Charts of the day: Gun violence in America declining over last 20 years

posted at 12:01 pm on December 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I’ll apologize in advance for not recalling who sent me the links to the National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics, both official government sites for crime-related data.  Both have information which should be considered in the rush to legislate after the horrific mass murder in Newtown.  The NIJ, using data from the BJS, charts the use of various weapons types in homicides over a 30-year period — and clearly, the use of guns had a peak, but it dissipated almost 20 years ago:

Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, leveling off in 1999 at 10,117. Gun-related homicides have increased slightly each year since 2002.

Firearms play a significant role in homicides by circumstance, but the circumstances involved show that it’s rare for otherwise law-abiding citizens to be involved in a gun-related homicide.  More than 90% of all gang-related homicides involve gun use, for instance, while the rate of felony homicides involving guns have risen to nearly 80%.  The rate of firearm use in homicides from personal arguments has declined slightly over the last thirty years, even as gun sales have increased, showing that there is no causation or even correlation to support the idea that guns escalate arguments.

This chart, though, shows a dramatic change innonfatal firearm-related violent crime over the last 20 years — but in a surprising direction, given all the fury in the current debate:

Over the last 20 years, the firearm crime rate has dropped, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 6 victims per 1,000 residents in 1994 to 1.4 victims per 1,000 residents in 2009.  The 1.4/1000 is the same rate as in 2004, the last year in which the “assault weapons” ban was in place.  Part of this is from an overall decline in violent crime over the same period, but that doesn’t account for all of the improvement.  Firearm crimes accounted for 11% of all violent crime in 1993 and 1994, but was 8% of all such crime in 2009.

This decline took place in an era where gun sales increased and carry permit laws were liberalized.  It may assume too much to claim that that increased gun ownership and carrying caused the decline, but it’s clear that the correlation runs in that direction and not the opposite.  So what, other than the grief over the senseless massacre of children in Newtown, drives the current push for gun confiscation and control? Glenn Reynolds has a thought about that:

2. Is Hate A Liberal Value? A 20-year-old lunatic stole some guns and killed people. Who’s to blame? According to a lot of our supposedly rational and tolerant opinion leaders, it’s . . . the NRA, a civil-rights organization whose only crime was to oppose laws banning guns. (Ironically, it wasn’t even successful in Connecticut, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.)

The hatred was intense. One Rhode Island professor issued a call — later deleted — for NRA head Wayne LaPierre’s “head on a stick.” People like author Joyce Carol Oates and actress Marg Helgenberger wished for NRA members to be shot. So did Texas Democratic Party official John Cobarruvias, who also called the NRA a “terrorist organization,” and Texas Republican congressman Louis Gohmert a “terror baby.”

Nor were reporters, who are supposed to be neutral, much better. As The Atlantic’sJeffrey Goldberg commented, “Reporters on my Twitter feed seem to hate the NRA more than anything else, ever. ”

Calling people murderers and wishing them to be shot sits oddly with claims to be against violence. The NRA — like the ACLU, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers or Planned Parenthood — exists to advocate policies its members want. It’s free speech. The group-hate directed at the NRA is ugly and says ugly things about those consumed by it.

This has unleashed a lot of ugliness, and most of it self-righteous and ignorant ugliness.  Before we set off to infringe on the rights of tens of millions of Americans in an effort to prevent the unpreventable and demonize those who oppose that push, perhaps we should take a look at the data to see if it supports the assumption that we’re in the middle of an ever-increasing bloodbath.  If not — and the data seems pretty clear about that — then perhaps the solution to preventing a few mentally/emotionally/spiritually twisted individuals from wreaking mass murder lies somewhere else than disarming everyone who abides by the law.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Sorry but you’re conveniently excluding the graph line for “Bushmaster”.

Shy Guy on December 26, 2012 at 12:04 PM

BISHOP!!!

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on December 26, 2012 at 12:04 PM

As in, “It’s Bushmaster’s fault.”

It always is.

Shy Guy on December 26, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Who needs facts when you have outrageous outrage on your side?

LincolntheHun on December 26, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Over dinner last night, we discussed this with some close friends. She mentioned a bumper sticker she had seen recently:

If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words

Ed is right. The hasty and headlong jump into a misguided solution for this will infringe upon the rights of those of us who can legally and safely handle firearms.

ted c on December 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM

but it’s clear that the correlation runs in that direction and not the opposite.

Liberal approach: advocate very strongly for that which will not work, and then, later having failed, propose additional fixes since the original solution did not go far enough.

STL_Vet on December 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM

You’ll note that those screaming the loudest say nothing about changing the reporting requirements of mental health officials. Guess we don’t want to violate SOME PEOPLE’S “rights”.

GarandFan on December 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM

More than 90% of all gang-related homicides involve gun use, for instance, while the rate of felony homicides involving guns have risen to nearly 80%.

rogerb and his opinion on how gangs rarely use guns (yes, it sound as stupid as you think) oddly absent.

lester on December 26, 2012 at 12:16 PM

The group-hate directed at the NRA is ugly and says ugly things about those consumed by it.

Just like gun-control after the civil war, the current movement contains an undertone of bigotry.

agmartin on December 26, 2012 at 12:18 PM

So the decline begins when Rudy Giuliani becomes mayor of New York City.

sentinelrules on December 26, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Firearms play a significant role in homicides by circumstance, but the circumstances involved show that it’s rare for otherwise law-abiding citizens to be involved in a gun-related homicide. More than 90% of all gang-related homicides involve gun use, for instance, while the rate of felony homicides involving guns have risen to nearly 80%. The rate of firearm use in homicides from personal arguments has declined slightly over the last thirty years, even as gun sales have increased, showing that there is no causation or even correlation to support the idea that guns escalate arguments.

Nuh-uh; David Frum said yesterday that law-abiding citizens shoot each other all the time, so it must be true. /

Midas on December 26, 2012 at 12:21 PM

You’ll note that those screaming the loudest say nothing about changing the reporting requirements of mental health officials. Guess we don’t want to violate SOME PEOPLE’S “rights”.

GarandFan on December 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Reminds me of a school district I was in about 20 years ago. They were mainstreaming certain students who couldn’t be controlled by their teachers, were disruptive to the classes, and inhibited learning by those around them.

Solution: medicate all the boys, rather than remove the few disruptive student.

STL_Vet on December 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM

How interesting, the growth has almost nothing to do with shifting penalties in the War on drugs…

libfreeordie on December 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I think this is just the next step. It is a convenient way for the left to further demonize anyone who disagrees with them politically. They already portray the right as hating minorities, women, children, etc. They already portray the right as hating the poor, the abused, the disadvantaged. Now it’s time to portray the right as the party who encourages mass murder.

Night Owl on December 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Hold on here. Are you saying we should make policy based on FACT? Didn’t you hear – the Democrats won the election. No more reality-based legislation for the next 4 years!

hawksruleva on December 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM

This has unleashed a lot of ugliness, and most of it self-righteous and ignorant ugliness. Before we set off to infringe on the rights of tens of millions of Americans in an effort to prevent the unpreventable and demonize those who oppose that push, perhaps we should take a look at the data to see if it supports the assumption that we’re in the middle of an ever-increasing bloodbath.

Here’s a suggestion……

Let’s start talking about media control. The founding fathers knew about moveable type and newspapers. They had no idea that we’d have electronic media. Therefore, we need to limit the boundaries of journalism so that irresponsible reporting is banned in the name of the public good. Nobody has to watch morons like Soledad O’Brien to get the news!

And, BTW, idiots like David Gregory should be banned from discussing the issue of the 2nd Amendment immediately since he clearly doesn’t understand the difference between a magazine and a clip. These are not interchangeable terms.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM

How interesting, the growth has almost nothing to do with shifting penalties in the War on drugs…

libfreeordie on December 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Meaning what?

Night Owl on December 26, 2012 at 12:27 PM

More than 90% of all gang-related homicides involve gun use, for instance, while the rate of felony homicides involving guns have risen to nearly 80%.

Liberal rule number 1: never parse gun data by geography or race.

People might see that certain parts of cities are responsible for a high percentage of gun-related violence.

STL_Vet on December 26, 2012 at 12:27 PM

The sharp decline correlates to welfare reform during The impeached serial rapist BJ Clinton’s regime.

Thank you Newt Gingrich!

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 12:27 PM

How about strengthening/creating laws to evaluate (whether they like it of not) people with mental health issues, and if warranted, institutionalize them?

Jerrod Loughner, the Holmes guy in Colorado, the VMI shooter, and the Newtown shooter were all known to be disturbed. As were a whole littany of mass shooters in recent decades. And most of them got guns legally.

I know, they have rights, too. They can’t just be thrown in a cage. But lives could be saved if they get treatment. And if they need/get treatment, they can be added to a national list that will deny them a right to own guns, again, if warranted.

iurockhead on December 26, 2012 at 12:29 PM

There’s missing data from the “non-fatal firearms crime chart.”

libfreeordie on December 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM

The hasty and headlong jump into a misguided solution for this will infringe upon the rights of those of us who can legally and safely handle firearms.

ted c on December 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Just as there is this false assumption that there is an ever-increasing bloodbath, you make the false assumption that this is about finding a solution. The anti-Constitution faction(including the Brady Group) don’t want a solution, don’t care about the vast majority of responsible gun owners, or anything else.

They are standing on those 20 tiny caskets and attempting to get rid of the Second Amendment or, at the very least, confiscate as many guns as they can possibly get away with. Nevermind that the weapon used is no more lethal than a hunting rifle if it looks like something in a Chuck Norris movie then it must be an “assault weapon.”

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM

And, BTW, idiots like David Gregory should be banned from discussing the issue of the 2nd Amendment immediately since he clearly doesn’t understand the difference between a magazine and a clip. These are not interchangeable terms.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Perhaps as part of a plea agreement, for his illegal possession of a high-capacity magazine in clear violation of DC law? I like that idea.

iurockhead on December 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Meaning what?

Night Owl on December 26, 2012 at 12:27 PM

That this is no longer a troll-free zone. Stand by from the same old dishonest talking points from disreputable and dishonorable bastards.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Perhaps as part of a plea agreement, for his illegal possession of a high-capacity magazine in clear violation of DC law? I like that idea.

iurockhead on December 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM

No, I want him to go to jail for that one. His kids go to a private school with armed security and yet he doesn’t want the kids forced to attend DC public schools to have the same kind of protection. I guess he’s a racist on top of being an alleged felon.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Common sense and intelligence is not important to Obama supporters. Getting their free Obamapony is.

They are like children who will do anything to get a pony and they will refuse to admit what that “pony” really is.

bloggless on December 26, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Why won’t Ed link to this chart?

libfreeordie on December 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I don’t see why not. It shows the rate going down as well.

ddrintn on December 26, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Why won’t Ed link to this chart?

Because it doesn’t isolate guns, professor. Good grief.

Note that “assault” as a cause of death does not distinguish the mechanism of death (gunshot, stabbing, etc). If anyone knows of a similar time series for gun-related deaths only…

sentinelrules on December 26, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Big wonder the leftard doesn’t understand how to read a graph…

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 12:40 PM

That this is no longer a troll-free zone. Stand by from the same old dishonest talking points from disreputable and dishonorable bastards.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Quite true. I clicked the link, and it looks like those statistics are pretty doctored. The one in particular that shows the US to be far and away the most violent country in the world, (except for Estonia and Mexico) whose numbers were left out for some reason.

Night Owl on December 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Using your graph, perhaps you can address why gun-ownership is increasing with the assaults/100k going through the floor? The rate is nearly back to 1960′s levels. How this makes your case I don’t know.

STL_Vet on December 26, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Exactly. I guess it’s just because the US rate is higher than socialist paradises like Sweden or something.

ddrintn on December 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Exactly. I guess it’s just because the US rate is higher than socialist paradises like Sweden or something.

ddrintn on December 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Sweden is going to hell fast.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Perfesser, while accusing Ed of “selective rep;orting” by presenting an obviously-doctored graph, you receive the Hot Air Irony of the Day Award.

Congratulations.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 12:45 PM

There is a great deal of misinformation about this. In the USA 6,000+ died of firearms violence last year. In Canada, 1,000+. So our rates are approximately equal. One of the ways liberals distort the picture is to include suicides. The ratio of murder to suicide in the US is 3.7/6.1. But suicide by firearms is a very rational choice and occurs far less than suicide by any other means except the most exotic. Another way to distort the picture in America is the knowing usage of very faulty information from other countries. All Muslim countries have extremely dubious statistics on violence because of definitional issues. The former Soviet countries are all suspect as is Russia itself. And the list goes on.

pat on December 26, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Gun violence?……where are the Dads?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/25/fathers-disappear-from-households-across-america/

Nicole Hawkins‘ three daughters have matching glittery boots, but none has the same father. Each has uniquely colored ties in her hair, but none has a dad present in her life.

As another single mother on Sumner Road decked her row-house stoop with Christmas lights and a plastic Santa, Ms. Hawkins recalled that her middle child’s father has never spent a holiday or birthday with her. In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.

People “look at a child in need, in poverty or failing in school, and ask, ‘What can we do to help?’ But what we do is ask, ‘Why does that child need help in the first place?’ And the answer is often it’s because [the child lacks] a responsible and involved father,” he said.

Kids need a good cop/bad cop in the home. Uncle Sam can never replace Dad (or Mom).

No matter how hard Progressives say they can fill the void.

PappyD61 on December 26, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Quite true. I clicked the link, and it looks like those statistics are pretty doctored. The one in particular that shows the US to be far and away the most violent country in the world, (except for Estonia and Mexico) whose numbers were left out for some reason.

Night Owl on December 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Even so, the graph shows that “assaults” are on a steep decline.

ddrintn on December 26, 2012 at 12:47 PM

One of the ways liberals distort the picture is to include suicides. The ratio of murder to suicide in the US is 3.7/6.1.

pat on December 26, 2012 at 12:45 PM

This is very interesting. I’ve never seen this information before. Do you happen to have a link?

STL_Vet on December 26, 2012 at 12:48 PM

PappyD61 on December 26, 2012 at 12:46 PM

You hit the nail on the head. 1 in 3 kids do not have a father in the home. Great success of the luciferian progressives.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Why won’t Ed link to this chart?

libfreeordie on December 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Because you don’t know how to cut and paste or how to use tiny url, perhaps?

Problem with the chart you link to? It shows “death by assault”, not “death by guns”. The most recent US stats show that nearly 15% of US murders were carried out using knives. I’m sure you want to ban those as well.

And curiously, the study that produced the chart you link to for some reason cherry picked the data and left out the violent country of Mexico, right next door. They also left out Estonia in Europe, but apparently included every other country on that continent.

The only conclusion? The “author” of this “study” intentionally left out the data for Mexico in order to paint the US as “most violent”. Dr. Goebbels and Joe Stalin would not doubt approve of his actions.

F-

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 12:51 PM

The NRA is interested in one thing: money and power

as long as guns sell, they could care less what the trends of homicides are

guns should be banned outright…none of these weak piecemeal gun laws will work

every gun in the country should be confiscated and smelted

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM

The NRA is interested in one thing: money and power

as long as guns sell, they could care less what the trends of homicides are

guns should be banned outright…none of these weak piecemeal gun laws will work

every gun in the country should be confiscated and smelted

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM

You aren’t very bright.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Ed, the charts above also correlate to the creation and expansion of gun free zones.

So are you suggesting that we should further liberalize our carry permit laws while expanding our gun-free zones?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Even so, the graph shows that “assaults” are on a steep decline.

ddrintn on December 26, 2012 at 12:47 PM

But, but, it doesn’t matter what it actually shows, did you see how America is clearly shown to be the most dangerous place on earth?

Night Owl on December 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Speaking of Dr. Goebbels and Uncle Joe Stalin, ABC “News” is now shamelessly flogging the shooting tragedy in New York State as, and I directly quote from their youtube upload, “Sandy Hook Style Shooting”.

This of course is solely because of the brand name of the weapon used in both tragedies.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM

guns should be banned outright…

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Yeah right. Even your handle is a blatant lie.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Yeah right. Even your handle is a blatant lie.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM

right, because I am against allowing weapons of mass killings on the streets huh? doofus

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

(except for Estonia and Mexico) whose numbers were left out for some reason.

Night Owl on December 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Mexico’s laws for private ownership of weapons is very stringent. If there is an uptick perhaps it is all those guns provided by Eric Holder as part of the plan to ban guns based on how many weapons were making it across the border. Nevermind the US government also laundered the money used by the drug cartels to buy them. The whole scheme was about fomenting public demand for gutting the Second Amendment. He even promised the Brady Group that he was going to do this during his first term.

They must have been high-fiving each other over the deaths of those children in Newtown. One madman committing an evil act re-ignited their efforts to get rid of the Second Amendment. And make no mistake. The rat-eared wonder and his crowd don’t give a damn about dead children other than as a rallying point for an anti-Constitution agenda.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Ed, the charts above also correlate to the creation and expansion of gun free zones.

So are you suggesting that we should further liberalize our carry permit laws while expanding our gun-free zones?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Hell yeah we should liberalize where we can carry guns. My local grocery stores and my credit union ENCOURAGE customers to carry in their buildings.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 1:02 PM

doofus

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Heh, you are as ignorant as you are bad at lying.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:03 PM

One chart ends in 2005, the other in 2009.

How about a couple of charts that end, I don’t know, now?

Mr. Arkadin on December 26, 2012 at 1:04 PM

The NRA is interested in one thing: money and power

as long as guns sell, they could care less what the trends of homicides are

guns should be banned outright…none of these weak piecemeal gun laws will work

every gun in the country should be confiscated and smelted

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Thanks so much for sharing that. Now educate the 3 brain cells you have left.

When the gun instructor got through describing the restrictive gun laws in Boston and in Massachusetts — which are just about the toughest in the nation — one student asked: “If the gun laws are so tough, how come there are shootings every night in Boston?” “That’s a good question,” the instructor replied. “The answer is that the gun laws are aimed at the good guys, the law-abiding people, like you and me. The bad guys ignore the law and get all the guns they want.”

And what about this, from the LA Times on the 1 year anniversary of Columbine in April of 2000?

WASHINGTON — Marking the first anniversary of the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems.

“In our national struggle against youth violence we must not fail our children; our future depends on it,” the president said in his weekly radio address.

-snip-

Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.

“Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need,” Clinton said.

When the NRA head last week proposed doing the same thing, you Democrats called him deluded. Was Clinton crazy too?

F-

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:05 PM

every gun in the country should be confiscated and smelted

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Good luck selling that point of view, you ignorant moron. That wouldn’t even get one state’s approval in the required Constitutional amendment to make such a scheme legal.

And beyond that, you just threw out a couple stupid generalizations, came to this conclusion, and never provided a compelling case why the rest of us shouldn’t conclude you are a very very stupid human being (or Peirs Morgan).

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 1:05 PM

I think they should outlaw glass in England. Every day an assault is perpetrated using broken glass.

There should be glass-free zones. Carrying glass should require extensive training and permitting.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Hell yeah we should liberalize where we can carry guns. My local grocery stores and my credit union ENCOURAGE customers to carry in their buildings.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Your local credit union encourages customers to carry? What credit union is that?

And since there’s also a correlation between the expansion of gun free zones, those would be increased as well.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:06 PM

The NRA is interested in one thing: money and power

as long as guns sell, they could care less what the trends of homicides are

guns should be banned outright…none of these weak piecemeal gun laws will work

every gun in the country should be confiscated and smelted

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Maybe, but I bet they can count to two without f*cking it up halfway.

Midas on December 26, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I think they should outlaw glass in England. Every day an assault is perpetrated using broken glass.

There should be glass-free zones. Carrying glass should require extensive training and permitting.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 1:05 PM

How many assaults are committed in England using broken glass?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Fourteen people were shot in Chicago Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, with one dead. Why aren’t liberals screaming about police sweeps in such neighborhoods to get the illegal guns first? Confiscate those, and see how fast the gun-crime rate plummets.

Liam on December 26, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Every gun in the country…the uh…the Military and Secret Service would like to have a talk with you.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 1:09 PM

How many assaults are committed in England using broken glass?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Do your own fking research reprobate.

You ignorant morons are ruining everything.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 1:09 PM

How many people have been murdered by handguns and rifles of all types whilst inside “gun free zones” as compared to those in “gun approved zones?”

How many schools with armed and trained guards and clearly marked have been invaded by thugs and the insane versus schools with no guards of any kind and designated as gun free zones?

Two very serious lines of inquiry that the Left refuses to even engage.

Yet, the David Gregory’s of the world and a host of others send their kids to armed camps and have other forms of personal protection at their disposal.

But, the average citizen, with a couple kids?

Fish in the barrel…and more will be if the Left/Progressives get their way.

coldwarrior on December 26, 2012 at 1:09 PM

How many assaults are committed in England using broken glass?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Does it matter? even one is too many.

That doesn’t include all the accidents suicides and careless handling.

Its for the children you know.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Fourteen people were shot in Chicago Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, with one dead. Why aren’t liberals screaming about police sweeps in such neighborhoods to get the illegal guns first? Confiscate those, and see how fast the gun-crime rate plummets.

Liam on December 26, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I completely agree. But let’s not get started on why this only because an issue (or is even reported on) when white people shoot white people.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Yes, expand the gun free zones in every major metro area, especially L.A., Philly, NYC, San Fran and Chicago.

You people voted for Utopia, you deserve; a free phone and no gun crimes, what could be better?

Us hicks out here will just have to muddle along.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 1:12 PM

When the NRA head last week proposed doing the same thing, you Democrats called him deluded. Was Clinton crazy too?

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:05 PM

It’s really worse than that Del Dolemonte.

Last week you had a United States Senator declaring that we needed to have the National Guard in every school to provide security. Two days later, the NRA essentially agreed with the need to have armed personnel in schools. The Senator’s comments were not greeted with the same criticism as when the NRA said the exact same thing.

And to top things off, David Gregory against armed personnel in schools even though his own kids go to a private school with armed security.

That’s why you can’t talk to the anti-Constitition people about this. They are dishonest and really don’t care about anything other than getting rid of the Second Amendment. Discussion is worthless.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 1:12 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:10 PM

racist

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Yeah right. Even your handle is a blatant lie.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM

right, because I am against allowing weapons of mass killings on the streets huh? doofus

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Please define “weapons of mass killings”, and then we will either stop laughing at you, or laugh at you even more.

And before you give us your “definition”, please remember that the following items have also been used to perpetrate mass killings:

1. Knives

2. Motor vehicles

3. Fire

4. Commercial airliners

5. Water

Do you propose banning all of those as well?

You give the word “doofus” a bad name.

F—–

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:14 PM

How many people have been murdered by handguns and rifles of all types whilst inside “gun free zones” as compared to those in “gun approved zones?”

How many schools with armed and trained guards and clearly marked have been invaded by thugs and the insane versus schools with no guards of any kind and designated as gun free zones?

Two very serious lines of inquiry that the Left refuses to even engage.

coldwarrior on December 26, 2012 at 1:09 PM

The vast majority of murders happen outside of gun free zones. I don’t even think the numbers are comparable.

Also, there are been relatively few school shootings. Columbine had a armed and trained guard. Newtown didn’t. Virgina Tech did. Not sure that’ll tell us much either. I think it’s safe to say that armed guards help limit the amount of people killed.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:14 PM

The NRA is interested in one thing: money and power

as long as guns sell, they could care less what the trends of homicides are

guns should be banned outright…none of these weak piecemeal gun laws will work

every gun in the country should be confiscated and smelted

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Moron, go live in a country that is already set up the way you want to live. There are plenty of them out there. Take all your radical leftist buddies with you.

Night Owl on December 26, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Yes, expand the gun free zones in every major metro area, especially L.A., Philly, NYC, San Fran and Chicago.

You people voted for Utopia, you deserve; a free phone and no gun crimes, what could be better?

Us hicks out here will just have to muddle along.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Didn’t know Newtown was an urban city…

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:14 PM

You left out explosives…
C+

or maybe
B+

I’m in a good mood.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Do your own fking research reprobate.

You ignorant morons are ruining everything.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I apologize for taking your comments seriously.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Does it matter? even one is too many.

That doesn’t include all the accidents suicides and careless handling.

Its for the children you know.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:10 PM

It’s a lazy and insincere argument. Is one really too many?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:18 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Please explain how the Government will disarm criminals, when they have failed to do so, thus far?

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Does it matter? even one is too many.

That doesn’t include all the accidents suicides and careless handling.

Its for the children you know.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:10 PM

And “too many” for what?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:19 PM

we should liberalize where we can carry guns.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Two approaches worthy of consideration.

Public Approach. Pass a federal law affirming the right to carry by all eligible citizens unless the institution objecting (school, business, local government, etc) can justify the creation of a gun-free zone. The arbiter would be the same group responsible for providing documents concerning Operation Fast & Furious to the House Oversight Committee.

Private Approach. Insurance companies require all institutions provide proof that they are able to protect innocent people from a shooter if they create a gun-free zone.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 1:19 PM

It’s a lazy and insincere argument.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Heh

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:19 PM

And to top things off, David Gregory against armed personnel in schools even though his own kids go to a private school with armed security.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Yep, he sends his kids to Sidwell Friends School, where Dear Leader’s kids also go.

That school had 11 private armed guards before Dear Leader’s kids got there too. And those 11 private armed guards will be there after they leave.

And Punahou, the elite private prep school O’bamna attended in Hawai’i, has their entire campus networked with security gates, which close every night at 8 PM, essentially locking down the entire campus.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:20 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Please explain how the Government will disarm criminals, when they have failed to do so, thus far?

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Come, now – we’re talking about government – no one expects results.

Midas on December 26, 2012 at 1:20 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Schools, shopping malls, movie theaters, auditoriums, places of business, neighborhoods, university campuses, transportation hubs (rail stations, subway stations), state and county fair grounds, convention sites, and quite a few other places all across America have already been designated as “gun free zones” over the past decade or two.

Again, this is a legitimate line of inquiry.

Surely, location of assaults, attacks and mass mayhem are public record, as are designations by the many jurisdictions for “gun free zones.”

Is there a real correlation?

Is one more likely to be killed in a gun free zone than not?

coldwarrior on December 26, 2012 at 1:21 PM

STL_Vet on December 26, 2012 at 12:48 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

There you go. BTW, less than 400 deaths are attributable to rifles. Far less than by knives, strangulation, blunt instrument or even arson.

pat on December 26, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Please explain how the Government will disarm criminals, when they have failed to do so, thus far?

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Honestly, I think more emphasis needs to be put on gun purchases. I think limiting straw buyers is an interesting idea. I also think more comprehensive checks need to be done on gun purchasers.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM

It’s a lazy and insincere argument.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Hang on; the “Obama coming back from vacation to argue for a fiscal cliff deal” thread is elsewhere.

Midas on December 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Please explain how the Government will disarm criminals, when they have failed to do so, thus far?

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Well, not operating a gun-running operation would be a good start.
I’m sure everybody that has a weapon would turn them in if required to do so. Honor among thieves and all that. ;0

Seriously, this is what gets frustrating about this issue and the anti-Constitutionalists. They don’t want to address the real problems or areas that might require attention. They just want to develop a scheme to get weapons out of the possession of honest people.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Midas on December 26, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Exactly. So, in essence, Liberals, like this idiot, want law-abiding citizens to give up their right to defend themselves and thir families from those who would seek to do them harm, such as criminals and despots.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Didn’t know Newtown was an urban city…

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:15 PM

But you did know that it’s a city located in ban-friendly Connecticut…

Maybe the ban wasn’t strong enough, they should have used large block letters on the official documents.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:14 PM

You left out explosives…
C+

or maybe
B+

I’m in a good mood.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Well, Leftists have been trying to ban explosives for a long time.

What is so hilarious is that at the very same time, they worship like an organized religion all of the awards endowed by the dude who invented dynamite.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM

The NRA is interested in one thing: money and power as long as guns sell, they could care less what the trends of homicides are
guns should be banned outright…none of these weak piecemeal gun laws will work every gun in the country should be confiscated and smelted.

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Constitutional idiocy aside (it’s a ‘right’ by the way, not a privilege that can be taken back at the whim of some liberal autocrat,) can you tell us the difference between an automatic vs. a semi-automatic weapon, and also, what makes an ‘assault weapon’ so much more dangerous than your run of the mill hunting rifle?

You’ve taken a strong stance here (albeit an absolutely insane one,) so please add some credibility to your position by sharing with us your knowledge of these very basic facts.

CaptFlood on December 26, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Honestly, I think more emphasis needs to be put on gun purchases. I think limiting straw buyers is an interesting idea. I also think more comprehensive checks need to be done on gun purchasers.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM

That’s conjecture. Tell me how confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens will make them safer, because lawbreakers will certainly keep theirs.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Think of that poor kid in Chicago who was beaten to death with a 2×4; I’ve been advocating for a while now that boards need to be controlled.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Why won’t Ed link to this chart?

libfreeordie on December 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I don’t know. Maybe,

How interesting, the growth has almost nothing to do with shifting penalties in the War on drugs…

[libfreeordie on December 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM]

or,

There’s missing data from the “non-fatal firearms crime chart.” [Edited for appropriateness]

libfreeordie on December 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Dusty on December 26, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Schools, shopping malls, movie theaters, auditoriums, places of business, neighborhoods, university campuses, transportation hubs (rail stations, subway stations), state and county fair grounds, convention sites, and quite a few other places all across America have already been designated as “gun free zones” over the past decade or two.

Again, this is a legitimate line of inquiry.

Surely, location of assaults, attacks and mass mayhem are public record, as are designations by the many jurisdictions for “gun free zones.”

Is there a real correlation?

Is one more likely to be killed in a gun free zone than not?

coldwarrior on December 26, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I’ll look up the research, but all evidence seems to suggest that people are much more likely to get shot in areas that aren’t gun free zones. I mean, just considering how many people are shot within their house compared to those shot in malls or schools prove that out.

Again, I don’t think gun free zones are effective at stopping mass shootings. But there’s no question that there’s a correlation of being in a gun free zone and not getting shot.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I also think more comprehensive checks need to be done on gun purchasers.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Stronger and more comprehensive than the ones that kept Lamza from buying a gun? Seems to me that the ones in place already were sufficient, were they not? Are there some statistics we can look to and see how many times background checks allowed someone to buy a gun that shouldn’t have? Or is this just a gut-level thing that you feel should be more stringent?

Midas on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

So, you think criminals obey signs?

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Honestly, I think more emphasis needs to be put on gun purchases. I think limiting straw buyers is an interesting idea. I also think more comprehensive checks need to be done on gun purchasers.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM

I honestly think you’re a moron. What you propose does NOTHING but punish the responsible people seeking to purchase a weapon. You might trample the rights of honest citizen but there would not be one less shooting in Chicago or Detroit by “more comprehensive checks” (whatever the hell you mean by that).

This is why there is no talking to the anti-Constitution/ anti-choice faction. You aren’t being honest in what you propose or why you are proposing it.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Don’t confuse them. They run away.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:29 PM

That’s conjecture. Tell me how confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens will make them safer, because lawbreakers will certainly keep theirs.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Yeah, I know it’s conjecture. You asked me for my opinion and I have it.

And where did I say anything about confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens(or confiscating guns are all)?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Remember the NY newspaper that published the names and addresses of all the CCW holders in the county?

Heh.

Akzed on December 26, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3