Is gun control a good idea?

Thanks Thomas.

Yes there should be gun control. It should not be easy to get guns, there is enough mess in the world with out anyone being able to get guns and to do God knows what to God knows who.
Barbara

It should not be easy for kids to get guns. Better gun education is a much improved alternative to regular gun control.

If you're referring to gun control as hitting what you're aiming at, then yes there should be more gun control.

If you're talking about the illegal confiscation and regulation of firearms then NO there should NOT be more gun control.

Every area that has the toughest gun confiscation and regulation laws on the books also has higher than "normal" crime rates, in all areas of crime.

If you're talking about the illegal confiscation and regulation of firearms then NO there should NOT be more gun control.

That's what I am referring to.

Every area that has the toughest gun confiscation and regulation laws on the books also has higher than "normal" crime rates, in all areas of crime.

Exactly.

by the way, that was an excellent article

Thank you Slyphian.

We already have gun control. There are thousands and thousands of laws regarding firearms and their possession/use. Usually when someone says they believe in or want "reasonable control" they are unaware of exactly what laws already exist.

I know we have gun control, and I am wondering if it is doing us any good. I don't think so.

George Carlin said "Give everyone a gun " in one of his acts. That would take care of things. But seriously, I'm in the middle with it. Only thing that scares me is when kids get a hold of them.

Robert Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society." Well, he may have been quoting someone else... I'm not sure, but living near Detroit as I do, I can't say I agree with one of my literary heroes on this one.

Anyway - you're confusing "gun control" with "taking away my guns." I believe that there are more than automatic weapons and extra-large caliber weapons to which access should be denied. I also believe there is no more danger in requiring the registration of guns than there is in requiring the registration of cars. Nobody's gonna take away your car, and nobody's gonna take away your gun just because they're both "registered."

I don't believe felons should be allowed to possess guns of any type within, oh, say, ten crime-free years of release from prison. I believe we should identify all "home-grown terrorists" and illegal aliens and confiscate their guns. I believe that moonbats who walk around within sight of the President with guns strapped on should be flogged and thrown in the nearest river.

I believe that college kids who want to write for a living should learn the differences between "gun registration," "gun control" and "gun confiscation." These are NOT synonymous terms.

That's scare-mongering nonsense, John.

I agree there are some differences between gun registration, control, and confiscation. However they are closely tied together as John said.

However innocent registration seems it is information that can and eventually will be used to infringe further on our rights to bear arms.

Your crystal ball needs refocusing, Matt. Because there's no sense to... "...will be used to infringe further on our rights to bear arms. "

That's just something someone's told you over and over until you think you actually have had an idea.

Other countries have done it quite successfully. Living in Miami means all of us here are potential targets. We MUST find a solution and an effective means of gun control!

The best gun control is proper education.

Many other countries have confiscated guns, leaving the law abiding citizens unarmed while criminals still obtain weapons. A very bad situation to be in.

Yes, there is and should be Gun Control. We should register guns, license owners based on a proven ability to safely operate, store, transport, maintain and otherwise manage the weapons. Limitations on ownership based on mental capacity and mental fitness are reasonable. Limitations based on a person's criminal record or court finding of that a person poses a threat to others are reasonable. Reasonable limitations on where and how guns can be carried are appropriate.

You have to be careful with "reasonable limitations". Those can infringe on our rights to bear arms.

You mean our right to arm militias , don't you? Read the damn document.

There are many studies which show that owning a gun makes you more likely to die violently. I support hunters, but guns for protection are a crock. And there is no legitimate personal use for an automatic/semiautomatic weapon.

You make a lot of sense Sarah. I just got this email from the Brady Campaign today:

"Dear Friend,

I finished my internship at the Brady Center and it was an amazing summer. We beat the NRA in the U.S. Senate and defeated them in court in Pittsburgh and in Washington, D.C.

It was so exciting to be a part of these victories.

After our victories against the NRA, I wanted to see first-hand why so many in Congress are still afraid to stand up to the gun lobby. So the other Brady interns and I drove out to the NRA headquarters in Virginia to see what we are up against. What an experience!

The NRA's two-tower complex is filled with gun lobbyists, a museum and even a shooting range. But I couldn't find one word about the thousands of Americans killed every year by guns.

The receptionist told us that the NRA won't allow him to have a gun at work, even if he wanted one. The NRA apparently thinks it's safer with its own staff unarmed in NRA headquarters. Yet the NRA is working to force loaded guns into our own workplaces, schools, and communities.

On our way out, we asked for a copy of the NRA's tax forms to see just how much money they have. Over $350 million in one year! Brady's budget is a fraction of that, but we still beat them

My summer showed me how we can beat the NRA despite all its money and high-paid lobbyists.

Sincerely,

Michael Miller
Stanford Law School"

A good essay, Michael M.

As for the bleaters coming out of the woodwork: Quite frequently they have their opinions--as in "...guns for protection are a crock...." and simply must spew them out.

The fact is, we have well over 20,000 laws regarding firearms use. There are perhaps 1,500,000 incidents per year (see guncite for a discussion of the range of numbers) in which a firearm is used for self-defense.

As for the Brady Bunch beating the NRA--well, I guess for naive interns, it can be seen in terms of competition. He apparently doesn't see the bigger picture of the lies and obfuscations his organization puts out.

It isn't so much an opinion as a matter of record. When the CDC reported on gun ownership they found gun owners 53 TIMES more likely to die violently (ie from guns) than non-owners. People who rely on guns for protection are living in a fool's paradise.

Another good source of info is anecdotal evidence from former armed robbers - they tend to agree that there's no point buying a gun when you can always take one away from the homeowner himself. I heard a long interview on NPR to this effect some years ago.

The NRA always beats the fear drum, but they hate it when you produce fact. And the fact is: Guns don't make you safer. They put you at risk.

Let's have a link for the 53 times statistic, Sarah--or have you just repeated the discredited Kellerman study and cheated to boot.

Don't forget that when Kellerman was asked about what he would prefer for self-defense at home, he preferred a 38 Special revolver.

"If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." (Health Magazine, March/April 1994)

I'll have to look - but it's a famous stat because after the CDC produced the report Congress tried to kill the messenger by banning the CDC from keeping stats on gun-related deaths.

The ban was later lifted, but the whole incident is well-documented.

Here's a link to a related report - I may not be able to find the exact stat I quoted tonight, but these should suffice to make my point:

Gun related deaths

Here's the website CDC mortality

Alright, I looked that 1997 information over, Sarah. It sure looks to me like you moved that decimal--that is, the homicide deaths of children by firearms THROUGH THE AGE OF 15 is approximately FIVE times, NOT FIFTY THREE times.

Now, here's a project to look at: of those "children" ages 14-18 (hell, make it 14-21) whose deaths involved a firearm, how many were involved in criminal activity? And, what other variables are important?

I will not deny that there will be more firearms deaths where there are more firearms--that is simply a tautology. This kind of concern, however, completely ignores the behavior of people. Because of that, if one focuses on the firearm, the argument only leads to continuing government control--and eventually confiscation.

Here's a related question: Of those countries that had strict gun control laws and confiscations / prohibitions against citizen ownership of firearms, how many murdered their citizens or others at various points in time in the 20th Century.

I wander--a good place to quit.

No I didn't move any decimal points - the facts are just overwhelming.

A good essay, Michael M.

Thanks Jim H.

I am assuming that you mean 'Is gun control in the USA...'?

Lots of countries around the world have gun control legislation in place, including my own.

I know gun control is in the USA.

My associated content article is about whether gun control is good or not.

Almost 31,000 Americans dies each year as a result of firearms injuries according to the Center for Disease Control.

The NRA doesn't trust their own people with guns in their headquarters. Yet, they work to allow people to carry guns into the places where they work. What a bunch of hypocrites. The NRA cares about selling guns and ammunition. The Second Amendment is a Secondary concern of theirs. They wouldn't give a damn about the Second Amendment if it wasn't a source of wealth for themselves and the industry they represent.

The Bleaters and Whiners are NRA tools that are happy to work for free for a death industry. For some reason they believe that 250 million guns in the hands of Americans represents government repression. What a bunch of puling cowards.

The NRA is just a lobbying group for the firearm manufacturers that allows misguided citizens to pay for the privilege.

Some how, you bleaters have convinced yourselves that the NRA manages to attract four-to-five million individual members, while, IIRC, the Brady Bunch has less than 300,000 donors--and all without selling guns or ammo.

Then, there's that assertion "guns...represents government repression." On the contrary, of course--or does the illogic of your assertion escape you?

So--why hasn't the Brady Bunch been able to attract more donors? Why do the antigun groups such as "Freedom States Alliance" and (I think) the VPC rely on Foundation funding--specifically, the Joyce Foundation--and the outsized donations of wealthy Socialists to maintain any sort of presence?

The NRA has a membership that represents not only a tiny percentage of the country's population, but a minority of gun owners and all of the gun industry. They take money from foreigners and use their funds to influnce US law and policy.

I wouldn't care if they represented all gun owners and got money from every one of them. That means nothing when it comes to the need for reasonable gun control.

We lose nealry 11,000 people per year between the ages of 15 - 19 years of age each year so you puling numskulls can have a country with some of the losest gun laws in the world. And you complain about 20,000 laws. That's not even 2/3 of the number of Americans we lose to firearm injuries EACH YEAR!

John, why don't you tell us. And then tell me how many families of the non-gangbanger victims give a damn.

Arguing that some of the people that die from firearms injuries are bad guys/gals justifies the death of innocents is ridiculous.

R.F. You're gonna have to look up your death cites, rather than take them from the Brady Bunch, or the Million Mornons. The last time I looked, the Million Morons were including children up to the age of 24, and the majority of those deaths were attributable to criminal behavior.

Note that in the age categoriy you cite, it is illegal to be in posession of a handgun.

Jim, my numbers are from the Center for Disease Control, not the Brady Campaign.

There's no getting around it. The CDC says the US is losing the population of a large town/small city (nearly 31,000) people every year to firearms injury.

Note that my statistics include deaths from -all- firearms injuries, not just deaths from handgun injuries.

1. I agree that the nominal number of deaths by firearms incidents is 31,000. And, yes, I know that is not just handgun incidents / injuries resulting in deaths.

2. The point is, that when you consider the number of firearms in the US (arguably, 280 million or more), the number of firearms owners (arguably, 75 to 120 million, the last time I checked), and the use of these firearms for all purposes, we should not be surprised. As we all know, more people (about 100,000) die from physician / hospital error than from firearms incidents.

In sum, quantification of value-laden "senseless deaths" will not diminish the numbers--unless you are proposing confiscation. Unfortunately, that only affects law-abiding owners, as the crime trends in Great Britain show since they clampled down yet again over the past twelve years.

None of us are talking about 'banning' guns.

Dolt.

I'd rather be a 'bleater' than THIS IDIOT.

Do you guys realize how stupid you look? Probably not.

Oh, my. There are SO many others....most tragic rather than comic. And, yes, you have not heard of them because I guess these people 'don't count' to the media.

The young boy who recently killed himself at a Massachusetts gun range with a semi-automatic rifle comes to mind, surrounded by experienced gun handlers with legally registered guns.

I will stand by my statement. I'd rather be a 'bleater' than to be an idiot (a.ka., gun owner).

No, if you control the guns, you control the American and other civilized populations. If you want to see crime on the rise, just take away an American's right to bear arms. Talk about an uproar and revolution. Wait, maybe this is what this Administration and the many before the Obamanation have always wanted.

Thanks Monica. You are right, more gun control = more crime.

It's simply not true. We have a much higher crime rate than countries with strong gun control. Just because you intuitively feel that guns prevent crime doesn't make it so.

Oops! You'd better find your cites for this figure too.

Consider the following quote--the first one I grabbed off google with some authoritative basis:

"According to the surveys, the overall crime rate in the United States is lower than in Britain and about the same as in Canada. The polls also show that, among citizens in the three countries, Britons appear to have the least confidence in their police, while Canadians have the most. Britons are also the most likely to say that they live near an area where they would be afraid to walk alone at night."

source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21346/crime-rate-lower-united-states-canada-than-britain.aspx

Another good thing to remember is that the person most likely to be killed with your gun is you. Next is your spouse, followed by other family members. Intruders are so far down the list that they barely register.

How can your gun be keeping you safe if you're the one it's most likely to kill?

Well, Sarah, to answer your rhetorical question--

The problem is that you are using circular logic--in essence, citing correlations that do not take into account any firearm 'use' other than firing it with a resultant homicide.

Although the studies are difficult to quantify, a reasonable estimate in which a firearm is used in self-defense is about one million, five hundred thousand times a year. (The estimates range from a low of 400,000 to a high reaching towards 3,000,000; after reviewing the estimates, I thought a nominal average / midrange number makes sense.)

The vast number of these self-defense uses involve no injury, no death (obviously, if the number of homicides in the US is nominally 12,000), and no illegal activity. In fact, few of them are reported.

And THAT characteristic--the use of a firearm for self-defense, with no shots fired--is how one's gun keeps me safe. (Incidentally, I speak from experience on this one. An apparent carjacking ended with the simple display, and the bad guy ran off.)

Now, for your homework: of those nominal 12,000 homicides, how many involve the death of someone known to the perpetrator? And, how many of those homicides, how many involve criminal activity other than the cause of death.

C'mon, say "gangbangers" and "druggies"--I knew you could.

(Incidentally, I speak from experience on this one. An apparent carjacking ended with the simple display, and the bad guy ran off.)

You do not, apparently, live in Detroit. Those dudes would've opened up like they were on a firing range, if you'd showed THEM a gun. Ask the last three Detroit cops who tried just "showing" their guns to people who already had their guns out and pointed.

Good point Chuck. Guns make people nervous. If you display a gun in Kentucky, you'd better be firing it, because the person you're pointing it at is sure as hell firing his...

Also bear in mind that 56% of all gun deaths are suicides. Guns make impulsive spur-of-the-moment suicide far too easy - other methods require more preparation, more time, hence more time to contemplate or change your mind.

This is true. I lost two people that were very close to me through firearm suicides. But to the gunners, it doesn't matter how many people die. They are a very frightened bunch and the only thing that makes them feel safe is a gun. Sad really. I'm not saying guns don't have their place. They do and I believe qualified people should be allowed to own them and use them. But to suggest that the government is trying to take everyones' guns away is paranoiac.

And, here is another questionable pseudo-statitstic. Rather than do your work for you this time, I'll let YOU do it. But here's a hinit: while impulsivity may well have a correlation with suicide "success" in areas where firearms are available, there does seem to be no causation. IOW, why is the suicide rate so much higher in Japan--a country in which legally-owned firearms are not available?

You call it a pseudo stat - what proof/reasoning do you bring to this?

And No, you can't drag in Japan - too many variables and a culture which ritualized suicide. Cheap shot, in fact. You can discuss the matter with attempted suicides who survived. Guess what? Guns make it too easy.

I speak from experience. I lost my father, my uncle and my great uncle to gun suicides. One was drunk, would never have killed himself had it not been a late night impulse with a gun handy. (Don't bother questioning me on this - the circumstances were compelling)

You simply can't argue that some number of suicides are completed because a gun was handy that would not have happened otherwise.

Sarah - a week ago a wonderful 18-yr boy in our town put a gun to his head and took his life. He had just graduated from high school, was a star athlete and a very popular kid. His family were avid hunters and there were guns in the home. His mother came home in the middle of the day to find him dead in his room.

I have no idea what drove this wonderful young man to take his life, but everybody knows that the teen years are full of highs and lows emotionally. How often have teens said that they wish they were dead, or never been born, or some such nonsense. To have a ready tool of destruction at hand during these times is way too convenient.

I am against all guns, I admit it. But, to have them in homes, ready at hand during times of stress and depression, seems downright criminal to me. As you point out, it takes a lot more planning and means to take one's life with other methods, and many of them would alert others of a problem in someone's life before they have the chance to act on their thoughts.

Gawd! You gun guys are like a flock of parrots. I could write your responses for you in advance... by quoting my father.

Your father is obviously a wise man, then.

He died in '06, at the age of 96. He was spouting the same nonsense you are when I was a boy.

BTW - I own guns. The handgun doesn't work (it's a cap & ball, five-barrel derringer), but the shotguns and rifles do. I'm not worried about registration requirements. There are good arguments for that. I AM worried about the Wild West mentality I see in posts like this.

"Blind Allegiance to the Second Amendment Takes Deadly Toll

WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- States in the South and West with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in overall firearm death rates according to a new analysis issued today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data.

The new VPC analysis uses 2005 data (the most recent available) from the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, and Alabama. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000.

By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last in the nation for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and New York. (See list below or chart at http://www.vpc.org/press/0804gundeath.htm for states with the highest and lowest gun death rates. See http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart.htm for a ranking of all 50 states.)

States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Louisiana--Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.04 per 100,000.

Alaska--Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.49 per 100,000.

Montana--Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 61.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.22 per 100,000.

Tennessee--Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 46.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.39 per 100,000.

Alabama--Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.18 per 100,000.

States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Hawaii--Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 2.20 per 100,000.

Massachusetts--Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.48 per 100,000.

Rhode Island--Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.

New Jersey--Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 11.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.99 per 100,000.

New York--Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 5.28 per 100,000.

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "Blind allegiance to the Second Amendment comes at a deadly price. Many residents in pro-gun states cheer the possibility of a June Supreme Court ruling that could place gun controls across the nation at risk, never realizing that those states stand as proof of the need for such laws."

The VPC defined states with "weak" gun laws as those that add little or nothing to federal restrictions and have permissive concealed carry laws allowing civilians to carry concealed handguns. States with "strong" gun laws were defined as those that add significant state regulation in addition to federal law, such as restricting access to particularly hazardous types of firearms (for example, assault weapons), setting minimum safety standards for firearms and/or requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, and have restrictive concealed carry laws."

http://www.examiner.com/p-153593~_Pro_Gun__States_Lead_the_Nation_in_Per_Capita_Firearm_Death_Rates.html

The VPC is a pro gun control group. But their statistics above come from the CDC.

R.F., if you are going cite pesuo-studies by the Josh Sugarman operation, all civiility is off the table. The VPC / Josh Sugarman has lied and obfuscated since 1988.

Here's a hint as to how this "report" distorts the data: If states with high per-capita ownership of vehicles report greater numbers of vehicle deaths, should we be surprised that...etc., etc.

As the VPC tries to gain traction again--Josh has to justify owning that FFL somehow--it has returned to assembling studies with no validity to their conclusions. This technique--somewhat different from the Brady Bunch, but equally duplicitious--is primarily characterized by propaganda techniques based in "The Big Lie" IOW, if you repeat / assert an illogical or fraudulent statement often enough, some people will believe it. You know, the P.T. Barnum technique.

Consider this statement made by Josh in 1988:

'The weapons' menacing looks coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semiautomatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.'"

That was said when Josh started his initially successful run up to "assault weapons."

Now, check the CDC to see how many times assault weapons (e.g., EBRs) were used in crime. If you can't find the answer there, check the FBI stats.

You want to talk about "assault" weapons? That's fine. I've heard all the arguments. But don't start the diversion technique on me. I've gotten it so many times from gunners in the past it's gotten very old.

You check the CDC numbers on assault weapons. You brought them into the discussion, not me.

Certainly--not a problem. first, consider the fact that the term is a political definition; it has no entry in the firearms lexicon.

As a political definition, intended to spread FUD by Sugarman, it was developed to encourage a naieve public to believe that 1) certain semiautomatic rifles with 2) certain ergonomic features, such as a pistol grip and detachable magazine, and 3) similar in appearance only, not in function to (military) assault rifles were actually submachine guns. In short, EBRs--or evil black rifles that fire an intermediate caliber cartridge.

Now that Sugarman had an object to play with, he could then enlist any number of influential people to think about legally controlling it. To do that, he had to get that FUD going--"spraying bullets," "made for killing," and the like. This diversion allowed the Gun Control crowd to bleat and demand they be protected from such objects.

And, in doing so, they repeatedly ignore the fact that any firearm, not only their "assault weapon" is an inert object, doing nothing unless a person operates it.

And, when the Sick Willy AWB act expired after ten years, it was found that "Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s"

read it and weep: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Great. I won't argue with you about "Assualt" rifles because I agree that the way these weapons were defined in the AWB has more to do with cosmetics than functions. One has a bayonet mount the other doesn't. One has a folding stock, the other one doesn't and on and on. The poorly written AWB does not mean that all gun control is bad and it doesn't mean that a ban on certain weapons is undesirable to Americans or is a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Other than nit-picking, R.F Assault rifles are NOT "assault weapons"-- assault rifles are defined in the firearms lexicon (a lighter rifle, usually of carbine length, capable of select / automatic fire and firing a cartridge of intermediate power. As noted earlier, "assault weapons" are only defined politically.

It appears you and I are on the same page here--although, personally, I have no general objection to having machine guns more readily available to the general public. Regulated, yes--but a repeal of the 1986 machine gun act (I forget the name) would reduce the prices from the stratosphere.

Here's a link to a family outing at the annual Knob Creek machine gun shoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpNGeyEp5kM

It's the neatest family outing I've seen for pure recreational shooting.

Just an addendum--the mounted pair of HK-91s that are returned to (see the "adolescent girl" sequence--are worth about $60,000, I think. Since no more can be imported / made for sale in the US, they have to be rebuilt as needed.

Other than nit-picking, R.F Assault rifles are NOT "assault weapons"-- assault rifles are defined in the firearms lexicon (a lighter rifle, usually of carbine length, capable of select / automatic fire and firing a cartridge of intermediate power. As noted earlier, "assault weapons" are only defined politically.

I understand. That's why I put the quote marks around "assault" in my reply to you. There are politics on both sides of this issue and they don't help anyone when it comes to making reasonable decisions regarding gun control or lack of gun control. I'm a reasonable person. My belief is that gun owners/operators have a personal responsibility that comes with their right to bear arms. That responsibility it to know how to maintain, store and operate their guns safely. Gunners that don't want to do that display immaturity that I believe should preclude them from having these potentially deadly weapons. Since there is an overwhelming state interest in the safety of citizens it is my belief that government has a role to play in making sure unskilled, criminal and mentally incompetent people don't get guns legally or illegally.

Compared to other industrialized countries, violence and firearm death rates in the United States are disproportionately high. Of the approximately 50 upper- and middle-income countries with available data, an estimated 115,000 firearm deaths occur annually and the U.S. contributes about 30,000.11 Among industrialized nations, the U.S. firearm-related death rate is more than twice that of the next highest country (See Figure 4). The firearm death rate for this period in the U.S. (14.24 per 100,000) is eight times the average rate of its economic counterparts (1.76).

Compared to high-income Asian countries (Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan), the
firearm mortality rate in the U.S. is over 70 times higher (14.24 per 100,000 in the U.S.
compared to 0.1925 per 100,000 in Asia).

The correlation between firearm availability and rates of homicide is consistent across highincome industrialized nations: where there are more firearms, there are higher rates of
homicide overall.14 The U.S. has among the highest rates of both firearm homicide and
private firearm ownership. In 2001 an estimated 35% of U.S. households had a firearm.15

Rates of youth violence and death are high worldwide.16 In the U.S., the youth firearm death rate is high relative to other countries. The death rate for all causes of firearm mortality
(homicide, suicide, and unintentional) is higher for people less than 25 years old in the U.S.
than in other high-income nations.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final Resource Book Updated 2009 Section 1.pdf

How about having to pass a literacy test to vote or pay a poll tax? Think we ought to bring those back?

Well, actually... no; but I did like Heinlein's idea of public service and the ability to solve a quadratic equation (although I'd prefer the ability to diagram a four-part sentence) as a dual requirement for voting (full citizenship). Seems to me that basic education and a willingness to do more than watch TV aren't unreasonable requirements. Then again...

As to the "paper and pen registration" hyperbole... well, what can I say? Hyperbole in debate is always stupid at its root.

I don't care what other countries do, this is the United States, we for our freedom from the King over 200 years ago. If you want to live like they do in other countries, move there. Yo are free to make that choice and free to act it out. To be free is after all what the Revolution was about.

I’m also free to support sensible gun control. Or, did you forget we won our freedom from the king over 200 years ago. If you want to live like people in other countries that don’t have that freedom, move there. You are free to make that choice and free to act it out. To be free after all is what the revolution was about.

If you don't want a gun, then don't have one.

I don’t have one anymore. Used to. Loved to go to the firing range.

I personally don't like it that you use your right to free speech to attack my right to keep and bear arms.

Oh, so sorry to offend you. Would you like to shoot me? Because I wouldn’t like it if you used your gun to do that.

What if your keyboard had to be registered, along with your computer, pencils pens and paper.

I’m sorry. Were you really hurt that much by my words. Do you think that they could literally pose an imminent danger to you?

What if you had to submit your musings to a government controlled speech board for approval before you could post them, you couldn't use more than 2 sentences or 128 characters or 25 words. How'd you like that?

Maybe you would prefer to just shoot people you disagree with.

"What do you call sensible gun laws?"

Here's where I would start, John and some of this is already in effect. Background checks, no guns for convicted criminals, no guns for the mentally ill or incapacitated, registration of guns owned, licensing of a gun operator. Licensure would indicate that a person has passed a test given by government agency or private company on behalf of the government. Passage of the test would be accomplished by adequately demonstrating skills necessary to safe gun ownership and operation. Licensing and testing would be required every few years to make sure gun operaters have retained the skill to operate, maintain and store a gun safely.

Additionally, there are some guns that probably shouldn't be owned by the general public. Like machine guns (they are already illegal) and poorly constructed guns.

These are the kinds of regulations that I think represent a good start. Probably the most important of them is licensure of operators. If gun owners/operators are skilled and responsible I believe the biggest problem in gun safety will have been met. In this regard I agree with the gunners who say it's not the gun the kills, but the person who pulls the trigger. You can stand and look at a loaded gun for a thousand years and it's a safe bet it won't kill a soul. But if some unskilled irresponsible person picks up that loaded gun, all bets are off and I believe there are many hotshot bozos out there with guns. If you want to see some of them, just go to youtube and search. You'll find them. You can even see a clip of a police officer teaching a class on gun safety shoot himself (I think in the leg) during one of his classes. That goes to show that even people who are well trained can be bozos and make mistakes. But at least training and licensure can weed out most of those.

No, because then only the bad guys would have the guns. I lived near Columbine and saw what happened there. If they had guards with guns maybe all the kids lives would have been spared. what if someone breaks into my home. What could I do to protect myself. Shoot him. After being attacked once I make sure it will never happen again. To R. F. what do you mean by mentally ill. Depression, panic. what. Then nobody would have guns

Excellent comment Annmarie, thanks.

Annmarie, I think deciding which mental illnesses should disqualify someone from owning a gun can be figured out with the help of psychologists and psychiatrists. My first impression is that people with clinical depression probably shouldn't own guns as depression and suicide are closely related.

Two other points. Gun control doesn't mean only the bad guys will have guns. If guards had guns at Columbine perhaps there would have been less death. As long as guards with guns have been licensed as I described above I would have no problem with armed guards in schools where it's necessary.

People with suicidal feelings will kill themselves more likely with pills as my good friend did. Gun or no gun they will kill themselves in anyway they can. If they really want to they will do it. I found that out with my friend Sharon who I never thought would take her own life. And Matthew thanks for seeing my side of the story. Maybe if I had a gun in my past I could have shot the bastard that took something sacred from me. You are a smart young man Matthew and I believe that you will go far in life.

Annmarie - do you have any evidence for that? And no, they wouldn't all kill themselves anyway. The genuinely suicidal yes, those in momentary despair, the drunk, the grieving may well feel differently in the morning - a morning that doesn't come for those with a gun handy. It takes a lot of planning to amass enough drugs to kill yourself - and it's a very iffy method in any case.

People who jump to what they hope will be their death and survive invariably report that they change their minds the moment after they jump. Anything that can give a potential suicide more time to think (or sober up) will save lives.

And while your story is horrible, the fact is, had you had a gun, he would likely have killed you with it.

Annmarie, I'm sorry for all of your losses. Perhaps a gun would have helped you. But imagine if you had to have training and demonstrate your skill with a gun before you could legally operate it. Then you would have been more likely to have saved yourself. Think about it. The radical gunners huff and puff saying that a gun doesn't kill people, people kill people. I agree with them. Now think about whether or not being a trained skilled owner of a gun isn't far more likely to give you better protection than being an unskilled gun owner. If you don't know how to use a gun properly, just the fact that it is sitting there isn't likely to save you.

You see, the radical gunners are like children. They don't understand that every right has a corresponding responsibility. A gun owner has a personal responsibility to be skilled in the maintenance, storage and operation of their guns. Society has an overwhelming interest in assuring that gun owners meet a minimum standard of skill before owning or operating a gun.

While owning a gun alone might have saved you. Owning a gun and being a skilled operator of that gun would have increased your odds tremendously. Doesn't that sound reasonable to you or do you agree with those that don't want to take personal responsibility?

R. F. You are so right. Now that I have taken lessons at a shooting gallery with professionals and Learned to respect owning a gun I feel I would be able to defend myself. Back then I knew nothing about guns and the fact that he was a lot bigger and stronger than me the gun would have not have been a good thing for me to own. I understand where you are coming from. Thanks so much

Gun control disarms law abiding citizens while criminals continue to have guns. I wonder why so many people can't understand that.

"Gun control" laws don't "disarm" ANYONE who has no criminal record, or record of mental illness. "Gun CONFISCATION" laws, of which we have none, do.

I wonder why so many gun nuts can't understand THAT.

The DC handgun ban prevented thousands of Americans with "no criminal record, or record of mental illness" from having hand guns.

Gun control does not disarm law abiding citizens who are qualified to own guns. I wonder why so many people do not understand that.

Why is it that cops support gun control, then? And those cities? If gun control didn't work they'd repeal it, right?

The arguments for gun control have been soundly rejected by the majority of states and citizens because they... have been scare-mongered by you and your ilk into believing ...that they themselves may one day be under assault... and they erroneously believe that they could be heroes and kill th' bad guys, and get their names in the news, and...

FTFY

Yeah, but who's qualified??? They can change the definition anytime they want too. The second amendment does not say you have the right if you qualify.

For instance, the former DC ban prevented many qualified Americans from owning hand guns.

Gun control does not disarm law abiding citizens who are qualified to own guns. I wonder why so many people do not understand that.

"Because that is not true. It does keep people who are qualified to have guns from having them."

No. It's true. Law abiding citizens don't have guns to be taken away if the law doesn't allow them to have guns. If they did have guns to have taken away, they wouldn't be law abiding. Mathew's statement is blatantly illogical.

Why is it that cops support gun control, then? And those cities? If gun control didn't work they'd repeal it, right?


Sarah, Cops realize that with more guns in more people's hands it will make their job tougher by putting them and everyone else in more danger. You see, the gunners don't think there should be any qualifications met to own and operate a gun. That means that you can wind up with a bunch of gun toting yahoos with no training or experience firing guns shooting up any crime scene they come upon. I'm not saying all gun owners are like this but this is why cops don't want every clown with enough money to buy a gun toting it around playing cops and robbers.

u know what i think about gun control, no thanks, i'll pass

btw, great article, i left u a comment on ur AC page too

Thanks!

I had a sister and brother killed in separate accidents by drunk drivers, not by guns. When are we gonna take those people off the roads? I grew up with a father and 4 brothers. We had guns in the house. We all respected guns and what they could do. I still do!

Thanks Ann.

I grew up with guns. I used to shoot guns. I let hunters cross my land to get to public hunting grounds. Many of my family members and friends have guns. There is nothing wrong with having guns. The problem is when unqualified people have guns.

4 relatives shot dead at Fla. Thanksgiving party (AP) Headline Nov 27, 2009

Yes, I believe in banning handgun ownership except for guns stored at shooting ranges. People are much less safe with a gun around, no matter what they think. The argument that this would be unconstitutional doesn't have any credibility with me, but if it takes a Constitutional Amendment to readjust to modern society, which is not exactly unprecedented, I'm all for it.

If we ban guns criminals will still have access to them, through a black market.

In prohibition we banned alcohol and all it did was increase crime.

We should not disarm our law abiding citizens, it will only embolden criminals.

Thanks for commenting.

Thanks for the response, Matthew. Disarming the public has not resulted in emboldening criminals in other developed countries (where violent crime is very typically rare, especially with firearms).

I don't disagree with your assessment of prohibition, but that doesn't mean that this particular history would repeat itself. On that subject, however, does your response mean that you believe in decriminalizing street drugs?

I think I would favor decriminalizing street drugs even though I don't like them and would never use them. The war on drugs is another, expensive, failed prohibition.