Gun Control’s Golden Opportunity

As a result of Saturday’s tragedy in Tucson there have been renewed calls for tighter gun control laws across the nation. Arizona is one of the most gun-friendly states in the union, causing some on the left to conclude that if the Grand Canyon State had tighter controls on gun ownership, six lives would have been saved and Representative Gabrielle Giffords wouldn’t be lying in a hospital bed. There’s more here than just the usual sort of Monday morning quarterbacking that occurs whenever a tragic event touches the nation’s heart. Gun control advocates have suffered defeat after defeat and the majority of the nation today clearly supports the right of private citizens to bear arms and to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property. Second amendment opponents would like to reverse those trends and, for some, Jared Loughner’s rampage this weekend offers a golden opportunity to press forward with their old agenda.

The New York Times led the charge with two editorials. On Sunday, the Times noted that Arizona’s ”gun laws are among the most lenient, allowing even a disturbed man like Mr. Loughner to buy a pistol and carry it concealed without a special permit.” The paper went on to say that “Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls on its instruments.” Warming to the subject, on Tuesday, the Times urged lawmakers to pass new gun control laws in the wake of the Arizona shootings, even though lawmakers wouldn’t find that easy to accomplish. “To do so, they will need to stand up to the National Rifle Association and its allies, whose lobbying power continues to grow despite the visceral evidence that the groups have made the country a far more dangerous place,” the Times editorial warned.

While the Times is offering pabulum to the left, there’s little of intellectual nutritional value there. To their credit, the editorial board at the Grey Lady stayed away from the knee-jerk “blame the tea party, the GOP, Rush, Palin and Fox” reaction that permeated through so much of the left in this particular editorial. So, why then bring up “quieting the voices of intolerance” – whoever they are – when the editors acknowledge that Loughner’s “paranoid Internet ravings about government mind control place him well beyond usual ideological categories”? Further, the Times may believe that there is “visceral evidence” that the NRA and other second amendment champions have made America a far more dangerous place, but there’s not much in the way of actual evidence. Any dispassionate consideration of gun ownership versus crime – including violent crime – demonstrates that one cannot establish a consistent relationship of any kind between the two and that the ability of law-abiding individuals to defend themselves helps reduce crime in most cases.

There are all kinds of ways to analyze gun laws versus crime rates, but it’s exceedingly clear that the worst crime rates are found in the poor sections of large cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. For decades, big cities have experimented, and continue to experiment, with gun control laws. It hasn’t made a bit of difference. On the other hand, the states with the lowest crime rates are “right to carry” states. And why not? The bad guys aren’t rocket scientists, but they’re smart enough to understand it’s a whole lot safer to break into an old couple’s house if you don’t have to worry about grandpa packing heat. According to the Cato Institute, guns are used for self-defense purposes about two million times each year, which is three to five times more than the estimated number of violent crimes committed annually using guns.

Europe provides another useful look into the relationship between guns and crime. The nations that have the three highest murder rates in Europe – Russia, Luxemburg and Hungry –  have some of the lowest gun ownership rates on the continent. (Four percent of Russian citizens own guns, while the numbers drop to two percent in Hungry and zero in Luxemburg). In nations like Germany, Norway, France and Finland, where gun ownership rates among private citizens exceed thirty percent, the murder rate drops substantially. If that data doesn’t definitively prove a direct correlation between gun ownership and reductions in violent crime, it at least disproves the converse: the proposition that violent crime increases when more citizens own firearms.

There are aspects of the gun control issue that some Americans might want to continue to discuss. Bans on so-called assault weapons are popular in some quarters, for example. Finding new ways to identify and get help to deranged individuals like Jared Loughner should obviously be a priority. But there is simply no reason to believe that widespread gun control in America would work or that Americans would support efforts to impose the kind of restrictions on owning firearms that the left dreams of. What happened in Arizona last weekend is a tragedy, but tragedies happen in every corner of the globe, from the most totalitarian regimes to the freest of societies. Americans are not about to surrender their right to bear arms and defend themselves because one twisted individual misused that right. The left can dream of an America without firearms, but it’s hard to see how Americans would ever allow that particular nightmare to come true.

  • Eric

    Great article but this topic has been beaten to death. The left is ignorant on the matter of firearms and do not care to be educated, so their knee jerk reaction will never go away.

    One comment though about your European statistics. IMO the "higher gun owner ship" and "lower crime rate" statistic is irrelevent because the firearms in those countries are used for sporting purposes and are in no way allowed for self defense. Maybe there is some indirect relationship for that statistic but unless you have a state like AZ where a significant percentage of the population actually carries concealed then, again IMO, the gun ownership statistic will have no impact on crime rates.

    • Joel

      So a hunting rifle or shotgun can't be used for self defense? I think they make the same holes no matter what animal you're shooting.

  • WeMustResist

    I think it is a good idea that madmen should not get a gun license. Both Left and Right should support this idea. The 2nd Amendment does not stop it. All people of common sense and common decency should be for it. In many murder trials the defense pleads insanity and we have to call in the shrinks. Why wait until it is too late? Why cant the shrinks be called on when a man wants a gun license? If the shrinks are any good they might spot a few nutters before the killing starts. If the shrinks are no good then why do we use them in murder trials, when it is too late? If the shrinks are afraid of revenge by unsuccessful applicants then they can commit the nutter to the asylum. What is the problem with getting shrinks to weed out the madmen before they shoot?

    • Reason_For_Life

      You seem to be under the impression that "shrinks" can objectively establish the propensity of individuals to commit crimes. This simply is not true, no such psychological principles have been discovered that might enable such evaluations.

      Real world cases illustrate this. There is a famous psychologist who is often called in to evaluate the sanity of people accused of crimes. He was asked to testify regarding the sanity of two women who murdered their children. This psychologist (Park Dietz, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D) concluded that one was legally sane while the other was not. His reasoning?

      Deanna Laney was insane. She did not know right from wrong because she believed that God had told her to kill her children and since God does not command people to do wrong things Laney believed she was doing right – therefore she could not tell the difference between right and wrong.

      Andrea Yates was sane. She believed that the Devil told her that she had to kill her children or else they would burn in hell with her. Since Yates knew that she was under the control of an evil force she understood the difference between good and evil. Therefore, she was sane at the time that she murdered her children.

      Both women heard voices, both women killed all their children, both women had been behaving bizarrely for some time and both women were known to be deeply religious. Yet Yates was sane and Laney wasn't because their hallucinations were about different beings!

      This is the kind of reasoning that was accepted by two courts with 12 person juries and a judge!!!

      Do you really think that if this kind of pseudo science is used to evaluate people that they will actually prevent dangerously crazy people from getting guns and only sane ones allowed concealed carry permits?

      Did army psychiatrists accurately determine that Hasan was psychologically healthy?

      The infamous Hillside Strangler had police psychologists convinced that he suffered from multiple personality syndrome until a professional skeptic had the police video tape Kenneth Bianchi when Bianchi thought no one was looking. Bianchi's posture and attitude changed as soon as the interviewer left the room and resumed when the interviewer returned.

      Modern psychiatry has not even gotten close to the kind of understanding of the human mind that would enable psychiatrists to determine a person's propensity for crime.

      • davarino

        I think you could ban gun ownership to known schizophenics and psychotics. And of course those with criminal backgrounds. But I think the point is that we all need to keep a closer eye on those around us. I cant believe Jarod's parent had no clue as to what he was capable of doing.

        • Victor Laslow

          I agree. Glenn Beck was working at CNBC, Palin was an unknown back in 2007 when Jared Lee Loughner first started his obsession with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. I would not be surprised if his parents thought him his bigotry and hatred of Jews as he identified himself as a member of an anti Zionist organization and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords attended synagogue. That is something you will not hear about in the progressive controlled media.

          • trickyblain

            Actually, Victor, I've read about his antisemetism in virtually every article that gives his background. Where do you think the "conservative" pubs like this get the info? It's not like they have real journalists out doing field work. They read it in an article from a real news publication, then regergetate it here with an"anti-left" spin, then claim that the "MSM" wont't tell you about it, even though they are using the same "MSM" as the primary source.

            The thing with the MSM that's so unacceptable in these circles: they will also cite the facts that this psycho, who clearly has no coherent political affiliation, also loves Ayn Rand, was part of anti-immigrant groups, and favors a return to the gold standard. That, you won't read here.

          • coyote3

            Not enough specifics. Plenty of people believe, in one way or the other, in Ayn Rand's teachings, and they don't shoot people they aren't supposed to shoot. Don't know what anti-immigrant group he was a part of, but plenty of people are involved in anti "illegal" immigrant groups, and they don't shoot people they aren't supposed to shoot. Return to the gold standard? Don't know, but plenty of people believe we should do so, and they don't shoot people, they aren't supposed to shoot.

    • ironhorzmn

      That's already the case. If you are declared mentally incompetent, a stalker subject to a court order, a prior domestic abuser and of course a convicted felon, all which could be found on existing LE databases, you are PROHIBITED from owning a gun. Period.

      No retailer can or would sell a gun to such a person. A private gun owner has no legal authority to conduct a background check. In either case it is the prohibited person's legal duty to NOT possess a gun…NOT gun shops or gun owners.

      As is usually the case, this shooter had red flags popping up for years that law enforcement and government apparently failed or declined to address.

      This failure was not Sarah Palin's fault.

      • wemustresist

        "…this shooter had red flags popping up for years that law enforcement and government apparently failed or declined to address." That is a good point. Also the clerk at the Woolworths store noticed he should be denied ammunition on the day.

    • ironhorzmn

      No shrink in his right mind will ever clear anyone to own a gun. The potential liability to him, his malpractice insurer, and the hospital he practices in would be astronomical.

      Curiously enough, this is also what the left wants; the ability to look at anyone's medical records to see if someone once consulted a mental health professional about a bad dream or was prescribed medication for a fixed period of time to help get through a stressful event like the death of a spouse or a child.

      Very few of us would be 'granted' the right to own a gun under those circumstances. What's even worse is that those who are genuinely mentally challenged would avoid seeking help to avoid their plight being made public and threatening their civil rights.

      Is this what the left wants; the possibility of creating another Jared Loughner?

      • wemustresist

        "No shrink in his right mind will ever clear anyone to own a gun." You are right to be worried in case the shrinks are too conservative but I think we can build in methods and processes to so that they have to be careful and use evidence and reason. They are allowed to use common sense. If the clerk at Woolworth used common sense and if "this shooter had red flags popping up for years" then common sense used against nutters should not be stopped. Making sure that the right of healthy people are not suppressed should be done and can be done. If we try we can protect the innocent.

  • Alex Kovnat

    If the USA and Arizona in particular indeed were a society of gun-toters, perhaps at least a few people in the crowd who came to see Congresswoman Giffords would have been able to shoot back at Loughner before he killed a nine year old girl.

    Likewise at Virginia Tech, we should never forget that they already had a zero-guns intellectual fetish on that tragic day in April 2007. Here you had a gun-free zone where nobody EXCEPT Seung-Hui Cho was armed. So, nobody was in a position to shoot back.

    That law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry handguns, ought to be obvious. I would like to add another idea, though: Anybody diagnosed with a dangerous mental illness by one or more qualified psychiatrists, and who has been formally labeled insane by a legitimately constituted court of law, should be warned in no uncertain terms that, if caught with a firearm or attempting to aquire same, should be confined to a mental institution for five years. Just as, for that matter, non-mentally ill felons who have been convicted of violent crimes should be warned that if caught with a firearm they will be sent to prison for five or more years.

    • scum

      hypothetical bllsht. What are you going to do? REQURE that professor pack in the classroom? Thought not….

      • coyote3

        Bravo Sierra. No one said anything about "requiring" anyone to do anything. Would things have turned out differently, if someone would have been armed? Don't know. What we do know is that in some of these cases, the victims/witnesses were not "permitted" to be armed.

  • crackerjack

    The problem isn't the guns or Palin's crosshairs, the problem is the level of lethal violence in US society. 30% of Germans hold arms, but their homocide rate is 6 times lower than that of the USA. Western European, Canadian of Australian homocide rates run at 0.8 , USA rates at 5.1.

    Further arming of the population will not solve the root problem of domestic and public lethal violence in the USA.

    • Soylent Green

      Well, the homicide rate for Japanese Americans living in the U.S., where they have ready access to firearms, is a 10th of what it is for Japanese living in Japan where they have strict 'gun control' laws. So obviously, the availability or non-availability of firearms is irrelevant. Not saying that a person intent on killing another individual won't use the 'best' tool available to do it. Just that having to change to another 'tool', a knife, or as in Kennedy relative Michael Skakel's case, a set of golf clubs won't stop the individual. By the way, you are more likely to die from your injuries from a knife attack (multiple stab wounds) than you are from a single (90% of the time) gunshot wound.

    • scum

      We love violence and we love guns. It's hip and cool.

      • coyote3

        Not to mention irrelevant.

    • Reason_For_Life

      But disarming them, as was done in Australia, resulted in an increase in firearm related murders. The national sport of England is no longer soccer, it's home invasion robbery. Virtually every European country is experiencing increases in crime.

      The level of violence in America has been declining for years. Only 5 years ago the homicide rate was 8 per 100,000. As you noted, it's now about 5.

      The homicide rate is highest in the inner cities of the US and many of those homicides are drug and gang related.

      • The_Lord_Regent

        And in Australia the homicide rate is understated. Australia, like all other English-speaking countries except the U. S., are end reporters. That means that only those homicides adjudicated as homicides are counted in towards crime statistics. In order to hide the homicide increase after their ban on semi-auto firearms went into effect, The Aussies began adjudicating more homicides as manslaughter regardless of case circumstances since manslaughter does not count towards homicide rates. This has effectively hidden the true homicide rate in Australia.

      • crackerjack

        Germany is actually experiencing a decrease in crime, with homocide on the downturn in all West European countries. In Switzerland, a country with general enlistment where near every adul male holds a miltrary assult weapon at home, the homocide rate is at 0.9 compared to the US 5.0.

        It's not the guns, it's US society that's the problem.

        • Reason_For_Life

          Official statistics used to be calculated differently in England than in the US. Robbery isn't robbery until the perpetrator is caught. If that perpetrator is caught then no matter how many robberies he committed it's listed as a single robbery.

          In 2006 Gallup polled the US, Canada and England to see how many victims of crime there were. Unless everyone involved was lying the crime rates in England were higher than in the US or Canada whose rates were very close.

          By your reasoning the high crime rate in England is due to the problem with English society

          The US population is younger than Europe and the vast majority of crimes are committed by men between the ages of 16 and 40. The primary young people in France are Muslim immigrants whose crime rate is astronomical.

          Again, it must be French society that is to blame.

          Finally, when statistic are compiled the same way the results are amazing.

          If you combine the information in the articles it seems that Europe isn't quite the paradise you suggest. When you look at the FBI rates for 2009 you discover something quite remarkable:

          "There were an estimated 429.4 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009."

          That's right bucko, the US crime rate is LOWER than almost all of Europe.

          I guess the problem is that darned European culture.

          Only the US murder rate seems higher than most of Europe. However, since most of Europe is white you have to compare statistics for white Americans vs Europe. Unsurprisingly, the US murder rate for white people isn't much higher than the European rates.

    • ironhorzmn

      So there are more criminals in the US than in Germany? Ok, let's stipulate to that.

      Is your solution to that 'problem' to simply disarm those law abiding Americans who aren't criminals?

      Most US states have some degree of 'shall issue' concealed carry laws. In these states violent crime has dropped. Street cops will tell you that the most courteous and law-abiding citizens they meet are carry permit holders. In fact, the number of permits revoked for criminal activity with a gun is often expressed in fractions of a percent.

      Yes, arming law abiding citizens can and does address this 'root problem' every day.

      • crackerjack

        You're missing the point here.

        There are not more criminals, drug abusers or soziopaths, neither more or more serious social conflicts in the USA than in Germany, Europe or any other compareable Western society. Yet US homocide rates run at almost 6 times the level of these countrys.
        Every third German holds a gun, almost every Finn and every Swiss male holds his army military assult weapons at home, yet these nations do not use these weapons to kill each other on the rate US citizens do.

        This alarming social dissorder seems to be the great tabu theme of US society, as we can see in this ongoing disscussion regarding the arizona shootings.

        • Reason_For_Life

          Murders are not committed with rifles but with handguns. The number of murders committed with military style weaponry is almost zero. More people are stabbed than shot with rifles.

          "Violent US Society" is one of those myths that anti-capitalists love to spread. England and most of Europe are more violent as the crime statistics that I quoted above show. It's only the murder rates of the US that are higher than Europe. If we got rid of the idiotic "War on Drugs" our murder rate would be cut in half.

          • crackerjack

            Your argumentation is a contradiction in itself and undermines the cornerstone of the US pro-arms fraction.

            Should "Violent US Society" be a myhth, why should the US population demand the right to hold concealed weapons in all walks of life, while this desire never emerged in supposedly crime ridden Europe? In this case , the US arms debate is based on a percieved threat but not actual facts.
            A carpet arming of a population based on a non existent threat creates more mischief than good.

          • Reason_For_Life

            You don't understand the "cornerstone of the US pro-arms fraction". Owing guns is based on the natural right to self defense, not on living in a dangerous world.

            Why should people own four wheel drive vehicles when the times when they are needed are so few?

            Because there are times when they are needed and it is a right to drive the kind of vehicle that you choose.

          • crackerjack

            A four wheeler gets you out of the ditch, but guns doesn't make your neighborhood safer. If they did, the getthoes and projects would be the safest regions in the US.
            US arms liberalism has not led to more security, but to more social dissorder.

  • kafir4life

    This demented creep (not crabnutters mikey from texas for a change) could have used many different weapons to commit his carnage. A speeding car coudl hav done just as much (and possibly more) damage. Should we ban or otherwise limit cars?

    Has law enforcement checked into the whereabouts, cell phone, and bank records of minority speaker pelosi? It's well known that in the days before the shooting, Gifford was one of a handful of Democrats that voted against that beast. That unbalanced she wolf doesn't take that sort of thing well, and has made comments regarding those that oppose her. Maybe Nanc and the shooter attended the same group sessions? Is anybody looking? Is it possible, that as the terrorist supporters at the terrorist supporting organization cair have been claiming about their fellow followers of islam (the one ummah) and the FBI, that nanc found an unbalanced fellow and goaded him into shooting the Congresswoman?

    • trickyblain

      Really? You really think is a sane, rational theory, and not a bunch of ramblings that make you seem like an insanly idiotic individual?

      • coyote3

        Maybe, but it would be consistent, and it is as good a theory as blaming other people with no "evidence" that they "caused" this event.

    • hijinx60

      What of this? Loughner shot 19 or 20 people it is reported. The security fired several rounds at him AND MISSED. Where did their bullets go?? Is it possible that Loughner shot maybe ten or twelve and security accidently shot the rest?? Just wondering because their shots have not been accounted for.

  • Steve Chavez

    DON'T YOU THINK that if members of Congress start to have one or two security guards around them, that the first one or two bullets would be to eliminate the threat/guards and the third for the Congressperson? NUMBER TWO POINT: How's the "No Guns Allowed" going in MEXICO? Only the criminals have guns and the innocents are being slaughtered since all they have are the bats that they use to smash pinatas! POINT THREE: The Arizona Sheriff says he won't follow several laws because he is against them? Are other police under his command doing the same and are those that are following and enforcing the laws, criticized in any way? What happened to "Dereliction of Duty?" This man, including Eric Holder and Obama, should be impeached for not enforcing the laws THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS NOW NOT WHAT THEY WISH THERE WERE!

  • popseal

    Recipe for a killer……1.start with a few pounds of muddled brain 2. mix in a horrible reading list 3. desensitize to violence with media sauce 4. destablize by exposure to nihilistic world view 5. throw in some last minute illegal drugs 6. run like Hell, she's gonna blow !
    Cure for a killer…… in jail or the 'needle'
    National Prophylactic…..return to the Judeo Christian spirituality and ethic that made America great

    • Victor Laslow

      I would add a seventh…..7. Remove Faith. Religion and G/d from the environment..

    • scum

      You forgot #6: Read FRM, for a real spin on reality

      • The_Lord_Regent

        LOL. That's all you have, isn't it?

  • tagalog

    Could the New York Times please elucidate us on what exactly "visceral evidence" is? Because it sounds a heck of a lot like one's gut feelings, not evidence. And then could they cite the precise "visceral evidence" that supports the Times's contention that the NRA and other pro-gun organizations are making our country a more dangerous place? Do they mean that liberals feel it in their guts that the NRA et al. make America more dangerous? Or is the NRA distributing guns to gang bangers (who have somehow managed to avoid imprisonment) or something?

    I have "visceral evidence" (possessed by many people other than me, I might add) that the ACLU is more of a threat to, than a protector of, the First Amendment.

    • 2nd Amendment

      tagalog, i couldnt have said it better.

    • scum

      Yes, the NRA is distributing guns to gangbangers. That's the whole point: it's indiscriminate, and it will stay that way. There will be no gun control. The family of every law enforcement shot in the line of duty thanks you. So stop complaining about the Black Panthers packin'.

      • tagalog

        Can you provide some examples of specific incidents where the NRA et al. is distributing guns to gang bangers? The case against Glock (Ileto v. Glock) was dismissed, you know.

        There's lots of gun control.

      • The_Lord_Regent

        Evidence, please. Won't hold my breath waiting for you to present any facts to support your claim.

  • Victor Laslow

    Within hours Liberal Az. state Senator Linda Lopez named the Tea Party as responsible for the Az. tragedy. Then Sheriff Dupnic Placed the blame on talk radio, basically the freedom of speech while all along he is spewing the same rhetoric he is complaining about.… . I guess its okay to be hypocritical if you are a progressive. Never the less the just slightly more intelligent of the progressives realize that Sheriff Dupnic is blowing an opportunity, Even Eric Holder said “this is not the time to take advantage of a crisis”. (One of his favorite schemes- “Never let a good crisis go to waste”). Thank G/d the elite leaders of the progressives have targeted people with the lowest IQ’s and self esteem to populate their rank and file. With that some of these idiots continue the attack and chose gun control for their next “TARGET”. If the government takes the guns out of a free mans hands the only hands that will hold guns will be the criminals.

    • scum

      If liberals are so stupid, why do they have the highest IQ's and staff the best universities? Do YOU teach at Harvard?

  • Spider

    I suppose that if guns kill people then that also means that pens mispell words.

    • scum

      Simple. Guns are a tool that kill, no deep philosophical debate there. Bombs can explode if mishandled, and the like.

      • coyote3

        Don't know what you are talking about. "Guns" are either towed or self propelled, and not widely found in the civilian population (heavy, very expensive, and NFA regulated). "Firearms" are a tool, but they don't necessarily kill anyone or anything. They are a tool that propels a projectile/projectiles, at varying high velocities, and at varying degrees of accuracy.

    • tagalog

      …and SUVs run people over.

  • Spider

    Oh sorry! I misspelled misspell… it must have been my computer

  • USMCSniper

    I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!" In Canada in 2001, the registration portion of Bill C-68 was implemented. The Canadian government asks for all firearms, including long-guns (rifles and shotguns), to be registered. In 2003, the registration of long-guns becomes mandatory. Failure to register a firearm now results in criminal charges as a FELONY.

    • Spider

      Ask any Austraiian – The next step for Canada will be 100% confiscation. Austraiians have warned us for years not to buy into the registration lie (canard) because for them confiscation became reality soon after the registration process. Confiscation of firearms is always the first act of any tyrany. History is littered with many examples. Do not let it happen here (not even registaration). For if the government can take away 2nd ammendment rights they can take away any right or even abolish the constitution. — Canada are you listening??

    • scum

      as well it should be, bro. No harm in registering a deadly weapon, or banning chemical weapons, or dismantling nukes for that matter.

      • coyote3

        No harm? Quite a constitutional question there. Big issue of where congress has the delegated power to do something like that. Care to wager how SCOTUS would hold on that?

  • scum

    There will be no gun control. Hi capacity magazines and assault rifles will continue to be doled out to the 'unregulated non-militia' that wasn't specified by the 2nd amendment. Remember the crosshairs and the chant to 'reload'. Remember the question at the Republican chairman debate ("How many guns do you own?"). As overcrowded prisons release their charges, look for more gangs to take the opportunity to purchase weapons to expand drug territory. Pay attention to the 19 cases of angry, white terrorism in this country: flying planes into IRS buildings, and the like. There will be no gun control.

    • USMCSniper

      Scum want comrade congresspersons from American politburo to make legislation for confiscation of all guns and mandatory reeducation camps for stupid American populace for establish international socialism under one world government for greater glory of chairman Obama.

    • coyote3

      I know, because there are already firearms regulations that oppress and violate the civil rights of U.S. citizens.

  • Happy Canuck

    Right on "scum"! You US citizens will keep shooting each other up until the end of time. Thank God my father chose to live in Canada after serving in WW2 rather than going to the US to live with his father. Any nutcase in your country can walk into a gun store and buy any kind of weapon, kill innocent people, then be defended by a bunch of morons claiming that some old white guys over 200 years ago intended this to happen when they wrote the second amendment to your constitution. I cannot believe that otherwise intelligent people think it is sensible for everyone to walk around with handguns, high capacity magazines and assualt rifles.

    • Reason_For_Life

      We can say what we want to here because of those dead white guys. Soon free speech will be just a memory in Canada so enjoy it while you can.

    • tagalog

      I join you in your thanking God for your father deciding to live in Canada. Had it not been for his wise choice, you might be living among us down here.

    • aimrichmiami

      Thank you for writing this. This country (USA) is out of its collective mind in allowing such unfettered access to guns and ammunition. We need only take a look at Canada and the UK to see the difference, but articles like this one minimize or totally ignore the obvious. And now, our Congress wants to provide itself with increased protection while leaving the rest of us to function on a day-to-day basis with the ridiculous amount of weapons out there. People get shot every single day in our country- my husband had a gun held to his head at his place of business- and no one hears about it. It's epidemic and it's shameful.

      • coyote3

        Then amend the constitution, don't violate it.

    • Draza

      Free men have weapons Slaves such as yourself have none. Go on living in your fools paradise happy, Oh yeah – Get back on the meds,

      As for the rest of your rant, the only thing I can say is what Cheney told Leahy…

    • coyote3

      It is more than a claim, but can't expect you to know that. In this country the supreme Court decides what amendments to the constitution mean. They have already done that.

    • coyote3

      Ah, I don't know about foreign countries, but in this country, you have to conduct an NFA transfer with the ATF, and pay a tax stamp to acquire an "assault rifle" and then there was really only 1 kind every made. MP44, very few around.

    • crackerjack

      Those dead white guys should have read their Bible:

      Matthew 26:52………..all who live by the sword will die by the sword.

  • Alex Kovnat

    It may well be that the reason for lower murder rate in Canada is, they don't have race ghettoes which are notoriously crime-prone.

    We should note that in some cities such as Richmond Virginia the murder rate was cut in half. How? By damanding that everybody turn in their guns? No. What they did was to warn the most dangerous dudes, guys with convictions for violent crimes, that they would be imprisoned for 5 years (if not more) if caught with firearms.

    With all the understandable publicity surrounding last Saturday's tragedy in Tucson and the horror of what happened at Virginia Tech in April 2007, we should remember that homicide rates in many of our cities have gone down, not up, in recent years. How did we accomplish this? There was no magic bullet. All we did was keep dangerous people locked up where they belong. And, in cities like Richmond, damand that the most dangerous people – not everybody – live without owning handguns.

    • Fred Dawes

      the real reason for crime rates are down is that many are not reported like LA. AND MEXICO CITY.

  • granitesentry

    There is no tragedy so sad that it shouldn't be pressed into service for the greater cause. In preparation for President Obama's unity speech tonight, we're looking at Liberal "civility" all day at Post your examples.

    • Fred Dawes

      all countries that disarm like the USSR Naiz germany and name it, you can't stop evil people unless you do away with people.

  • dnlchisholm

    Sometimes it's hard to remember we're all on the same team. That's why… was so refreshing and timely. Before the race for 2012 officially starts, we should get as many people to read that wonderful piece as we can. Then, in 2012 we can bring America back!

  • sneed5

    Gun Control is simple. There are several ways it could be done: Use the same method provided by the 18th Amendment to stamp out alcohol; Use the same laws used to prohibit prostitution. There's no doubt that prostitution has ceased, even though "a woman has the right to what she will with her body"; Follow the course of our immigration laws that haved stopped the flow of illegal immigrants; and finally, since we have completely wiped out drug trafficking, why not borrow their model for doing away with firearms. When so many models of successes are handily available, why not avail ourselves of them? TIC THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT TO TAKE AWAY FIREARMS FROM THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SHOULD LABEL THAT EFFORT THE DREAM ACT!!!

    • Reason_For_Life

      No, it should be named "The Conscience Dreaming Act" in honor of the man who liberals should thank for making it possible.

    • Fred Dawes

      You can see.

  • tagalog

    Eighty attacks (with all sorts of weapons, admittedly often firearms) in the past 60 years on political figures hardly justifies a rush to control firearms in the U.S., nor is it a commentary on the supposed insanity of the American liking of guns. I would bet that that statistic compares favorably with the European record of attacks on political figures.

  • gfmucci

    There is some opinion that the state of mind ought to dictate whether an individual should be allowed to own a gun or not. Is he emotionally stable or a "mad man?" This, too, could be a slippery slope. How liberally should the criteria of "emotionally stable" be carried? Who determines emotional stability? What if you happen to disagree with the ideology in power at the time, and your disagreement is forcefully stated on the internet which some federal or state agency monitors and passes on to the gun licensing entity? Is there a likihood that political bias will dictate who is allowed to own a gun on the pretense of "emotional stability?" Just wondering.

  • noway2no

    My keyboard misspells words. It's not my fault.

  • Alex Kovnat

    G.F. Mucci, you have a good point. My view is that if a person has been diagnosed by two or more competent psychiatrists with a dangerous mental illness, i.e. paranoid schitzophrenia, and if subsequently said person has been pronounced insane in the legal sense of the term by a court of law and if said judgement is sustained, that person should be told that if he or she is caught with a gun or caught attempting to acquire one, he or she will be locked up in a mental institution. This would parallel the philosophy applied in some cities whereby convicted felons, especially if convicted of violent acts, are warned that if caught with a gun they will be sent right back to prison for five years. Again, we may not prevent all tragedies but if we focus on the most dangerous people (i.e. the late not-so-lamented Seung-Hui Cho), we can cut homicide rates without endangering the right of sane, honest citizens to defend themselves.

    • EWOldCrow

      Currently if a person has been adjudicated mentally ill and committed that disqualifies them from firearm ownership under Federal law. Problem is very few people are legally committed when they need to be.

  • Chris

    Let’s get about abolishing the 2nd Amendment: The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. It was about a ‘well regulated Militia.’ That was then and this is now. It’s utterly astounding that people can’t seem to grasp the difference between what was intended back then (and too, what the weaponry of those times was)…and the high powered weaponry of today that has nothing whatsoever to do with a ‘well regulated Militia.’ If we have to keep this antique amendment…then let’s allow those who insist on having weaponry today…carry the 1791 version…a musket, understand that… Guns in 1791 were made by a gunsmith. Guns in 1791 had rudimentary rifling. Guns in 1791 were single shot weapons. Guns in 1791 were loaded through the muzzle. Guns in 1791 were fired via a flintlock.

  • Fred Dawes

    "Gun Control is coming," you will still have the right to have guns, but the states and the god like Fed will tax the Guns to the point you would have to pay 100,000 dollars for some 22ca,.
    This would not take the right away FROM YOU But just make it way to much money for the guys to own guns, but the gangs and the cops and name it would have guns, right now mexican gangs have moved into the FORMER! USA By numbers of well over 200,000 gang guys, with this ARMY Of evil whitin 10 years this country will be like mexico and that is the end game.

    So if you will not fight evil that evil will eat you alive and that is the real evil that our political people want above all things and it is happening right in front of you now.

    WE do live inside a police state right now its a nice police state soon it will become just like all other evil system of control and mass murder. So be happy most people are way to stupit to see this fact of life or death of a free people.

  • Mike Smith

    The vast majority of America's homicides are drug related. Random shooting sprees happen everywhere, even in societies where guns are effectively banned. Remember the taxi driver who went berserk and shot several people with a shotgun in the UK not all that long ago? Shotguns are more deadly than handguns.

    End the drug war and legalize drugs and America's homicide rate would be comparable to most civilized countries.

    There is no reputable correlation between guns and less crime or more crime. They're irrelevant.

  • EWOldCrow

    After three years reloading supplies finaly begin showing up, dealers start having a selection of rifles and handguns in stock and the gun shows get to the point where you can move again this happens. Another run on shooting supplies begins.

    • trickyblain

      Thus explaining the idiocy of the "first" desperate run on shooting supplies.

      • coyote3

        The "first" I recall was the civil rights violation, in the Act of 1968.

      • coyote3

        As I recall, it was the civil rights violation of the "Gun" Control Act of 1968.

      • Rifleman

        Those 'idiots' were proven right tricky.

  • coyote3

    There was talk about this guy having "heavy weaponery". It was a Glock 19. It weighs less than 30 ounces loaded. ____Around here, near the border, people get shot and killed all the time. That is not a new development. All of a sudden a congressman and a judge get lit up, and it is a national event. What about all the bodies or all the nobodies we found along/near the river, etc.?__Hardly a peep out of the "media". Maricones

  • Richard W.

    Here are two quotes that are quite relevant today.

    1: "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."

    2: "When seconds count the police are only minutes away."

  • USMCSniper

    Best line I ever heard about guns was "I would rather have one on me and never need it rather than need one and not have one on me!"