupid deflection of the discussion - but because too many people who should never be able to can easily get them. It's a dangerous weapon. Stop handing them out to dangerous people.

We cannot solve all of the other problems with society, solely so we can avoid regulating guns.

Our gun violence rates are measured in multiples of those of every other industrialized country - every one of them, and it's not just a bigger problem than theirs - it's many, many times theirs.

Stop making excuses for our gun violence problem. It's real, whether you personally want to face it or not. You're embarrassing yourselves and the country.

Tim: Anybody can twist data any way they want to try and push an agenda. For example: Yes, we have more gun violence than, say, Britain and then say "AH HA!! SEE!! We need to ban guns!!".

But one problem with that logic. You are assuming that if guns were banned the violence would end. No, violent people will be violent - period. Take Britain, they have much less gun violence but of course that is because they have banned guns. But VIOLENT crimes are three times more per capita than in the U.S.

So banning guns reduces violence WITH guns (DUH!!) but actually violent crimes in aggregate increase.

So be careful when listing "gun violence statistics" with the assumption that if guns were not available those numbers will go to zero. They won't.

So the honorable thing to do is not to list just gun violence but ALL violence. But we ARE talking about NBC News - honorable media reporting went out the window more than a decade ago........

Really a pretty crappy article.

I am for a ban on assault style weapons with high capacity magazines but the way the stats are given you can't get much out of them.

Homicides by weapon:

• Handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2011; 4.1 percent were with shotguns; 3.8 percent were with rifles; 18.5 percent were with unspecified firearms.
• 13.3 percent of homicides were done with knives or other cutting instruments.
• 5.8 percent of homicides were from the use of hands, fists, feet, etc. (source: FBI)

No mention of what percent of homicides are done with firearms, but they do give the number done by other means.

Figure your own percentages the FBI site gives these numbers:

2011:

# murders - 12,664

by firearm - 8,583

knives - 1,694

blunt objects - 496

hands feet etc - 728

other weapons not stated - 853

Those were the most significant numbers.

I wonder if "other weapons not stated" would include vehicular homicide (drunks)?

On to another thought.

When thinking of children killed (half by firearm) there are significant numbers of infants, and young children, that are killed from physical abuse.

Also, all we hear is "because of Newton we MUST do something!!".

But let's assume for a wild moment that Obama implemented EVERYTHING he wanted and it all went into affect Monday morning. Tuesday morning our children would not be ANY safer than a week earlier. Next month the children would not be any safer than a month ago. Next YEAR our children would not be any safer than a year earlier.

This is nothing more than a political "feel good" progressive goal. It would have zero and I mean ZERO affect on any "safety" in schools.

The ONLY way you can argue it can help is if you are actually condoning passing a total ban AND a requirement that police inspect every house and remove all their guns. And my understanding is nobody is asking for that - right?

So this law (even if passed) would do nothing. zilch. nada.

liberal hypocracy

Why not report the fact that less than 3% of all murders are done with the "assault weapon" or that the cities with the strictest gun control has the highest murder rates?

Less than 3% of shootings involve multiple victims. These are still the weapons of choice for those killers!

You cannot state a single reason these guns should be readily available in our society! None of you can! Nothing in the Constitution gives you any such right. And none of you, unless you are in the Guard or the Reserves, are members of any "well regulated militia". Why is it that every time we see NRA supporters holding signs with the 2nd Amendment on them, half of the words are missing?

And the #1 reason these need to go is that we have seen far too many RWNJ's insinuating threats in my local paper and certainly on the web to start trouble if they don't get their way. Never mind they just lost an election! These are not "good guys". These are not even decent Americans. They don't deserve that moniker either. These are the vermin of our society. They are no better than street thugs in an inner city neighborhood. They both try to get their way by intimidation. And these are the people who are so insistent that they be allowed to own such weapons. If a thorough mental health exam were required at purchase very few private citizens would have such weapons today. That is one fact of which I am damn sure. That's the biggest loophole that needs to be closed.

Tim-27...., then lets apply the very same logic to everthing that can be used to commit murder. I mean if it just saves 1 life its worth it, right? Lets regulate baseball bats, hammers, axes, screwdrivers, fists, feet, bottles (but only broken ones), sharp sticks, ..............

If I can only get a dollar for..............................................................(fill in the blank). I'd be rich. Washington must be desparate if they're making the media post gun violence stats.

What is so interesting is the fact that:

Every year in the U.S., an average of more than 100,000 people are shot, according to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence.

We also know that every year in the U.S. an average of 98,000 people die from preventable medical errors. Our government knows this figure is much higher because there isn't enforcement to report these errors (i.e. less than 1/10 of medical errors are reported). It's also in the news.

Our government is putting a lot of effort into banning weapons - where is the effort (by the people and our government) to save the patient (a lot of these are children)? Why not ban bad doctors and hospitals too since they kill more than guns?

I mean, arguments like these are just about the dumbest @!$%#ing things one can imagine. I mean seriously, seriously, do you think this is actually a legitimate point worth arguing? For real?!?

Noticeably absent from this data set are statistics regarding the use of firearms in self defence. Research conducted by Gary Kleck (PhD), a criminologist from Florida State University, indicated 2,500,000 defensive uses of firearms per year. A follow up study by the Department of Justice concluded that 1,500,000 persons used firearms defensively per year (google it!).

First let me say that I see no problem with stable, honest citizens having most types of firearms. I grew up in a home with a collector, and know many people with some king of arms in their posession.

That said, we already regulate firearms in the U.S. as it is, and has been for many years, against the law to own a functional fully automatic weapon, or for that matter rocket and grenade launchers, or cannon.

Next as to hunters, any 'hunter' who feels the need to use a high capacity military 'style' weapon when hunting small or even large game, might want to switch to using high explosives as both are about as 'sporting'.

Next let's look at the ridiculousness of the stories that this is some kind of plot where reasonable gun control will lead to the storm troopers knocking down our doors. Since the 'govmint' already controls the largest and best equipped military force in the world, why bother to waste time on limited regulation, just send in the troops, and the guns (and possibly a number of their owners) are gone for good.

To the persons who continually point out that most of the murders are done with 'illegal' guns, where do those guns come from? Do the criminals make them themselves? Or do they buy them from people who buy them leagally, and then sell them (at a steep profit) to any and all takers? Guns don't just appear, they are made and sold, and too often used. Lets make the original owner responsible for the guns, and keep track of who they are. If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if responsible authorities know who you are.

And finally the greatest canard of all, guns make us safer. Right now there are more guns in private hands per capita in the U.S. than in any other major country, yet we have, by far, the highest rate of murders, if guns make us safer, exactly why is this true?

Noticeably absent from this data set are statistics regarding the use of firearms in self defence. Research conducted by Gary Kleck (PhD), a criminologist from Florida State University, indicated 2,500,000 defensive uses of firearms per year. A follow up study by the Department of Justice concluded that 1,500,000 persons used firearms defensively per year (google it!).

Keep googling, you're not done yet. Kleck was more than 15 years ago, and since that time has been debunked by the Harvard School of Public Health, which estimates between 65,000 and 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Hemenway analyzed Kleck's methodology in detail and found it grossly exaggerated its estimates with small sized and unrepresentative samples.

Kleck is a gun lobby shill. So is Lott, for that matter.

JM: So many incorrect statements but I will focus on your last paragraph where we have "by far the highest rate of murders". I don't want to get into nitpicking of data but the focus should be on the concept of "violent crime".

In the last twenty years even though gun sales have increased significantly violent crimes have decreased by about half. So if there WERE a correlation of guns availability to violent crimes it should have increased. It has not. Are MORE guns the reason for a decrease in violent crimes by a half? That we can't say for certain but, at minimum, the idea that more guns create more violent crimes have been disproven. So the same logic that LESS guns will create LESS violent crimes also is illogical.

Second, some compare GUN violence to other countries GUN violence. That is like an island that doesn't allow cars comparing CAR accidents to the "mainland" CAR accidents. No, an HONEST debate (I know, I know, we could NEVER have one of those!!) would be to compare ALL accidents to ALL accidents. Same with violent crimes. When you compare violent crimes in U.S. (per capita) to violent crimes in Britain (per capita) where guns are banned Britain has THREE TIMES the violent crimes.

So it is only fair to compare ALL violent crimes to ALL violent crimes and even though the U.S. gun ownership has significantly increased over the last 20 years we find that violent crimes significantly decreased. So can we argue that guns make us safer? I think so.

JM,

see my post 1.15 above.

57% of the guns used illegally come from 1% of gun shops that the NRA, using Republican congressmen, have made it impossible to keep track of anymore.

Kids 0-19............ CHILDREN should range from 0-12...... teens 13-19......

And there should be a special statistics for gang-bangers........

pro biz,

The reduction is crime has been conclusively linked to the legalization of abortion, not the increase in gun sales.

An

A

grade from the Gun Lobby...

?

This motivates some in Congress?.... To get NRA funding? Isn't this hypocritical?

.

.

Every time your State or District buys more guns.... you get a gold star?

What kind of "grade" do you have on education?

On clean air and water?

On your quality of life?

On your jobs employment?

,

.

Seriously... this A grade from the NRA ?

How is this a "proud" achievement?

anna-395

"Nobody mentions that in almost all of these cases there was mental disease with the shooters." WHAT?!!!! Just WHERE do you get that bit of miss-information from?

Is stupid a mental disease or not? If it is then this country is in serious trouble.

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each year from 2003 through 2007, and about seven percent (266,560) involved some form of violent victimization, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, announced today.

Victims said they knew the offender in 65 percent of violent household burglaries, and in 28 percent of such burglaries victims said the offender was a stranger. Residents in all of these households were equally likely to be victimized by a current or former intimate partner as they were by a stranger.

Offenders were unarmed in 61 percent of the violent household burglaries that occurred between 2003 and 2007. In 12 percent of violent household burglaries offender possessed a firearm. About 23 percent of these firearm-related burglaries were committed by a stranger.

Between 2000 and 2007, the rate of burglary of unoccupied households declined from 26 to 21 victimizations per 1,000 households. The rate of household burglary when someone was home remained stable between 2000 (9 per 1,000 households) and 2007 (8 per 1,000 households).

BTW, 18% were let in by someone in the house and 4% had a key! Mostly, people forgot to lock their windows and doors. Most burglars hope to AVOID running into people in the houses/apartments, just get in, grab, and get out. Crime rates have been declining for the last decade as violent fantasies have been escalating. Might have something to do with pushing fear (and gun sales.)

Violent crime is not the same thing as gun violence.

Also, although gun sales have increased, gun ownership has declined. Fewer gun owners, fewer gun incidents. Makes sense to me. But overall gun homicides have remainded about even since about 2000.

It's so silly listening to the gun nuts screaming about "How many were from legal guns?". Guess what Unless the gun was stolen off a truck going from the manufacturer to a store they were ALL LEGAL GUNS. The guns had to be bought by someone from a dealer in the first exchange. So the first buyer of the gun is the one who either sold it under the table to someone or it was stolen from them as they had lax security on their gun. Most of the guns are sold under the table by the original gun buyer. So all guns were LEGAL to begin with. I bet you will find that the people selling guns under the table are life long members of the NRA and they don't want their ability to sell guns illegally infringed.

Interesting article. If over 70% of murders are committed with pistols, why is it the President's and others first commitment to get rid of "assault" weapons- they are rifles, which are used in less than 6%?? Why did the author feel compelled to use 10 year statistics to make a point, isn't one year's statistics enough to validate their perspective/point? Why didn't they note that year over year gun deaths are in decline? Notice that more than 50% of gun deaths are suicide?

Just a few thoughts.....

Now can someone add the same statistics for drunk drivers and set the numbers side by side.

More people are injured and killed by drunk drivers every year than by guns of any kind. We have no constitutional right to drink alcohol or take drugs. Why aren't the liberal anti-gun nuts jumping on that bandwagon?

Most of the anti-gun nuts enjoy having a few rounds of alcohol and drugs as much as pro-gun nuts enjoy shooting a few rounds of 5.56. Who kills more people though, the gun nut or the drunk?

The anti gun lobby are just a bunch of hypocrits. Simple as that. This whole thing will go nowhere for two big reasons:

1. The majority of the country (geographically) is red and they like their 2nd amendment rights,

2. The blue areas are concentrated in major cities and the gang bangers in those cities don't want anyone trying to track down their guns.

Guns are not the problem. The devaluation of life is the problem and no law is going to change that. Only proper parenting will and we have a long way to go.

Gun violence is not a gun problem. Right.

More people are injured and killed by drunk drivers every year than by guns of any kind.

And here's another moronic argument posted as if it actually germane to the conversation. Guess what, drunk driving is illegal. Sheesh...

We have no constitutional right to drink alcohol...

Really? That's funny, thanks for clarifying that the 21st amendment doesn't exist...

@tim-2799493 - regarding that decision by Scalia in D.C. vs. Heller, check the facts on the ramifications of that decision. There's a great WSJ article by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, former D.C. prosecutor who outlines the impact gun laws had on gun violence in the city. So while the Justice may have indicated that the government could enact "reasonable regulations" on arms and ammo, the facts again speak to the impact on gun violence. Google "Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: A Gun Ban That Misfired"

Let's also talk about your updated stats for the use of firearms in self defense each year. Let's be conservative on how many incidents happen on average each year at say 65,000. If I use some of the conservative numbers by @Floretta on how many household burglaries were done by strangers at say 23%, we get 14,950. If say half of those resulted in the death of the victim by the offender because they had no weapon to protect themselves with, you've raised the total number of murders in the US by almost 60% or by almost 7,500 people! Taken into context with the article about D.C. crime rates mentioned above I think any reasonable person would conclude that limiting the right to own guns would be worse for our country.

So let's get back to what causes violence in our country. It's not guns. The facts speak for themselves. @Anna-395924 makes some good points about mental health in this country. Let's spend more time understanding and treating those with these disorders. Let's spend more time talking about how to improve the economy, get people back to work, and innovate new products and technologies the rest of the world will want instead of arguing about something that will have no impact on the stated goal.

Finally, I've come across a simple explanation of what an "assault weapon" is and what it is not. What most regulations on these are talking about banning is something that looks scary but has basically the same functionality as what is not on the table for restriction. Google "The Truth About Assault Weapons". Seems misinformation goes both ways....

Gun violence isn't about guns. Right.

Oh, and most burglaries are not armed at all.

Read the actual Scalia opinion, pal.
Use your brain, not just copy/paste.

About the numbers,

While there may be more gun deaths per year perpetrated by the mentally ill(due largely to suicide), The largest single cause of murder is gang violence. Take the profit out of gang culture, by legalizing the products that supply that huge profit, and the murders from this source will be reduced.

@tim, OK, let's update the stats. I'm still using @Floretta's stats on burglaries.

Offenders were unarmed in 61 percent of the violent household burglaries that occurred between 2003 and 2007. In 12 percent of violent household burglaries offender possessed a firearm. About 23 percent of these firearm-related burglaries were committed by a stranger.

If I'm reading this right, than 12% of all household burglaries are done with firearms. I'm only using this number as a reasonable baseline for understanding if this has an impact. To be fair, your stat of 65,000 incidents of self defense crime using firearms is also not completely accurate. Could be more, could be less. Gotta start somewhere. So if we take 12% of 65,000 to get some sense of where the use of firearms by an offender would not be countered by those using a firearm in self defense, we get 7,800 incidents. If half of those result in the death of the victim, we get an additional 3,900 deaths that likely would not happen. That's a 45% increase in murders. These stats are for sure WAY not scientific, but it does shed some light on those who say we shouldn't have the right to own guns even for protecting ourselves and our families.

I'll also defer to you on the exact Scalia opinion. It's irrelevant in my point in that I'm more interested in the effect of the opinion on violence in D.C. Sure, the WSJ piece is an opinion by one former D.C. prosecutor and I am parrotting it a bit, but this isn't an isolated case. Study after study have concluded that gun control has no impact on gun violence. That's why the 1994 ban on "assault weapons" was allowed to expire.

I think I'm using my brains quite a bit in this discussion. Thanks for caring... :)

@ED, great point. Yet another real cause of violence in our society. Why are we spending time and money talking about guns and how to regulate them if that isn't a solution? Let's look into how to take away the allure of gang culture. Let's find ways of giving those in the cities a way to earn a living if they want to without turning to gangs.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”… We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”…

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority opinion, D.C. v. Heller, 2008.

Tim,

The decision was 5-4. It would just take 1 fatal flu to change the outcome.

Karie from Washington

Our government is putting a lot of effort into banning weapons...

The reason being is that we've just had an emotional issue with guns reported. Something that hits almost everybody quite viscerally. When emotions are high it is easier to convince people that it is good for them. Even Bush knew this, that's how the patriot act was passed, and then how we got into two wars.

ProBusiness your post #1.30 is correct, it is only a 'feel good response'

@Vox,

You cannot state a single reason these guns should be readily available in our society! None of you can! Nothing in the Constitution gives you any such right.

Partly true. Nothing in the constitution denies us this right either, and if you would read the IX and X amendments....

ED-2874315, you made a good point in post 1.15 but #1.39 you should have pasted a link, no one likes to keep scrolling up and down again, it is annoying.

JoeNY

Interesting article. If over 70% of murders are committed with pistols, why is it the President's and others first commitment to get rid of "assault" weapons- they are rifles, which are used in less than 6%??

There is one little statistic they didn't mention there. that only 68% of murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents occurred with the use of firearms. That 72% figure is out of the 68% one. So 49% is the actual number you should be using there. Those other %s are also out of the same 68% figure. You get it?

The decision was 5-4. It would just take 1 fatal flu to change the outcome.

True, but Scalia, the most conservative Justice on the Court, wrote the opinion that includes the excerpt above for the majority. Any change in outcome would be towards the more liberal interpretation, and stricter gun control. The point is that Heller already affirms the government powers to regulate firearms - it won't go away.

@tim, thanks for the text of the Justice's majority opinion. It does shed some light on why you reference it. It still doesn't speak to the effect of gun control on crime and gun crime in D.C. I referenced in my original post about this (#1.52).

In the following quote, what was the context? You seem to have left a bit out maybe to spare us the dry legal jargon.

… We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”…

Did the Justice and the other four who voted with him define "dangerous and unusual..."? I mean if I go driving down the street in a tank then I can see that's a bit "unusual" and probably doesn't fall under the 2nd amendment. If I own a "scary looking" semi-automatic weapon (AR-15 with a grip) similar to the semi-automatic that's not so scary looking but has the same firepower and maybe even less accuracy is that considered "dangerous and unusual"?

And far be it for me to argue with a Supreme Court Justice on his opinion on legal matters, but here are a few observation.

1. When Justice Scalia wrote:

...the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

Wouldn't a semi-automatic rifle such as an AR-15, or a semi-automatic pistol such as a Glock with 15 round magazines be those "lawful weapons that they possessed at home"? After all, these are the most popular legal firearms in use today for law abiding citizens.

2. He also wrote:

It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

I think our service men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan would disagree with this. I think those that fight against our great service men and women use weapons similar to what we would bring to militia service and are still fighting. Sure, we're giving them a hell of a bad day but it's no cake walk. Ask the grunt who's standing watch right now in Afghanistan. In fact our Continental Army was WAY outgunned and WAY out trained by a far superior British Army and Navy. They brought their muskets - the equivalent of today's semi-automatic rifles (AR-15 style weapons) and semi-automatic pistols, and were considered patriots. That's one of the reasons the 2nd amendment was put in place, correct?

You seem to be well versed in legal opinions such as the one you posted. Can you help me interpret the last line?

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

@tim, thanks again for speaking your mind on this and respecting those of us who just don't buy into the reasons for gun control.

@JoeyRamone-2161900...As far as your response to CMcCrary, #1.3: "the SCHOOL is named Sandy Hook Elementary School, the TOWN is Newtown. You're saying you have friends who live in a school? And then you have the gall to claim you actually know people who were personally affected by that tragedy? Please spare the BS. Once you're caught in a lie like that, anything else you have to say loses all credibility."

For your information, Sandy Hook is a community in the town of Newtown, much the same as I grew up in the Indian Shores and Laural Beach communities of Milford, CT.

Before you call "BS" on someone, or call them a Liar and a "Troll", you may want to do some research first.

Sometimes what we THINK we know, just ain't so!

More kids ages 0-19 died from firearms every three days in 2010 than died in the 2012 Newtown, Conn., massacre

I wonder how many of those "kids" died in combat overseas. Pfc. Brandon Buttry was just 19 when he was killed in Afghanistan last year.

Read these "facts" carefully. There is a huge difference between a five year old who shoots himself with his father's gun and a seventeen year old gang banger who gets shot by a rival gang member, or a soldier killed in action while serving his country.

They have been published. Look around. And if you were silent when Bush ordered all of his executive actions, you're in no place to criticize Obama for doing the same.

I don't recall Bush stepping on the constitution....

Oh Bush stepped on the Constitution a time or two, he just just didn't piss on it like we are seeing here.

None of the executive orders have anything to do with the constitution.

Actually W trod on the Constitution more than anybody in recent memory. Especially heinous were all those "signing caveats" he would promulgate to subvert the parts of any law he deemed objectionable.

I don't recall Bush stepping on the constitution....

I can think of 2 without doing any research. Let me jog your memory:

Bush gave the executive order to monitor, without search warrants, phone calls and internet activity.

This violates amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Bush authorized enhanced interrogation techniques and the use of certain severe interrogation methods including hypothermia, stress positions, and waterboarding.

This violates amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment does NOT state, “You can have as many and any type of weapon as you would like”. It states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The National Guard is the militia. They can have weapons and kill in order to defend the country.

Indeed, George W. did more harm to our freedom than anything Mr. Obama could ever dream up. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with patriotism. It takes away virtually every right to privacy and freedom from excessive searches than any other act in the history of this country. That's why many people believe that Bush staged 9-11 so he could revoke our rights and privileges as Americans.

Don't blame Obama for doing what Bush did, only ten times worse.

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment does NOT state, “You can have as many and any type of weapon as you would like”.

Nice try, Sam Adams. But you're only reading what you want to read.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The "people" include us ordinary citizens. Also, the 2nd amendment doesn't place any limits on how many firearms we're allowed to own.

Sam Adams is right, according to Justice Scalia, D.C. V. Heller, 2008.

The "people" include us ordinary citizens. Also, the 2nd amendment doesn't place any limits on how many firearms we're allowed to own.

First I always notice how the gun nuts always seem to want to leave off that bit about a WELL REGULATED MILITIA:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A bunch of people owning guns is not a well REGULATED militia.

Our well regulated Militia is the National Guard.

http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/history/Pages/ConstitutionalCharteroftheGuard.aspx

Legal Basis of the National Guard

The National Guard's charter is the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution contains a series of "militia clauses," vesting distinct authority and responsibilities in the federal government and the state governments. These clauses and follow-on legislation have sculpted the Guard as you see it today. Here are summaries that will help you understand how the Guard came to be what it is today.

Our well regulated Militia is the National Guard.

So if somebody breaks into my house, I should call the national guard?

First I always notice how the gun nuts always seem to want to leave off that bit about a WELL REGULATED MILITIA:

You might as well throw us Constitution nuts in with the gun nuts.

So if somebody breaks into my house, I should call the national guard?

WHAT???

If someone breaks into your house you call the police not any type of Militia.

The 2nd amendment doesn't cover people breaking into your house, it covers the people's right to be armed to form a well regulated militia (the National Guard).

You need another argument other than the 2nd amendment.

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment about owning a gun to protect your personal property....That being said, I don't think anyone wants to make owning a gun illegal. We do need to regulate what kinds of guns, who can own them, and who they are sold to. That is where the gun nuts have a problem because they think any gun is OK and they should be able to sell to whomever they want.

Sam Adams is right, according to Justice Scalia, D.C. V. Heller, 2008.

No he isn't! Heller, 2008 validated the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Livescience commented on this in an article published today.

You need another argument other than the 2nd amendment.

Got one. Refer to the link above. The court ruling protected enforces the individual's right to own a firearm for lawful purposes.

I don't know how much history you guys remember from high school but the Constitution is centered around protecting the rights of the individual - not the collective. Arguing that the 2nd amendment protects a regulated collective's rights to own firearms but doesn't give this guarantee to individuals is a misinterpretation of the intent of the 2nd amendment. Sorry!

JOregon and Sam adams: EPIC FAIL.

Your interpretation is exactly what you wanted it to be. A liberal one that takes away our rights.

The well regulated militia IS NOT the national gaurd. THE NATIONAL GAURD wasn't established until DECADES later.

The militia consisted of able bodied men 18 years or older. REGULATED did NOT mean limited or trained by the government. It meant well armed and supplied.

Nice try though, you get an A for @!$%# and a brown star for effort.

DrAlchemy

Still thinking you can make Gold out of Lead I see.

First of all you do seem to have transmuted the definition of "REGULATED".

That won't work with me or any other reasonably intelligent person older that 8.

REGULATED

1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, or method.

2. to adjust in accordance with some standard or requirement, as of amount or degree:

   (to regulate the temperature.)

3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:

   (to regulate a watch.)

4. to put in good order:

   (to regulate the digestion.)

Origin of regulate:

1620–30; < LL rēgulātus, ptp. of rēgulāre, der. of L rēgula rod for measuring and drawing lines, RULE ; see -ATE1

Knowing how the Gun Cult goes with this it is important to look at the origin of the word, rēgulātus. How you could ever get that it meant, "well armed and supplied", shows just how brainwashed you have become. Your definition does not fit today's definition and it doesn't fit the origin of the word - It does not fit the word in any way. It is creative though.

We have had Militias in America since the 1600's. When the States were formed each State had it's own State FUNDED Militia with assorted names. During the Civil War Various Governors treated his State Militia like his own personal Army. There was little continuity.

In 1903 The Militia Act changed how Militias were Governed. If the United States was to defend itself there needed to be one chief, nor many. It was established that each State would have it's own Militia and the Governor would be the Commander in Chief of that militia unless there was a National need. In times of National need the President of the United States has the authority to Federalize these Militias, in which case HE becomes the Commander in Chief.

The Militia Act Repealed the previous provisions relating to militias. So it doesn't matter that the National Guard was established "decades later" since all that matters is what the law says today.

A few States also have a State Defense Force. Just a fancy name for Militia. This is different than the National Guard and about 14,000 people are in such a force. The problem is it is State Funded and many States don't see the point in spending taxpayer money on 2 Militias. The National Guard pretty much covers everything.

In this era of Tax Cuts it will be interesting how many of these secondary militia's survive.

you get an A for @!$%# and a brown star for effort.

Pointless and brain dead troll talk. From this statement I put you at about 12 years of age - Did I hit it?

The bill of rights uses language that maybe doesnt make it clear in todays tongue.

1. WE have the right to life..includes keeping and maintaing that life in as good a shape and for as long as possible.

2. we have the right (and resposibility) to bear arms. to defend that life we have a right to have and keep , and come to our country or communities defense.

The police cannot defend you, the can take a report and look into who dunnit.

Because you are afraid and want to be protected , does not mean that surrendering the right to protect ourselves is the only answer. Just look int Egypt , bahrain , or Syria. Darfur etc..bet they wish they could defend themselves from being slaugtered by their own army and government.

to lessen gun violence we must make mental health and medical care ubiquitus in our world. it should be part of our world , not a stand out part either.

to lessen gang inspired gun violence we must provide an education for ALL of our youth, we must provide things to do that are cost free to the youth(parks and museums , rec centers etc)and taking the profit from drugs and prostitution by legal control measures.

Anything we make illegal, simply goes underground as is just as available to those who want to spend the money.

Vote for no guns , then you will have no guns, BUT, the criminal types will. they don't care what you want.

We don't have a right to any KIND of weapon that we want. You won't find that written anywhere.

In order to get a car, you have to pass a test, get a license, have it registered, and have insurance for it. Car ownership is banned until those criteria are met. There are no such precautions for gun ownership. I'm tired of this gun-to-car comparison that the pro-gun crowd always spouts. Until guns are equally regulated, licensed, and insured, it is not a legitimate comparison.

You do have to have a CHL to legally carry a handgun. You must also be 21. You also have to go through several background check which are done by federal agencies before you purchase one. Might need to educate yourself before publically publishing your ignorance on the internet:)

Actually, to carry a fire arm in the open requires no permit (city ordinances withstanding). Only concealed carry requires the stringent permitting process. Any citizen can purchase a gun if they pass the background check and there is no permit required to carry it in the open. :)

Where I live as long as you are not a felon you can carry concealed without a permit.

Also in order to transfer a car from one owner to another you need to file a form at the DMV indicating the new owner. No need to do that with a gun. That's ridiculous.

Cars or the ownership of cars aren't protected by the constitution!

Neither is the random use of guns. Only that for use in militia.

Two or three people asking not to compare to autos, saying look at all the regulation you need to get a car.......am I correct? So if that is your argument ......that all the training, licensing, tracking, documentation does nothing to keep you from having the same amount of deaths that you do with guns.....the real facts are that 270 million registered guns in the U.S. cause 32,163 (2011) fatalities per year, and 254 million registred autos in US with 32,367 deaths related to autos........all of your regulations for autos do nothing to stop the drunk driver or accidents that happened that killed these people, these numbers are very comparable and they both take real lives so don't tell me you can't compare them.....machines taking lives........no , users taking lives.............get real people , spend your time and money on mental health and actually enforcing the laws we have on the books to regulate things.

You get the same amount of deaths from your regulated autos that you do from Gun violence......"just the facts" numbers are so out of reality it's not even funny. Checking to see if I can shoot you accurately or if I know how to use the safety and to always point my gun at 45 degree angle to the ground when carrying it extended in my hand has nothing to do with the fact that I'm gonna kill you for sleeping with my wife............people do not understand that people are the evil.............sure take away the guns.........Do you have a butcher knife in your kitchen? I'd be glad to use that ...........an axe, sword, baseball bat..............doesn't really matter.....take them all way and if I'm a mad man I'm still going to find a way to get you ..........Its not about the tool I choose its the fact that I chose to be violent and I will adapt........humans always adapt .........

@Cameron Ford I am sorry but you are completely wrong. My wife owed a car, she has NEVER had a license, has NEVER registered a car, and nor ever carried insurance on said car, heck she has never even driven a car. And guess what, she bought the car at a dealership. So NO Car Ownership is NOT banned unless you do the things you said... a Dealership will sell anyone over the age of 18 a car.... doesn't mean the car has to be registered or insured in the owners name, but it does have to be registered and insured in SOMEONE's name, if one expects to drive it on public roadways.. So this comment is just as idiotic as the one that was collapsed by the community.... without merit, and without factual basis.

You are wrong about drunk driving regs. If you look at the stats there has been a steady decline in deaths since they have tightened up the drunk driving laws.

@Tom-1022448

That is part of the problem every state has differen't laws. No open carry here.

gun and autos may wreak the same havoc, but the regulation and clearer ownership of cars helps see justice served after the fact.

many criminal acts with firearms are with stolen weapons, or weapons sold outside the scope of background checks.

if an owner of a firearm had civil liability for any crimes done with their stolen weapon, then folks like the Newtown shooter's mother might be a lot more serious about weapon security.

gun death rates are identical to automobile related deaths in any given year

You really don't know the difference between a gun and a car? Really? Let me explain... guns are designed, manufactured, and sold with the purpose of killing. Cars, on the other hand, are designed, manufactured, and sold with the intent of tranporting people and things from place-to-place. One is a weapon. The other is a common form of transportation. Do you get it now or do you need pictures?

reterry

gun and autos may wreak the same havoc, but the regulation and clearer ownership of cars helps see justice served after the fact.

many criminal acts with firearms are with stolen weapons, or weapons sold outside the scope of background checks.

if an owner of a firearm had civil liability for any crimes done with their stolen weapon, then folks like the Newtown shooter's mother might be a lot more serious about weapon security.

It's entirely possible that you may be correct, however, to make your point in the reverse, If you own a car, and it's stolen from you, and the person that steals it runs over children standing at a bus stop, are you liable for the deaths of those children? By your logic, you are.

Let's keep it simple for the mentally challenged:

What is it called when someone is killed by a car? An accident.

What is it called when someone is killed by a gun? A homicide.

Why is this so difficult for gun proponents to understand?

Automobiles are far more regulated than guns - for example, gun manufacturers are the only consumer product which the law says cannot be held liable for consumer safety issues. Why is that? Why is it that there are no laws requiring that guns be manufactured so they cannot go off accidentally?

Progressive regulations on cars over the past forty years have reduced the rate of auto fatalities by more than 60%. Seat belts. Air bags. Crumple zones. Increased drinking age. And on and on.

The comparison of auto safety to gun safety is specious, and frankly stupid.

What is it called when someone is killed by a car? An accident.

What is it called when someone is killed by a gun? A homicide.

What is it called when someone is killed by a car?

An accident, a murder, a suicide, manslaughter.

What is it called when someone is killed by a gun?

An accident, a murder, a suicide, manslaughter.

TheDougler960608 - you can very well be held liable if your car is stolen and someone is run over. It depends on whether or not you properly secured the car against theft. There are a number of famous cases regarding that subject.

StMiller

TheDougler960608 - you can very well be held liable if your car is stolen and someone is run over. It depends on whether or not you properly secured the car against theft. There are a number of famous cases regarding that subject.

While that's entirely possible, reterry was making it sound as though liability always falls to the cars owner no matter wha, and that's just not the case.

tim-2799493

Let's keep it simple for the mentally challenged:

What is it called when someone is killed by a car? An accident.

What is it called when someone is killed by a gun? A homicide.

Why is this so difficult for gun proponents to understand?

WTH, man you are mentally challenged. Might want to go back to law school or atleast use google. Either of those scenarios can switch places. Just saying........but it may be over your head.

"You really don't know the difference between a gun and a car?"

You sir mr. sam adams is correct. That's why gangbangers make the most use of both in drive bys. But hey, in reality the pen has killed way more people than either, but's that's another story.

Stop making excuses for gun violence. It's ignorant.

tim-2799493

You are not quite correct.

for example, gun manufacturers are the only consumer product which the law says cannot be held liable for consumer safety issues. Why is that? Why is it that there are no laws requiring that guns be manufactured so they cannot go off accidentally?

Yes they can be sued for a shoddy product. The law prevents them from being sued by some victim when the gun works the way it was intended to. Many people sued manufactures for the criminals intet. Either looking for a paday or trying to bankrupt the manufactures with lawyer fees.

tim-2799493

Let's keep it simple for the mentally challenged:

What is it called when someone is killed by a car? An accident.

How about when a wife runs ove her cheating husband. A homicide.

How about your friend has one to many and slams into moms soccer van. Manslaughter minimum, I would like to see it more.

What is it called when someone is killed by a gun? A homicide.

Well lets see there are suicides and yes there are accidents from a few idiots.

Try to avoid absolutes.

Dougler.. misquotes, misinterprets me ... the car argument is just an interesting analogy, and not necessarily all that relevant to regulating "heavy weapons" that are only built to kill, and to kill people best.

Actually that's rifles of all types. Wish FBI data would of broke down to AR style, My guess is those contain a lot of hunting rifles.

Get rid of all guns then, problem solved. I'd rather get stabbed than shot any day.

Dead by any instrument is dead. I don't understand your logic.

It is the hard heart that kills, not the weapon. However, the ability to kill quickly, easily, and in absurd numbers (using a military grade firearm) is all on the side of the gun!

Hence, effective regulation of "heavy weapons" may lessen the severity of the carnage even if the number of events remains fixed. I cannot see why anyone in their right mind can't see this - except of course for the NRA.

The deflection of comparisons to other things like cars is illogical as they have nothing in common with guns and serve different purposes. When the discussion is guns the topic is not all other death causing items. Deflection usually means the person has a weak argument or no argument to refute the assertion.

It is also interesting that when there are discussions of deaths caused by motor vehicles that nobody compares them to Guns? I have never heard an argument saying lets not add safety devices or laws to prevent accidents because people are also killed by guns!

Two or three people asking not to compare to autos, saying look at all the regulation you need to get a car.......am I correct? So if that is your argument ......that all the training, licensing, tracking, documentation does nothing to keep you from having the same amount of deaths that you do with guns.....the real facts are that 270 million registered guns in the U.S. cause 32,163 (2011) fatalities per year, and 254 million registred autos in US with 32,367 deaths related to autos........all of your regulations for autos do nothing to stop the drunk driver or accidents that happened that killed these people, these numbers are very comparable and they both take real lives so don't tell me you can't compare them.....machines taking lives........no users taking lives.............get real people , spend your time and money on mental health and actually enforcing the laws we have on the books to regulate things.

No one is calling for the government to out-law vehicles that can go more than 70 MPH.

No, they're not. Know why? Because that would be STUPID.

Nobody is punishing responsible gun owners. The new regulations are merely an inconvenience, nothing more. If you were actually responsible, you wouldn't have a problem with regulations for improving gun safety.

Get over it.

John the statement in your post above says it all. "Im gonna kill you because you slept with my wife". The problem is in your head, thinking that that solves anything. When did we lose sight of right and wrong and stop talking. When did killing become the answer to everything. All you good Christian gun owners my ass.

Maybe your wife slept with your neighbor because she was sick of your paramilitary rantings. Guns don't solve anything they create more problems and fill our pay to play prisons. What all the NRA screaming Meemies don't even think about is that between the Republican Congressmen and the NRA this group is already more controlled that if the "Tyrannical Government" showed up at your door today. They have you spouting their catch phrases like you thought of them yourself. And they have convinced you of the Tyrannical Government coming in the "next 50 to 100 years". (NRA talking point.) When all of you wil be 80 or dead already. So hurry right out and make the gun manufacturers richer and make sure you give Mr. LaPierre a big bonus on top of his million dollar salary because it's all about the money. They keep the fear alive and you just keep on spending.

tim-2799493

The new regulations are merely an inconvenience, nothing more. If you were actually responsible, you wouldn't have a problem with regulations for improving gun safety.

I have no problem with regulations that actually improve gun safety. The problem is most of what is being asked isn't improving gun safety.

August-506561

I'm sorry I'm kind of a bad excuse for a gun nut in your book because I don't even own a camouflage bandanna. Also a little more agnostic than catholic I was brought up. Oh and I don't even use the NRA catch phrase, as you call them because I realize you've heard them and don't believe them. I also like how most of you all blame the the GOP , Tea pots & whatever else with such well thought out descriptions.

I do not believe Gun control is a GOP vs. Dem issue. On both sides the congressman represent their constituents. The line is actually drawn more between rural areas and cities. A Democratic senator from rural state say like Montana's Jon Tester would never survive voting for more gun control laws. The
rancher out there wants his AR-15 to shoot gopher's to keep his cattle from breaking a leg. So stop blaming the GOP, there are plenty of Democrats on that band wagon also.

Oh and before you cry you don't need an AR to shoot gophers I'll concede that. You also don't need a Ferrari which can go a hundred miles over the speed limit to get from point A to point B.

The AR is nearly (minus the full auto feature) identical to the rifle used by our military for the last 40 something years. Generations of soldiers have trained with it and are comfortable and confident using it. That is why it has been one of the top selling rifles for the last 10-20 years.

I primarily bought an AR since it is cheaper to shoot. It is actually a very pleasant gun to shoot because of the light recoil. I'm afraid all you who want to make it out to be some super powerful cartridge are mistaken, most hunters consider it under powered to hunt even dear.

Well said biggie. It's "SCARY" looking so it must be a MASSIVE MURDER MACHINE

I would rather take 2 or 3 from a .223 than 00 buckshot from a 12 gauge or a JHP from a .45 magnum.

Paul-991174...That is a great question and I bet you never get an answer! I am a victim of gun violence and I dont blame the gun it is the low life gang banger that pulled the trigger. Did the police go out and look for this person? NO instead the police officer in the er that night made the comment "Should have killed the little bastard" Thats all fine and dandy with me I got my justice I found him myself and let me tell ya he aint pullin no more triggers!

Detailed information about gun violence is hard to come by for a reason: the NRA has successfully lobbied for laws preventing the collection and study of that data.

Thank the NRA.

And the ACLU wont allow any negative data to profile minorities or illegals. And the liberals won't acknowledge any factual data that would cause harm or stereotype a minority either.

LOL..............These types of articles that contain these types of stats are for shock value, not actual meaningful values.

You get the same amount of deaths from your regulated autos that you do from Gun violence......"just the facts" numbers are so out of reality it's not even funny. Checking to see if I can shoot you accurately or if I know how to use the safety and to always point my gun at 45 degree angle to the ground when carrying it extended in my hand has nothing to do with the fact that I'm gonna kill you for sleeping with my wife............people do not understand that people are the evil.............sure take away the guns.........Do you have a butcher knife in your kitchen? I'd be glad to use that ...........an axe, sword, baseball bat..............doesn't really matter.....take them all way and if I'm a mad man I'm still going to find a way to get you ..........Its not about the tool I choose its the fact that I chose to be violent and I will adapt........humans always adapt .........

Last time I checked, driving a car wasn't written into the Constitution as a protected, inalienable right. I don't know, did they put a new amendment in there when I wasn't paying attention?

Ever been on a millitary base? Most do not have people marching around with guns, boot camp maybe. Though Navy boot camp the rifles didn't work. After that unless your about to be deployed or go to the range the weapons are locked up in an armory.

Those who argue the number of guns in circulation has nothing to do with the number of murders and suicides because "it's not guns, but people who kill people" are simply ignoring statistics previously confirmed time and again.

Seems like the suicides can get done equally well without a gun, lets go with a couple perennial favorites like South Korea and Japan, usually in the top ten of deaths by suicide. Lets look at Japan. Japanese suicides exceed 30,000 for the fourteenth year in a row.

Common methods of suicide are jumping in front of trains, leaping off high places, hanging, or overdosing on medication. Rail companies will charge the families of those who commit suicide a fee depending on the severity of disrupted traffic.

A newer method, gaining in popularity partly due to publicity from Internet suicide websites, is to use household products to make the poisonous gas hydrogen sulfide.

Even America's leading gun control scholar, Stanford's Franklin Zimring concedes: "Cultural factors appear to affect the suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available."

Next check out murder rates in Britain and Australia. Seems to me by taking out guns, the percentage of other methods just increased.

Interesting article regarding Australia:

Sorry, link didn't post:

The shooter at Ft. Hood shot the people in a bank. Most banks don't allow people (other than criminals) to carry weapons. Therefore, the issue was not that there are too many guns, there were not enough guns as no one had the ability to defend themselves against the terrorist.

Dee you do realize that people still intentionally run people down with cars. Hence all of the statements you made above about

1) There would be title and tags at each point of sale.

2) There would be gun education and training, a written test, and a practical test.

3) There would be health requirements, and mandatory liability insurance on each gun owned.

4) There would be mandatory regularly scheduled registration renewals and periodic inspections.

Makes no difference when a person wants to make what is in hand a weapon. A car is a weapon when used in this manner and has just as much killing power.

You get the same amount of deaths from your regulated autos that you do from Gun violence......"just the facts" numbers are so out of reality it's not even funny.

You should try using them. Compare the amount of actual usage of cars with usage of guns and see how your numbers look. Deaths per hours of usage of cars vs. guns.

Too bad the NRA lobby prevents collection of that kind of data, huh?

Stop making excuses for gun violence.

Military bases are gun free zones. Spent 22 years there. Only security get to carry. I didn't even get a weapon in a war zone.

It's not just the cost. The act of entering the country without a visa is a misdemeanor, a parking ticket.

It's a trivial offense.

That is why it is so peculiar that no terrorists have walked across the border. Even if they were arrested they would be released with a notice to appear.

@dandan-5391498, those are scary numbers. Here's some even scarier numbers from an older MSNBC article from 2005 on alcholism:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the study, estimated that 34,833 people in 2001 died from cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits.

Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.

So even if we discount the car crash deaths related to alcohol, we get 95.4 people die each day on average by drinking themselves to death, which is almost double the number who dies from self inflicted wounds and easily more than the number who die from guns. By the logic of a gun control special interest, we should also ban the sale of alcohol and limit who has access. Oh wait, that's been tried. Didn't work. Neither does gun control.

Depression is serious business that probably leads to many of these suicides, both by gun related and alcohol related. Why are we not screaming for more help for those with depression? Why do we need a "quick fix" for something that won't work? Because the gun control lobby is pulling on your emotions.

Update: From the CDC site, which I'm guessing is based on the latest 2010 numbers:

Mortality

• Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 15,990
• Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 25,692

That averages out to a little over 70 per day from alcohol related deaths. Glad to see it's come down, like gun violence. Still scary and my point is still the same.

Black males while only 6% of the total population commit over 50% of ALL gun violence and murder in America...

The gun problem is in the inner city, not in White America

True dat.

Nobody is proposing taking away anyone's rights.

thomasward00

Black males while only 6% of the total population commit over 50% of ALL gun violence and murder in America...

The gun problem is in the inner city, not in White America

Newtown/Sandy Hook Elementary School; Aurora theater shooting; Gabrielle Giffords in Az; Columbine - all perpetrated by "White America". Or do shooting sprees not count?

Tim your blatant ignorance is showing.

Joey you listed 3 incidents. I can give you links to 498 in chicago, for last year alone

CDC numbers look the same.

Yeah, gun violence has nothing to do with guns. Right.

How true

Actually, FBI statistics are not as reliable as the CDC's. FBI numbers are provided on a voluntary basis by states and cities, and tend to be incomplete and substantially lower. (For example, gun homicides from FBI: 8,583, from CDC for the same time, around 11,400).

Gun crime rates peaked about 1992, then by 2000 or so returned to the same levels they had been in the early 80s, and staying there ever since.

Nice try.

@tim:

Citation needed. I think you're confusing murder rate with total murders. Yes, there were approximately the same number of gun homicides in 1984-5 that there were this past year, difference: About 80 million more people.

Ignoring the population grown of the United states... now *THAT* is a nice try.

All in all if you take Matts asertion from the DoJ study from the NCVS that says on average there are 108,000 defensive firearm uses per year. Now weigh agains homicides (I never include suicide if you want to die you don't need a gun just look at 30,000 dead a year in Japan) you get guns doing more good. That more than likely doesn't include every time a Law Enforcement Officer pulled their weapon.

Go to the CDC website, the numbers are there, and are much higher than the FBI. Compare defensive gun use against all gun injuries, not just homicides. I do not suggest disarming completely, but there are still more successful gun crimes than successful defensive incidents, despite the gun toting cowboy fantasies to the contrary. And if you're going to compare such defensive uses, you also have to take into account all the accidents too.

Suicides may not relate to defensive gun use, but gun suicide mortality rates are much higher than any other form. It doesn't relate to defensive gun use, of course, but the notion that someone wanting to kill themselves will always succeed is simply not true.

FYI i dont own a gun and im not NRA member. I just think Journalism should be credible. The stastics pulled uses estimates.

Agree, why use the Brady Campaign stats for half then switch?

Why? Didn't they actually die too, or do you choose to differentiate gun homicides based on who did the shooting? An awful lot of victims of gun violence, even gang related, are completely innocent.