This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Gun Control: The Big Picture
Preface: I was raised to be against guns. My parents hated guns, and believed that they only lead to crime and to accidental shootings.
Raised in a blue state, I had the stereotype that militias were made of crazies … and so the “right to bear arms” as part of a “well-regulated militia” seemed like a nutty anachronism.
And I have long been deeply influenced by leading voices for non-violence, such as Gandhi and King. So – Until recently – I was pro gun-control. As such, I understand that gun control arguments very well.
Gandhi and the Dalai Lama Were AGAINST Gun Control
I was surprised to learn that two of the best-known promoters of nonviolence in history were not opposed to guns. Indeed, Mahatma Gandhi taught that we must first be brave enough to use guns to defend ourselves, and only then can we be qualified to use non-violent methods. For example, Gandhi wrote in his book, An Autobiography (page 446):
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest … if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity.
As Gandhi wrote in Doctrine of the Sword:
I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence.
***
When my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.
***
Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
In Between Cowardice And Violence, Gandhi wrote:
He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully …
[When violence] is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.
***
A man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward.
Not knowing the stuff of which nonviolence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one’s life. As a teacher of nonviolence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief.
Self-defence … is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.
As quoted in the Seattle Times, May 15, 2001, the Dalai Lama said:
If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.
What the Founding Fathers Said About Guns
The Second Amendment had more to do with freedom than historical militias. Here’s what the Founding Fathers actually said about arms:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
– Thomas Jefferson, 1764
What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
– Thomas Jefferson
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.
– Ben Franklin
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
–Thomas Paine
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
– George Washington
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
–Patrick Henry.
Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
– Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
–Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…
–James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
–James Madison.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) .
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.
To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.
– George Mason
The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
–Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution ofthe United States (P.Ford, 1888)
[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
– Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
But SOMETHING Must Be Done to Stop the School Shootings!
History is interesting, but something has to change. Kids are getting murdered in their own schools.
We agree …
The Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience published a study in 2001 showing that one modern anti-depressant is associated with violent acts.
David Healy and David Menkes from Cardiff University, and Andrew Herxheimer from the UK Cochrane Centre, published a study in 2006 showing that antidepressants can cause severe violence in a small number of individuals.
Numerous other mental health experts say that anti-depressants may be a substantial factor in school shootings and other gun-related violence. And see this, this, this, this. If you have any doubt about this, please watch these videos:
Indeed, the number of school shootings, murders and murder-suicides, workplace violence, road rage, and random violence by soldiers by people taking anti-depressants is staggering.
So - whatever else we do to address school shootings - we must either stop pushing anti-depressants on kids or at least stop selling guns to people taking anti-depressants.
How Useful is a Gun Against Tyranny When the Government Has Bigger Weapons?
Of course, the usefulness of a gun as a defense against tyranny depends partly on the types of arms possessed by the government.
As George Orwell – author of 1984 – pointed out in the Tribune (October 19, 1945), the effectiveness of arms in preventing tyranny partly depends on whether the average citizen can afford the current weapon of choice possessed by the government:
The connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon–so long as there is no answer to it–gives claws to the weak.The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle. This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans–even Tibetans–could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against the individual, and the industrialised country as against the backward one …The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon–or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting–not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant.
If he were alive today, Orwell might say that – unless the American people create and adopt high-tech ways to defend themselves – guns will not be able to compete with drones, robots and other high-tech weapons created by the virtually unlimited American military budget.
On the other hand, as John Aziz notes:
The vast majority of America’s 285 million guns are in Republican states, which are unlikely to be disarmed easily, even with an overwhelming Federal consensus. Some might even try to secede from the Union.
In other words, gun ownership as a deterrence to a tyrannical government might work better in Red States – where a lot of people have guns – than in Blue States.
Note: I strongly believe that safety training is essential. Keep weapons away from kids, and lock up the bullets SEPARATELY so children can’t find them. It is also easy to hang weapons above arm-reach of youngsters. Please be safe.
»
- advertisements -
Agreed. The alledged shooter was an honors student. He was born to intelligent parents. Something does not fit...and it stinks...really bad.
Gandhi was a terrorist fraud, and Gandhi and the Dalai Lama both peddled superstition and snake oil, but George on the right side of an issue..., there's a miracle.
Gandhi was a terrorist? The Dalai Lama did what? I'll give you the benefit of being mistaken and not a total fucking moron, but please enhance our meager brains and show us a link to support the shit you're blowing.
At last a chance to use a classic movie quote!
"The central message of Buddism is not 'Every man for himself." - 'A Fish called Wanda'
If GW ever read a real book on Gandhi and understood what this man was all about, he wouldn't use a quote completely out of its context. Orwell on the other hand would be proud to read this kind of propaganda straight out of room 101 .
You are free to put this quote into proper context. Until then, you will not be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.
Alot of people are engaging in unsightly overreach on this event, methinks.
A short time ago there was the start of am mass shooting in a shopping mall in Washington but was stopped by a conceiled hand gun confrontation. Guns are not the problem, it is crazy people with accesss to rat poison, gasoline, fertilizer, propaine tanks, or guns to name a few. The difference is guns are more dangerous to governments gone bad. Thomas Jefferson was clear on that amentments puropose.
I posted this in the Washington Post Comments sction.
If you want to piss off gun controllers, post there.
Its probably a bit too much to ask, but can't they just ban angry young white males? </humor>
Racist Jamie Foxx and his pals in Hollywood want to kill lots of white people in movies.
Bigger picture: The “shootings” are what are known as “Blood Games” (see: “The Report From Iron Mountain”) designed as part of a way to retain the legitimacy of the Govt. in a period of extended peace. I don’t think POTUS Kennedy bought into it, nor the suggested “outside enemy effect” (environment and/or aliens recommended) that would empower the UN as the ultimate lead dog.
The larger “Blood Games” – like Ruby Ridge and Waco – were shut down in Montana when 10’s of thousands of armed “tourists” (militia from 13 States) showed up and promised a violent rebellion if the Feds killed any Freemen. The Feds backed down. Weapons in the hands of Freedom-Loving, law-abiding Citizens did the trick.
GW has it here in that after Montana, the “Games” moved to church and school shootings where ALL the shooters were on psychotropic meds, were from single-parent families and usually were being “counseled” (handled).
Fact is, there are enough laws on the books to prevent this tragedy, but unfortunately, there was no armed teacher or security guard to make a stand which arguably lead to more death. Arm the teachers, since these Manchurians/whackos will keep coming.
Incidentally, the Senate recently rejected the UN small Arms Treaty.
War Pony - any web sites and more info on the militia from 13 states going to Montana and the Feds backing down? Thanks.
I am sure they will have one of these atrocities a month in a Gun Free Zone until we submit. It is not going to happen.
The corrupt Senate helped destroy Rome.
No, they will have another false flag in a gun free state that takes out a military or police unit. That will bring division among the very people that should protect the right to bear arms.
They are evil, not stupid.
The statists cry crocodile tears for the departed children and demand more laws to curb gun violence.
One word to describe their laws to curb gun violence and their efforts to protect the innocent: FAIL!
Now come the statists, having failed in every field of human endeavor but at the same time eager to exploit yet another opportunity to advance their psychotic agenda of total control over the citizenry, calling once again for an end to gun violence via "tougher" gun laws. Madness!
The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows and spears. However, a common-law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.
Copyright © 1994 Constitution Society
I believe the video below reveals the key, true cause of most of this violence. This is excellent video: these are professionals, within these very groups, that are speaking out (psychiatrists, psychologists, physicians, pharmaceutical account managers, etc. etc.) and shining the light of truth on the evil and irresponsibility. This is contributing to the decay of our country on a grand scale. Gun control is not the solution: there have been millions of guns in this country for a very long time. These mass murders and violence only began over the last 3-4 decades. What has changed?
Let's make this go viral. America needs to know the true cause and effect for these horrific incidents of violence... and who our enemies truly are. If you agree, please forward this link to all family, friends, associates and government representatives and leaders in your area.
The TRUE SOURCE of RANDOM & MASS SHOOTINGS and VIOLENCE?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhO0Pul_FcE
Evil is difficult to confront. If we shut down the criminality in psychiatry, big pharma, FDA, etc. that would end most all of these violent incidents.
Some other components of causalty: 1) Due to the Federal Reserve and our government's fiscal policies (causing inflation) we now have parents forced to be two-earner families, and many have to work evenings and weekends as well just to make ends meet = omitted parenting. 2) Add to this the gratuitous violence poured into our childrens' minds via hollywood films and videos, computer games, magazines and books = violence is cool, human life has no value. 3) People being allowed to purchase and own guns without first being properly trained and then certified on the safety, handling and storage of firearms.
Parents "forced to be two-earner families" does not accurately describe Ms. Lanza's situation. She received almost $300k in alimony just last year alone. Reports are now suggesting she was a "prepper" who believed that society was about to collapse and trained her son to shoot weapons to survive the coming "war".
All that cash and she went with a Bushmaster? Ugh.
Maybe we need to approach this like abortionists do:
If you don like guns (abortion), then don't buy(have) one.
According to US Constitution you have a right to own a musket---not an assault rifle.
Where does it say that?
linrom - Are you a reincarnated Member of Congress from the late 1700's ?
If not, you are unqualified to speak on the subject.
Tell you what - for your next windblown pile os verbal shit pronouncement, Take on the Bible, and the Koran, and interpret them instead.
I am sure all those pious religious Christians and Muslims won't mind you telling them what jesus and Mohammed REALLY meant to say.
Your mental deficiency can be treated with a whole foods and vitamin supplement program.
It also works on mentally imbalanced individuals.
Two problems solved.
don't post that drivel here. it belongs on the huffnpuffer post with all the other dumb shit that gets posted there.
put the crack pipe down and re-read it son
"According to US Constitution you have a right to own a musket---not an assault rifle."
I recommend you check who printed your version of the Constitution. I think your copy was printed by Alec Baldwin.
The Second Amendment is fairly short and it doesn't mention "musket."
At the time of the Constitution's writing, individuals owned .50 caliber long guns, swords, cannons, and some owned entire fleets of warships, just to name a few common arms. I suppose from this comment that you support a similar interpretation of the Second Amendment today.
Conversely, the Founders obviously could not have included the internet in their ideas of Free Speech, so you're going to have to show your Blogging License before you post any further comments.
+100
They would have owned drones if they could have. ;-)
well done
Back then you had the right to own a slave too. Women couldn't vote
Times change.
It is up to the individual to provide for their safety. You cannot rely on government services to save you. I realize you pay taxes but some things need to be provided by the individual.
Buy the protection you choose. If you want a gun, you should be able to get the best one out there.
The mainstream media reporters, New World Order enemies of the people, are on a gun grabbing rampage and they are not addressing the real causes for the culture of violence in America, and are using the Connecticut shooting to promote their own agenda. Here's how we stop them.
The common thread in all the recent mass shootings is; men in their early 20's were brought up 24/7/365 for a decade or more on violent 1st person shooter training video games, violent movies, and are on prescription psychotropic drugs. Gun violence training video games, violent movies, psychotropic drugs, and real guns don't mix.
Gun Owners must suggest a ban on video games like Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, and all other 1st person shooter video games.
Gun Owners must suggest an end to Violent Movies like Bat Man, Zombieland, and all other mass murder movies.
Demand the Psychiatric Drug industry take their fair share of the blame and demand stricter controls on prescription psychiatric drugs.
I use the harsh "Ban" word for violence in entertainment knowing full well we don't really want video games banned due to 1st amendment rights, but gun groups raising the suggestion will make people mad enough that the causes of gun violence will be discussed in the mainstream, divert attention from just banning guns, and address the true causes of the culture of violence.
There is no expectation of a ban on suggested items, but to raise awareness of the actual problem and encourage voluntary compliance. I know these suggestions goes against The Protocols of the Elders of Zion plan, but we can use this episode to squash their programs.
Make these demands 1st before a single new gun ban is put in place.
Mothers Against Gun Violence in Entertainment (MAGVE) groups should speak out against Hollywood, TV, and other entertainment gun violence genres.
Coupled with the heavy use of Psychiatric Drugs and enhanced with first person shooter video games, we have a recipe for manufactured disaster.
The TRUE SOURCE of RANDOM & MASS SHOOTINGS and VIOLENCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhO0Pul_FcE
The Entertainment and Pharmaceutical industries must be included with punishment, for their role in increased young man gun violence.
"The mainstream media reporters, New World Order enemies of the people, are on a gun grabbing rampage"
Whose guns have been grabbed? Where is this rampage happening?
The answer is not less freedom, but more freedom.
We dont need to ban anything (else). We dont need to make anymore legal activities illegal (it already being illegal to use a gun to kill someone).
Liberty is the answer. Not authoritarianism.
This goes to the heart of the entire anti gun agenda.
If you can claim that guns are the problem (straw man) and ban guns (kill straw man), you can walk away thinking you've done everything you can to prevent these atrocities.
This is easier to swallow than the reality: you can NEVER be completely safe. There are crazy people out there who will kill you for no reason at all. There are no easy answers. That's reality.
I think the biggest worry today is that if the Government breaks down and all of the Welfare, Food Stamp, etc. money is not sent out then those entitled people will attempt to take what they need. At that point people will need self defense.
Word.
Waterfallsparkles,
Agreed. As people become more desperate, there will be more violence.
There are two kinds of victims of this violence: those that will effectively defend themselves and those that won't. And truth be told, guns won't always be the deciding factor as to which group a victim will find himself. Guns are tools--nothing more.
Kmart has a special on brains, buy one.
It would seem evident that you purchased the one 'on sale' @ Wal-Mart that was made in China.
I think it belonged to abby someone.
I am sorry, but I really cannot take this type of argumentation. This BS about owning guns and how gunds make people safer only takes place in the USA. The FACT is that these things do not happen so easily in other cultures, and most other cultures are not nearly as obsessed with guns as americans are.
A civilized nation should not have to require its citizens to own guns in an uncontrolled manner. The references cited are totally out of context here.
While one cannot statistically blame gun ownership as the reason why these shootings happen so frequently, it is a fact that with many guns around, the chances that they end up in the wrong hands can only increase.
I am sick and tired of hearing this discussion about mental disorders as well. These killers have been sane enough to rationally plan and premeditate these attacks. It is pathetic to try and blame medications for these problems before we blame the uncontrolled availability of guns. One can own guns, but they need to be registered and kept under strictly controlled storage.
As a father of small children, I have been very shaken to the recent events, and I have very little tolerance for articles like this one.
Guns do not kill people, but people with guns do. End of story.
I am asking a favor to gun owners: please shut up for at least a few days and mourn. The mere fact that gun owners feel like they need to come up with apologies for gun ownership after these events is a galring admission that something is very wrong with guns.
How about asking the media and the various political opportunists to just shut up and let people mourn for awhile before jumping up on the soapbox?
Here - DrDre - treat your dideased opinion with some facts. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Defenseless people the world over die every day. You wanna be one of them ? Fine. i DON'T. end of story.
I fucking well guarantee you - if someone is about to cut your child's throat, rape your wife, or just beat the crap out of you with a baseball bat, you will probably appreciate the ability to put a couple rounds center mass into the perpetrator, rather than sing koombyyah while he or they have their way with you and your family. Government goons included.
Some more facts and figures - without opinions - on US weapons from justfacts.com
Households With a Gun Adults Owning a Gun Adults Owning a Handgun Percentage 40-45% 30-34% 17-19% Number 47-53 million 70-80 million 40-45 millionIntroductory Notes This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available. Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys,[1] but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating.[2] Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results. Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility. General Facts Firearms are generally classified into three broad types: (1) handguns, (2) rifles, and (3) shotguns.[3] Rifles and shotguns are both considered "long guns." A semi-automatic firearm fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled and automatically loads another bullet for the next pull of the trigger. A fully automatic firearm (sometimes called a "machine gun") fires multiple bullets with the single pull of the trigger.[4] Ownership As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people.[5] Based on production data from firearm manufacturers,[6] there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.[7] Based upon surveys, the following are estimates of private firearm ownership in the U.S. as of 2010:
Category Percentage Owning a Firearm Households 42% Individuals 30% Male 47% Female 13% White 33% Nonwhite 18% Republican 41% Independent 27% Democrat 23%A 2005 nationwide Gallup poll of 1,012 adults found the following levels of firearm ownership:
Protection Against Crime 67% Target Shooting 66% Hunting 41%In the same poll, gun owners stated they own firearms for the following reasons:
Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Florida Georgia Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin WyomingCrime and Self-Defense Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11] A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12] Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16] Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18] A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19] A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20] A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21] • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22] Click here to see why the following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns." Vulnerability to Violent Crime At the current homicide rate, roughly one in every 240 Americans will be murdered.[23] A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found: • 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives • 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime • 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once[24] A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime."[25] Right-to-Carry Laws Right-to-carry laws permit individuals who meet certain "minimally restrictive" criteria (such as completion of a background check and gun safety course) to carry concealed firearms in most public places.[95] Concealed carry holders must also meet the minimum federal requirements for gun ownership as detailed above. Each state has its own laws regarding right-to-carry and generally falls into one of three main categories: 1) "shall-issue" states, where concealed carry permits are issued to all qualified applicants 2) "may-issue" states, where applicants must often present a reason for carrying a firearm to an issuing authority, who then decides based on his or her discretion whether the applicant will receive a permit 3) "no-issue" states, where concealed carry is generally forbidden As of January 2012: 40 states are shall-issue:
Alabama California Connecticut Delaware Hawaii Maryland Massachusetts New Jersey New York9 states are may-issue:
Age Group Fatal Firearm Accidents Raw number Portion of fatal accidentsAccidents In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.[120] Fatal firearm accidents in 2007 by age groups:
from all causes <1 yrs 1 0.1% 1-4 yrs 18 1.1% 5-9 yrs 20 2.1% 10-14 yrs 26 2.1% 15-24 yrs 155 1.0% 25-34 yrs 94 0.6% 35-44 yrs 91 0.5% 45-54 yrs 82 0.4% 55-64 yrs 57 0.5% 65+ yrs 69 0.2%
Non-Fatal In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents,[123] constituting 0.05% of 27.7 million emergency room visits for non-fatal accidents that year.[124] These emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents resulted in 5,045 hospitalizations,[125] constituting 0.4% of 1.4 million non-fatal accident hospitalizations that year.[126] Criminal Justice System Nationwide in 2008, law enforcement agencies reported that 55% of aggravated assaults, 27% of robberies, 40% of rapes, and 64% of murders that were reported to police resulted in an alleged offender being arrested and turned over for prosecution.[26] [27] Currently, for every 12 aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders committed in the United States, approximately one person is sentenced to prison for committing such a crime.[28] [29] [30] A 2002 U.S. Justice Department study of 272,111 felons released from state prisons in 1994 found that within three years of their release: • at least 67.5% had been arrested for committing a new offense • at least 21.6% had been arrested for committing a new violent offense • these former inmates had been charged with committing at least 2,871 new homicides, 2,444 new rapes, 3,151 other new sexual assaults, 2,362 new kidnappings, 21,245 new robberies, 54,604 new assaults, and 13,854 other new violent crimes[31] Of 1,662 murders committed in New York City during 2003-2005, more than 90% were committed by people with criminal records.[32] Washington, DC In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.[33] [34] On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional.[35] During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.[37] Britain In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To obtain this certificate, the applicant had to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to be "satisfied" that the applicant had "good reason for requiring such a certificate" and did not pose a "danger to the public safety or to the peace." The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep.[38] In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.[39] In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.[40] † Homicide data is published according to the years in which the police initially reported the offenses as homicides, which are not always the same years in which the incidents took place.‡ Large anomalies unrelated to guns:
2000: 58 Chinese people suffocated to death in a shipping container en route to the UK
2002: 172 homicides reported when Dr. Harold Shipman was exposed for killing his patients
2003: 20 cockle pickers drowned resulting in manslaughter charges
2005: 52 people were killed in the July 7th London subway/bus bombings Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42] Chicago In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration.[43] [44] [45] In the wake of Chicago's handgun ban, at least five suburbs surrounding Chicago instituted similar handgun bans. When the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban in June 2008, at least four of these suburbs repealed their bans.[46] [47] [48] [49] [50] In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that Chicago's ban is unconstitutional.[51] Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.[53] Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55] In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.[56] * * * Much more here
Checklist of a trite pro-gun control emotional outburst:
1) References to other cultures around the globe without mentioning that the violence is an outgrowth of the culture and not the other way around? Check
2) Implication that owning guns is uncivilized? Check
3) Implication that more guns = more violence as if guns were the only predicator of violence, as opposed to economic hardship, one's participation in black market and unregulated economies, drug usage, etc.? Check.
4) Reference to children? Check
5) Implication that the firearms market is completely unregulated despite all evidence to the contrary? Check
6) Failure to examine the previous failures of strict gun-control environments, such as Chicago and Washington DC? Check.
7) Unintentionally ironic plea to not "politicize" this tragedy? Check.
Thanks for this post of sanity. Seems like the NRA took over ZH on topic
By what moral principal do you deprive others of the ability to protect themselves against those who have guns and would do them harm. What gives you the right to control their behavior to suite you.
"A civilized nation should not have to require its citizens to own guns in an uncontrolled manner."
In what way are you defining a civilized nation? Are not independent rational and free people a greater civilizing force than than coercive collectivist forces?
@DrDre
Emotions cloud your judgement and make you irrational. Your entire post screams "Im afraid".
Your irrational approach to the subject matter at hand makes your opinion less valuable.
It sounds like the shooter's household followed the rules related to guns. I assume they stored them in a proper manner. I expect the members of the family knew how to access the guns and use them. If trigger locks were used, I expect they knew where the keys were.
When a guy goes nuts, regulations simply do not have the effect envisioned by the bureaucrats. That is why there is a 2nd amendment.
I feel sorry for your children. You have abdicated your responsibility to protect them. That's your choice, but don't you dare lecture me that I shouldn't be allowed to take that responsibility seriously.