Ryan, you can't have a discussion with a closed mind

Yes you can! "La la la la la la la la la la"

Not only the American people, but also the rank and file of the NRA are being done a disservice by the absolutist position of the organization’s executive VP, Wayne LaPierre. His testimony in Congress was a shining example of paranoia on parade. That, and a pretty serious exaggeration of his own fighting ability.

Let’s just assume, for the sake of argument and Mr. LaPierre’s delusions, that the United States Government’s primary goal is to subject its citizens to tyranny (a word with an archaic 18thcentury—and therefore patriotic—ring to it). With ferret-like eyes, it focuses upon an individual out in the woods whose liberties it wishes to trample upon, and dispatches a phalanx of black helicopters to implement its nefarious plan.

Since these gunships belong to the military, they are of course equipped with Gatling guns, cannon and probably a few racks of rockets. Our intrepid survivalist, upon hearing the clacking of the rotors, has already taken position behind the boarded-up window of his shack, and now lies in wait with his trusty Bushmaster, equipped with the extra-long magazine, for the jackbooted thugs to arrive.

You can figure out the rest of the story. The point is that even if this misconception were accurate, an unfettered exercise of the Second Amendment—misinterpreted as it is—probably wouldn’t do anything to change the outcome.

Meanwhile, there will be more mass shootings, and the public will slowly (but inexorably) come to the conclusion that Mr. LaPierre—and therefore his organization—is out of step. By the time the outrage has reached the point where Congress may finally be motivated to do something meaningful upon threat of electoral defeat, Mr. LaPierre’s cause may suffer more deeply than if he had acted reasonably when he had the chance.

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of money to be made right now—what with make-believe Minutemen stocking up on weaponry out of fear that the pinkos will try to deprive them—so the future isn’t on the minds of Mr. LaPierre and his paymasters in the arms industry.

Lowe

Rev - you'd think our nation would have learned a lesson from the Civil War.

How well did them rebel misfits do against the govt?

Let's remember, that was a more fair fight - than a fight today would be.

I whole-heartedly believe that the govt's intention with the 2nd Amendment was that the states had WELL REGULATED MILITIA'S that matched fire power for fire power with the govt, so that IF the govt ever THOUGHT of reigning tyranny down on it's people, ever again, it would not be such a knock out.

Hell, our federal govt could beat the "patriots" who are stockpiling guns with their drones alone, and never have to waist a single federal agents life.

Hey Conservatives - Which side is the NRA fighting for? YOU or the Feds?

It's pretty clear to me given the way they've intentionally and continually perverted the 2nd Amendment and made it be so that today, average joes of america - despite all the guns they'd like to have - will never, ever, stand a chance against our federal govt again.

Unless, of course, our Federal govt turned on itself, and the soldiers given orders disobeyed...

but then you have to consider what other nations are going to side with the "people" versus our govt...

what corporations are going to side with our govt, versus the people...

oh, how I feel incredibily sad for the delusional patriot with his massive arsenal and his never ending chants of "from my cold dead hands" - indeed, thats exactly how it's going to happen. fool.

Rev J - And you must know that the government is merely giving lip service to a problem that they know they cannot negate. Even if there was the ability to totally ban all private ownership of weapons there would still be killings with guns. They know that the criminals will never voluntarily turn in their guns. For those that decide they want to join the ranks of the criminals there are other means of killing an ex-wife/husband, former boss, non-responsive congressman, intruder, etc. Taking one type of weapon away from a criminal does not make them law-abiding, just handicapped.

Fear, its the best tool to control the massess. On either side. Don't forget to check under your bed before going to sleep tonight.

Militias are to operate under the direction of the U.S. government. Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Something Mr. LaPierre, the NRA and a lot of other people either don't know about or conveniently ignore.

, Wayne LaPierre cares about nothing more than his seven figure salary. A few years back he was supporting the very background checks he now opposes. His ridiculous appearance right after the CT/ tradgety was a jojke. He wants security in every school. Well when the taxpayers turned around and said "fine, tax the guns, ammo and other items to pay for it" he didn't know what to do. then he blames video games.

If the anti gun lobby gave him the same salary, he'd switch sides the next day. The NRA does a great job in providing training and education for responsible firearm's ownership and use. But they started another section just to raise money. Where it goes? Who knows.

Jeff Jefferson ; Republicans do it all the time. It is REQUIRED to be a member of the Tea Party.

The Punisher ; Fear is not the best tool to control the masses. A common enemy is the best to control the masses. Just read Mien Kampf.

@justme - a common enemy is nothing but a common source of fear.

@ "the thinker" Thinker??? Are you self-mocking? Here's help: The fact that you cannot completely eliminate a problem does not mean that you cannot mitigate the problem, reduce the problem, reduce the problem considerably, improve the situation. And the fact that improvement will not occur immediately, with the flip of a switch or signing of a law, does not mean that it cannot be done over time. Understand?

Gun nuts reason like five year olds. Here's help: Criminals get their guns from the same places that gun nut morons get their guns, except they sometimes steal them. The the easier it is to get guns, and the more guns there are available for the sometimes law abiding gun nut morons, the more guns there are easlily available for criminals. Understand?

First, my condolences to the family and friends of those who lost their lives. May the victims rest in peace, and be remembered for all the positive things they did for their loved ones, and I hope that whoever did this will be brought to justice.

In response to your question, Ryan-2847120 (#2)- and as mentioned earlier, a person can be armed and still be taken by surprise and not have time to defend themselves. But if that same person has a good watchdog--and all it really has to do is to bark to raise an alarm, then there is at least a little bit of time to act, and I would be willing to bet that the sound of a bid dog barking and the sound of a round chambering in a shotgun would scare most criminals away, and not a shot would have to be fired.

Jessica and Rev Wright--I think it is more likely that if I am ever in a position where I have to protect myself and/or loved ones, it won't be against the government. I can think of several circumstances, such as a natural disaster (remember what happened in the aftermath of Katrina!) or if I am out hunting with my husband and suddenly come across some feral wild boars (they can be very dangerous! And I would definitely want to have a semi-automatic to protect myself from a wild boar). I consider home invasions to be a far more dangerous and immediate threat, as well as gang activity. Several years ago, my elderly neighbors 2 doors down experienced a home invasion--a kid in his late teens/early 20's burst in with a base-ball bat at noon on a Saturday. Thank God the couple had 2 big dogs, or else there could have been a real tragedy in our neighborhood, because that elderly couple did not have any firearms to protect themselves. When it comes to gang activity, I see how the good law-abiding people of northern Mexico are at the total mercy of the drug cartels, and those good law abiding Mexicans have no 2nd Amendment rights. Yes, I know at this point that is probably a moot point seeing as at this point the good law abiding Mexicans would be far outgunned. But it wasn't always so. I'd rather see the drug cartels view the USA as where people are vastly more difficult to intimidate and tyrannize than their victims in Mexico. As far as background checks--I am fully in favor of background checks. There are some reasonable things that can be done without depriving anyone of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Thank the Holy Pope that we don't have a problem with guns in this country!

Oh...wait a minute....on several counts....

How about no.

provide mental health assistance=now!

provide mental health assistance=now!

I think a stronger background check system would be more effective.

Only when America gets serious about gun control will these gun violence death rates go down. Anyone saying gun control wont work, is misinformed, or lying.

Criminals should not be able to buy ammo. Right now they can, at any store that sells it. A firearms license system would end that. No license, no ammo. Or any other gun related thing. This would allow for periodic check-ups on gun owners. (Incase they picked up a felony, or have become ill)

A gun registry. Tracking guns is the ONLY way to put a stop to black-market sales. Every gun sold from the day the law goes into effect, should be registered, and a name put to every gun and box of ammunition. If those items are found in the hands of bad-guys, then the registered owner who's name is on them, has questions to answer.

Gun owners should not be able to buy ammo for any gun not registered to them. This would encourage people to register guns already owned. Unregistered guns should be confiscated if found by police. There should be regular amnesties to allow people to come forward and register, if they didn't right away. (The object is to get people to register, not seize. Seizure should be for those who refuse)

Close all the loop holes in the law. 100% background checks for all sales. Gun owners having a license would help private sellers check their buyers. And they could take the buyers license number for registration purposes. The seller should be responsible for informing the authorities they have sold a gun, and supply a record with the license number of the buyer on it. The buyer should have X number of days to register their new gun.

These simple steps would put a huge dent in the illegal firearms trafficing business. Needing a license to buy ammo, would disarm most criminals almost immediately. An illegal gun without ammo, cant kill anyone. By tracking guns and ammo, the black-market would also dry up. Badguys would be way less dangerous.

Legal law abiding gun owners are not the problem. Its bad guys and mentally unfit people with guns that are the problem. Bad-guys don't have 2nd amendment rights.

Make gun owners be responsible. If Adam Lanzas mother had been required to keep her guns locked up, and not been allowed to train her mentally defective son how to use them, those kids at Sandy Hook might be alive today. If she was a law abiding gun owner, should would have complied with those rules.

Leaving an unlocked lethal weapon lying around for a kid to get ahold of, or a thief to steal, should be an offense.

More Justic - TOUCH'e

and every instance of gun registration has lead to confiscation and then mass murder. History is amazing. We had rifle teams in the 40's-60's but didnt have the shootings, so instead of blaming guns like you closed minded pricks are doing, why not get to the root of issues? Gangs are here because they ahve the belief of it being the onyl future for them, so repeal the no child left behind act and give inner city schools their funding. Quit pumping anti psychotics and ridalin into our kids and let their midns develop without the use of drugs which have been proven to cause more harm than good. Then, legalize marijuana for recreational use. I garantee you crime will drop vastly...

Ssimmons - you're sounding like a liberal, spending money on poor kids...telling Big Pharma to F#^K itself and legalizing marijuana (equivalent to ending prohibition on alohol)...and all we had to do was threaten to force you to register all your guns, prohibit your ability to sell your gun without a background check to any crazy who answers your craigslist ad and prohibit the sale of assualt weapons?

turns out conservatives are willing to compromise when you threaten the right thing.

"I think a stronger background check system would be more effective."

Like iron strong or rock strong or teflon strong? So how strong do you want it? Viagra or steriods?

@MoreJustice

Gun control=now!

Thanks, but I already have plenty of gun control. I always hit my target & that's all the gun control I need. I would suggest you don't stand in front of my target if you value your health. LOL

Ssimmons117

History is amazing. We had rifle teams in the 40's-60's but didnt have the shootings,

What planet are you living on? Yes, we did have shootings. They just weren't reported on the television 24/7, and editors chose not to publish them in the local newspapers.

Also, Hitler primed his people by making gun ownership easy for the regular citizen who wasn't destined to get on a cattle car.

Both the Aurora shooter (Loughner), and Cho (Virginia tech), were known nuts. No one who knew them, was surprised they were crazy and ended up shooting people. It is the poor background check system that allowed them to buy weapons. Their mental illness was well known by those around them. But because of lax laws, they weren't put on a ban list. The doctors who were aware of their illness should have been required by law to report it to authorities. And those authorities should be required to add them to a national background check database.

The system failed the victims of these shooters.

MoreJustice

There are millions of guns and plenty of ammo out there right now. Registering every gun and verifying ammo for each specific gun is ridiculous. We don't need more "govt is our mommy" laws. Try to get each gun owner to give up their personal information for guns that they own....they will laugh at you.

In England, they are after people for buying knives. Once the rules start, they apparently never end.

Stop being so paranoid...just your luck, someone will attack you with a baseball bat.

Loughner was not the Aurora shooter, although he did have mental health issues and carried an extended ammunition magazine that enabled him to shoot a lot more people before he stopped to reload and was disarmed. Common sense will easily tell you that a lot more people will be harmed in a crowded area with a 30 round magazine than a 10 round magazine.

This is what happens when you normalize a man marrying all three sisters and an aunt. "Auntsisted Suicide".

So how long did it take you to figure that one out gramps?

Looks like "really need" is subjective term here.

The benefits of breaking this news are numerous.

It can cause people to be careful in the area.

It can encourage people to keep an eye out for the suspect.

And it possibly fosters a hopefully reasoned dialogue about the second amendment and what are appropriate limits and guidelines on the second amendment--just like there are appropriate limits on the first amendment and pretty much any other amendment.

Sounds like things that we do really need.

It's propaganda....scaring you into submission.

Illegal immigrants cause the deaths of thousands of American citizens through crimes, DUI's, etc.

Why isn't this admin working to contain illegals? I thought "the death of one child is too many."

It's propaganda....scaring you into submission.

Illegal immigrants cause the deaths of thousands of American citizens through crimes, DUI's, etc.

Reporting an event in and of itself is not propaganda. It would have to espouse a particular political point of view in order to qualify.

Ironically, your second statement about illegal immigrants does exactly that, and is untrue. "Thousands?" Really? How many, and on what basis in fact do you come up with such a generalization? That comes much closer to propaganda than a simple, factual narrative about a shooting in Utah.

Your right, the actual numbers of illegals is more like Millions. 75% of our Cop Killers here in Houston have been Mexican Illegal Aliens.

Deerhunter - millions of cops are being killed in houston???

Of course, if the damn republicans who are the hard working business owners didnt haul the illegals across the border for cheap slave labor, maybe they wouldnt be here?

just a thought...

because of course, we know that lazy liberals arent owning businesses...therefore, they cant possibly be the ones employing all those illegals you speak of.

hmmmmmmmm...............................Now I'm lost.

Jessica-1170252

Can't read very well can you? We have millions of illegals. BREAK------ 75% of our Cops are killed by illegals. STOP.

The period ...... at the end of a sentence means that one is over with. Then it starts a whole new sentence. See how that works? Uneducated Lefturd.

It would have to espouse a particular political point of view in order to qualify.

And the articles on NBCNews the past several days don't make their political leanings obvious? Some need to have a recorded statement to understand anothers intentions. Many don't recognize the difference between covert and overt propaganda efforts.

Ban handguns.

75% of our Cops are killed by illegals

Absolutely false. You made that up, and then had the nerve to call someone else uneducated.

obama is not worried about taking back the House. I think he is trying to create a national crisis which will allow him to seize control and suspend the Constitution. No one with an IQ greater than their shoe size, can think that this runaway spending is not endangering us.

What is a Dictator? have you been listening to Fox? I wonder how you would feel if someone shout all your family members, while they were sleep. Maybe you would not be the person to ask anything when you use

I hate liberals. Hate kills all by itself. I know you don't believe in God. You are a waste of time....

"W" sure didn't worry about run-away spending now did he? "Sure...another war? Sure...why not? I'll get 'em for ya daddy!"

You'd have a case, navyvet98, if deficits hadn't come down since Obama took office--and if the job for balancing the budget (i.e., raising tax revenue and managing spending) didn't reside principally with the Congress. Presidents make proposals and sign bills, but it isn't their primary job.

elhere,

Are you STILL blaming Bush? It's all Obama's now.

Unfortunately, he cares more about his liberal agenda than helping this nation recover. People are out of work, times are hard. Maybe THAT is part of the reason for some of these gun deaths. Remember Obama's pledge that jobs were his #1 priority?.....HE LIED

Seems like since conn shooting every shooting makes the national news.

That's just it. This is nowhere near representative of how many shootings happen every day in the U.S. On average, 85 people are killed with a firearm every day in the U.S. and about three times that many more are simply injured but survive.

In order for your comment to be true, we would be seeing a story like this every hour, every day, day and night, all year long.

But if it starts to make the point about the carnage we face each day due to the ease of access to firearms in this country, then it's a start.

No one with an IQ greater than their shoe size, can think that this runaway spending is not endangering us.

...but anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size is capable of looking up the spending record of this administration, and realizing that it has not significantly increased since the administration took office in 2009. Current spending levels were set in 2008.

Obama is going to eliminate the 2nd amendment, and stay in office for a 3rd term?

I would be laughing my arse off right now, but this is mental illness...and nothing more.

and thats not funny.

Seems like since conn shooting every shooting makes the national news. Obama and the media are sure trying hard to change the 2nd amendment. I guess that is in preparation for 2014 when he plans to take back the house. Then he wil be able to declare himself Dictator.

Well, then, you guys better get your armed revolution underway post-haste, before he has the chance to take away your guns and before he has a chance to win the 2014 elections. After all, isn't an ounce of prevention better...?

Come on, be a man!

Nah, didn't think so.

Remember Obama's pledge that jobs were his #1 priority?.....HE LIED

Funny, I seem to remember that the whole GOP priority was Jobs, jobs, jobs. What did we get? Anti-abortion bills, teaching Creationism in schools, banning gay marriage, repealing the ACA, reducing Social Security, medicare, and Medicaid, maintaining farm subsidies, lowering tax rates for the rich...

Tell me who lied.

The whole 3rd term bit started with President Reagan, and has been dredged up with EVERY president since then.

ihateliberals-3787409

Seems like since conn shooting every shooting makes the national news. Obama and the media are sure trying hard to change the 2nd amendment. I guess that is in preparation for 2014 when he plans to take back the house. Then he wil be able to declare himself Dictator

Wow! Proof that people actually believe tabloids! Print out this post and take it to your doctor. I think he/she might find it interesting.

Wow!!! You must be part of the obama economic team. Pulling numbers out of your butt to make an irrational argument. Notice the leftistas are no longer talking about AR-15s but all guns. The last act before complete seizure of dictatorial authority.

I Keep seeing the same insane posters, posers and losers ranting on and on about their 2nd amendment and the need to have the power to overthrow the government - It has dawned on me that the same posters are the felons that have slipped threw the cracks or HAVE committed a felony after the fact of gun ownership and with any kind of mandatory recheck and regular check they would be criminals and banned from owning any firearm.

Please stop embarrassing yourself Rev Wright.

Felons aren't worried about a background check.....money can buy you anything you want

Re-read my post jw101, understand the post, then re-read the post - then you can post.

I'm saying your most likely a felon!

Rev J Wright

Trying to make yourself look smart, really just makes an arse out of yourself. Didn't yo mama ever tell you that?

@ Rev

Actually, I think you gun grabbers are the criminals/felons. You're all for guns being banned from law abiding citizens. Then criminals like you can go crazy & you won't have to worry about getting shot and/or you won't face any resistance from the law abiding people you intend to victimize.

@slacker - What law abiding citizens? How many laws have you broken in the last six months? My guess is at least five.

@ navyvet you are suffering rapture of the deep - or maybe hysteria of the shallow.

Stop whining about NBC before comcast puts you in jail and sells your children. Just go back to Fux with your head down your pants as usual.

He probably is, and he has a gun because gun laws are too lax. People who are forbidden from having weapons, should not be getting them. Period. The fact they are, shows the system isn't enough, and isn't working. That's why people want tougher laws, and more enforcement.

As long as bad guys are showing up with weapons they shouldn't have, gun control laws are broken and need fixing.

Let me reword that for you so it will be more accurate. As long as bad guys are showing up with guns, we will keep removing guns from the good guys until the supply runs out. You people will just have to live with the bad guys being the only ones with guns for the next hundred years or so until the supply is gone. Lets just call all you people collateral damage. We know you guys didn't do anything wrong but someone HAS to PAY.

hmmmm...........interesting............bad guys/criminals who follow tougher laws. Now that's a piece of utopia I want.

I say we do away with all laws, since bad guys never follow them.

All they do is hamper us good guys.

Criminals don't need to obey gun laws. Those laws are about monitoring gun and ammo sales so they cant disobey them. Its all about enforcement.

That why we have cops. No one expects everyone to follow the rules on their own. Only law abiding citizens follow the law willingly. Cops deal with those who don't.

But you need the laws first, before you can enforce them with police.

In other words, you have nothing of value to add to this discussion.

So race does play a role, and here I thought we've gotten over being racist as a society. How naive of me.

Cappy - I don't know buddy, but I think you have an inkling...

go ahead, take the hood off, sit down for a spell, and tell us what you think this here vine would look like.

Guess you are just informed about this article aas you were about obamanomics and obama care. Nothing law abiding about a convicted criminal. Ohhh wait we cannot call them criminals .. that is not PC. How about status neutral obama voter?

"I don't see the big deal in this event."

I don't either.

navyvet - so you get it, once someone who is law abiding kills someone, now they are a criminal.

So yeah, Law Abiding Citizens DONT kill people with guns.

That doesnt mean he wasnt law abiding - just yesterday.

TICK TOCK TICK TOCK - maybe it'll click eventually in your head.

Drinking and driving is illegal. And they have roadblocks all over the place as enforcement.

Should they do more? I think they should. Nailing people driving away from the bar at closing time, would be a good start.

MSNBC should also start highlighting each DUI fatality that occurs.

You want MSNBC to cover all accidents? I'd rather they just stick to people that are deliberately killed. There's a lot less of those.

If someone gets a DWI or kills someone while driving, take away everyone's cars. That will reduce DWI's by 100%. It's the CAR violence not the driver (shooter)

Guns, Nuns, and Automobiles again? Enough with this movie.

Maybe we just need to enact a national law that requires everyone over the age of eight to carry a gun with them at all times. Then we wouldn't even need police. Think how much money that would save.

And we probably wouldn't need courts, either. More money saved.

Mako - not a bad idea, maybe if we beat the drum loud and long enough - collectively we'll show our christian roots and give a damn about so many dead people in america.

until then, do as yo do Mako - fake it until you make it.

Guns are used to kill more people in the U.S. than all other tools combined, so in all likelihood there simply aren't as many such stories to report.

They are being killed with revolvers and pistols. So why ban semi auto rifles?

Ban pistols and revolvers.

Number of people killed by assault style rifles... 393. Number of people killed by claw hammers 495. Source: FBI

Maybe we should ban high capacity claw hammers and have all Lowe's and Home Depot customers register their weapons. Want to know the number of people killed with baseball bats in 2011? 794!!!!

Why don't you call up the 393 and let them know their deaths aren't important. Also call the parents from Newtown. Let me know their reaction.

Less than 50 people are killed each year by falling onto subway tracks. So why are things being done to make them safer (such as yellow lines and rumble strips)? Why bother? According to you, until we get to some magic number of deaths they don't count - correct?

navyvet98.......you said:

Quote.....Number of people killed by claw hammers 495......EndQuote

The FBI crime statistic refers to "Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)". That could be ANY of many thousands of objects deemed "blunt". See: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Notice also that "assault style rifles" is NOT in the table AND that of the 2011 total weapons homicides (12,664), 8,583 (68%) were by firearms. The next largest group ( Knives or cutting instruments ) caused 1,694 deaths by weapons homicide (in 2011).

Additionally, the FBI table DOES NOT include accidental deaths. How many accidental deaths do you imagine occur annually by way of "claw hammers"?

Your assertion is (at best) a distortion. Probably, you intended to deceive.

BTW--thanks for diminishing your credibility. You folks rarely fail to deliver (in that dept.).

Don't confuse today's access to information with greater immorality.

@capitalist - You are either insane or the least observant person on the planet. Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster tried to legislate morality. It says so in the old testament.

How do you keep a criminal from giving another criminal a gun?! Only very gullible people would believe that banning any type of weapon will curb gun violence. The only people who will abide by gun laws are law abiding people

@luv - your argument is circular and meaningless.

1. The fact that you cannot completely eliminate a problem does not mean that you cannot mitigate the problem, reduce the problem, reduce the problem considerably, improve the situation. And the fact that improvement will not occur immediately, with the flip of a switch or signing of a law, does not mean that it cannot be done over time.

2. Criminals get their guns from the same places that gun nuts get their guns, except they sometimes steal them. The the easier it is to get guns, and the more guns there are available for the sometimes law abiding gun nuts, the more guns there are easlily available for criminals. Understand?

Guns have been remove from the prison population, so that must be a pretty safe place to live right? How about the UK? Although gun deaths have gone down, their violent crime rate is 4 times of that in the US. There is a "violence" problem in America. It's not just a "gun violence" problem. the common factor is humans. Violence has been a natural trait of mankind, ever since recorded history, and long before guns.

The UK's violent crime rate has stayed the same for decades. Brits like to brawl. They have a drinking and fighting problem, just go to any London Pub on a Saturday night. That's why their violent crime numbers are so high. If they didn't have the gun laws they have, their death tolls would be much higher. Britain also has fairly high unemployment and a bad economy. Poverty is always a contributor to crime rates.

Stevie,You would love to live in communist China if that's how you feel.

Like I said "Gullible People"

Please show the stats on the allies. UK and Australia, while the gun deaths have gone down have had large spikes in overall violent crime. At almost 4 times the violent crime rates of that in the US, the only thing legislation is going to do is give you a false sense of safety. This is typical political scare tactics to push agenda. so, please provide the stats on the effectiveness that you claim. Please include not just gun stats, but all homicide and all violent crime rates per capita. I look forward to your response.

sstx, all that's changed in those countries, is all the gun deaths that would have happened, became assaults and attacks with less lethal weapons. That's why their death rates went down.

Gun laws don't make violent people be less violent. A violent criminal is going to be violent with or without a gun. It just changes what lethal tools they have at their disposal..

If the number of assaults went up, that's good news if its because outright deaths went down. That's proof gun control works. Less deaths.

Canada had 400 and something gun deaths last year. They have gun control laws that work. The numbers are similar in Australia, and in most of Europe. All of them have proper gun control laws.

Only the US is suffering 10's of thousands of gun deaths.

Except there were only 8,583 murders with firearms in 2011. That made up 68% of the total murders in the US. California topped the list with 1220 firearm murders and DC topped the rate with 12.46 per 100,000.

So, what you are saying it that the places with the strictest gun laws had the most murders?

so, again let not just look at gun murders. What about home invasions, rapes, robberies and violent assuslts. Are you suggesting that we should accept a 4 time increase in those in trade for less gun deaths?

The reality, is that the police and government can not and will not protect you. Police are nothing more that people that respond to crimes. These crime require that someone be victimized first. Strictly reactive.