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

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:39 PM

You just blew what’s left of my mind.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Fixed.

Please tell us why any law abiding citizen would fear, much less consider “fascist”, any background check.

BTW the business I own also does business with non-governmental clients, and they all require background checks as well. What is to fear, unless one has something to hide?

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Not entirely true. There is a certain strain of Ron Paul “Libertarian” that also pegs out the stupidity meter.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 2:42 PM

But their stupidity has an entirely different flavor.

I don’t think even little dante is anti-gun.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I gotta split hairs here. Nidal Hasan shouldn’t be lumped in the same group as the shooters in Tucson or Newtown. He was a terrorist despite the fact that the rat-eared wonder calls the Fort Hood shooting “workplace violence” even when the shooter of 13 is a radical Muslim screaming Allah Akbah!

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 2:47 PM

- Knives, cars, etc serve important utilitarian purposes without which would have a profoundly devastating effect on civilization.

You might wish to educate yourself about what happened both to gun crime (jumped 89%) and knifings/stabbings in the UK following the gun ban:

Gun Bans: Mad Dogs & Englishmen

Education is your friend. Embrace it.

Guns are killing weapons with no other purpose that is important to civilized society.

I find it of profound importance to kill any potential rapist that makes the life-ending mistake of choosing me as his wannabe victim.

And no, I would not nearly be as satisfied tasering him, especially if he were on PCP or another drug that, for whatever reason, seems to make weasels into supermen.

Resist We Much on December 26, 2012 at 2:49 PM

We need cameras on every street corner, drones over every city, and special police units who can stop and demand papers from every citizen whenever they feel like it.

What should any citizen fear if they have nothing to hide? Just hand over your documents and be happy, the trains are running on time.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 2:50 PM

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

And there is a very strong correlation where I live with owning guns and not getting shot. Last Murder was 2007. There hasn’t been any shootings published in the local paper since then either. Yet the vast majority of homes have one or more semi-automatic weapons.

BTW I live in one of the most liberal gun carry states in the nation. It allows concealed and open carry w/o a permit.

chemman on December 26, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Never said you did, I used the word “restricting”…you actually read the post, yes?

You also seemed to miss the “Constitution” part of the comment; please don’t veer off on a tangent about speeding or we will be inundated with non-relevant comparisons until midnight.

And finally, what is your point? You say you don’t want a ban on guns and then you say that the U.S. has banned all sorts of things, soooo…..you seem to be fluttering between bans and non-bans and sort of bans and not really bans but maybe something else.

You wrote:

I would like more certainty than “Maybe” if you plan on restricting Constitutionally-enshrined rights for 300 million free people.

And then:

You could make an equal argument for banning all sorts of things based on “it might deter this or that” which is precisely the argument made by tyrants through history.

Either you are using “banning” and “restricting” interchangeably, or you’re suggesting I want to ban guns. Feel free to clarify.

We already constitutionally restrict access to guns, so why would enacting more constitutional laws to constitutionally restrict access to guns would not interfere. I use the word to demonstrate it really doesn’t change the discussion because the assumption is that all actions taken will be constitutional.

Finally, my point was that we ban/restrict/limit things on “mights and maybes”. We do it all the time. It’s not a new thing. You seem to suggest I’m recommending a new type of law. New laws are created because we feel that might have an effect. I mean…how else would they be created?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Note the most recent chart ends at 2009. The Obama administration will have new data collected by the same ground troops used for the GOTV election effort. The data will include a whole bunch of gun crimes never reported to police for some reason, making them mostly unverifiable. The LSM will still trumpet the new info loudly…

Marcola on December 26, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Please tell us why any law abiding citizen would fear, much less consider “fascist”, any background check.

BTW the business I own also does business with non-governmental clients, and they all require background checks as well. What is to fear, unless one has something to hide?

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Buddy, you’re describing a REALLY fascist place! In the place you’re describing, there certainly isn’t a Constitutional right to own guns.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:54 PM

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

There’s an even stronger correlation between being a mass shooting victim and being in a gun free zone when you get shot.

dentarthurdent on December 26, 2012 at 2:59 PM

- Constitution is not perfect. The men who wrote it were not perfect. The Constitution CAN and HAS BEEN amended.

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Um…

We know this. That’s why we’re telling you that, based on the US Constitution’s Second Amendment, in effect for something over 200 years, what you are advocating (banning guns) is Unconstitutional. Unless & until another amendment reverses this status (highly unlikely), your argument is invalid on constitutional grounds.

cs89 on December 26, 2012 at 2:59 PM

We need cameras on every street corner, drones over every city, and special police units who can stop and demand papers from every citizen whenever they feel like it.

What should any citizen fear if they have nothing to hide? Just hand over your documents and be happy, the trains are running on time.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Perhaps a special police unit with psychics who can predict who is going to commit a crime – and arrest them before they do it….
We could call it “pre-crime” or something….
That would make a pretty good dent in the crime rate….

dentarthurdent on December 26, 2012 at 3:02 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Ah, so we’re back to the “gun murders” and “shootings” equation.

You’re running in circles now and still haven’t clarified what exactly is your point. Again, it seems you are arguing something that no one else can see and advocating for one thing then jumping to the opposite a few comments later.

Is it comment overload or have you forgotten what your original premise is?

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Do you feel that background checks are a punishment to law-abiding citizens?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:03 PM

If I am law-abiding why should I need a background check for gun ownership which is a constitutional right. I carried secret and top secret security clearances in the military that should be sufficient proof I am reliable w/o the added burden of further checks. What you really are saying is you don’t think law-abiding citizens are actually law-abiding.

chemman on December 26, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Here I go again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about the hobby/recreational/sporting uses of firearms.
It IS about the common American citizen being enabled with the physical capability to function as their own first line of defense against governmental tyranny, first and foremost.
After that, common criminals. Then dangerous/nuisance animals, and so on . . . . . .

Civil law enforcement (including federal) should not be allowed to use any weaponry that is banned to common citizens.
Common citizens should not be limited to anything weapons ofless capability than what Civil law enforcement uses. If citizens are limited to weapons of “less capability”, then their ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government is compromised.

That defeats the whole purpose of the Second Amendment.

listens2glenn on December 26, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Is it comment overload or have you forgotten what your original premise is?

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Point: Yes, we should make laws based on mights and maybes. That the only way laws are made.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Come and get ‘em.
We’re ready and willing to do what’s necessary to defend our Rights against a tyranical government that would attempt to violate the tentnts of our Founding Law.
There are at least 3 million of us and we learned our lessons well in the sandbox.
III/0317

dirtengineer on December 26, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Facts don’t matter to democrats.

TX-96 on December 26, 2012 at 3:15 PM


3. Knives, cars (substitute some other item) kill people too, so why not ban those as well?

- Knives, cars, etc serve important utilitarian purposes without which would have a profoundly devastating effect on civilization. Guns are killing weapons with no other purpose that is important to civilized society.

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM

With less than 10,000 gun-related deaths a year, you better tell the some-odd 80 million other American gun owners that they are using them wrong.

Since guns serve no purpose in a civilized society, why do police carry them?

weaselyone on December 26, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I gotta split hairs here. Nidal Hasan shouldn’t be lumped in the same group as the shooters in Tucson or Newtown. He was a terrorist despite the fact that the rat-eared wonder calls the Fort Hood shooting “workplace violence” even when the shooter of 13 is a radical Muslim screaming Allah Akbah!

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I agree, but he also puts the lie to the claim that most mass shooters kill themselves. They don’t always.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Please tell us why any law abiding citizen would fear, much less consider “fascist”, any background check.

BTW the business I own also does business with non-governmental clients, and they all require background checks as well. What is to fear, unless one has something to hide?

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Buddy, you’re describing a REALLY fascist place! In the place you’re describing, there certainly isn’t a Constitutional right to own guns.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I live in New Hampshire. The Democrats are in charge here.

Z———-

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Point: Yes, we should make laws based on mights and maybes. That the only way laws are made.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM

There are laws against crimes that have actually been committed, no might or maybe about it. Murder, rape, etc. are all prosecuted after the crime has been committed. Our justice system, even though imperfect, does pretty good with only convicting people who have actually committed a crime. We don’t send someone to jail who might have killed someone, or who maybe raped someone. They have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am hard pressed to think of a criminal example where someone did hard time over a might/maybe law violation. Maybe it is the difference between criminal/civil violations of law.

Or, maybe you are talking about Federal “Laws” as they are voted on by Congress. If that is the case, I think you are more interested in the “regulations” that are instituted by Executive Agencies in order to flesh out those “Laws”. Regulations get more to the touchy feely, let me make a decision on what is best for you held in such high esteem by the ruling class that the left loves so much.

weaselyone on December 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM

I agree, but he also puts the lie to the claim that most mass shooters kill themselves. They don’t always.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 3:27 PM

If only they would START there….

dentarthurdent on December 26, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Do not ask a liberal to listen to facts. Liberals are rational only when they foam at the mouth.

logicman_1998 on December 26, 2012 at 3:31 PM

TX-96 on December 26, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Are there any Democrats left?
Seems like they’ve all been replaced by Commies.

dirtengineer on December 26, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Point: Yes, we should make laws based on mights and maybes. That the only way laws are made.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM
So we should start arresting people because they MIGHT commit a crime, or are MAYBE thinking about committing a crime?
Well then we should implement a “pre-crime” police unit of some kind shouldn’t we?

dentarthurdent on December 26, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Yes, we should make laws based on mights and maybes. That the only way laws are made.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM

OK, back from laughing at HAL in the David Gregory thread.

How would you have legally prevented the mass murder on 9/11 from happening?

The Newtown school had already been made a gun-free zone, solely based on those “mights and maybes” laws. The laws were put there because there was a chance that there “might” be, or “maybe” be, something bad happen inside that school someday, caused by a gun.

All of those murdered inside that school were in fact totally obeying the law that day. Your gun laws didn’t save them. Their killer on the other hand could not be bothered with laws.

How would have adding more laws prevented Newtown?

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Point: Yes, we should make laws based on mights and maybes. That the only way laws are made.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM

So we should start arresting people because they MIGHT commit a crime, or are MAYBE thinking about committing a crime?

Well then we should implement a “pre-crime” police unit of some kind shouldn’t we?

dentarthurdent on December 26, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Thought Police. Orwell was right.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Point: Yes, we should make laws based on mights and maybes. That the only way laws are made.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Right on. You and your family should be locked up forever because you might kill someone.

Please pack accordingly.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Right on. You and your family should be locked up forever because you might kill someone.
Please pack accordingly.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 3:45 PM

And how many other libs should now be in jail because they recently said they want to shoot Lapierre, or he should be killed? Sounds to me like they just might be thinking of murder. Lock’em up.

dentarthurdent on December 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM

This hysteria is not about protecting children. It is an
excuse to relieve us of our constitutional rights. Nothing more,
nothing less.

Amjean on December 26, 2012 at 3:53 PM

how is he gonna break into my home if my doors are locked? is this a movie where a pack of serbian gang is coming after my family?

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Wow. Where to start. Are you saying that the idea of someone kicking in your locked door is simply beyond your comprehension (even though this very thing happens thousands of times each year,) or are you stating that you live in some sort of a super-bunker in mom’s basement, the doors of which cannot be breached short of a direct hit from a depleted uranium round?

CaptFlood on December 26, 2012 at 4:01 PM

how is he gonna break into my home if my doors are locked? is this a movie where a pack of serbian gang is coming after my family?

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I’ll bet you just went all out trying to help those poor Nigerian princes who just needed some American help transfering their rightful inheritance out of the country, didn’t you?

dentarthurdent on December 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Point: Yes, we should make laws based on mights and maybes. That the only way laws are made.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Right on. You and your family should be locked up forever because you might kill someone.

Please pack accordingly.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I thought you at least had some integrity.

I said:

expanding gun free zones might not decrease shootings while decreasing them might not increase shootings.

You said:

Which means you’re arguing for the sake of arguing and advocating ever more governmental restrictions based on “might”, “possibly”, “perhaps” and “maybe”.

We are obviously talking about the effects of a law. We enact laws based on the effect they might have. They might have then intended effect or they might not.

Either you already know I’m right, or your too confused to see it. Either way, it’s a shame.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 4:14 PM

expanding gun free zones might not decrease shootings while decreasing them might not increase shootings.
segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 4:14 PM

How about we try a law this way then – increasing gun free zones might have caused an increase in shootings, so decreasing gun free zones might decrease shootings.

dentarthurdent on December 26, 2012 at 4:18 PM

expanding gun free zones might not decrease shootings while decreasing them might not increase shootings.
segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 4:14 PM

How about we try a law this way then – increasing gun free zones might have caused an increase in shootings, so decreasing gun free zones might decrease shootings.

dentarthurdent on December 26, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Go look up the list of mass shootings in this country. Going all the way back to 1982 – not a single school mass shooting until after the 1995 Gun Free School Zone Law was passed.
Gun Free School Zones kill kids!!

dentarthurdent on December 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM

We enact laws based on the effect they might have. They might have then intended effect or they might not.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Once again, what laws could have prevented the 9/11 attacks? I asjed you upstream and you never answered.

your too confused to see it.

OK, I see.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Do you feel that background checks are a punishment to law-abiding citizens?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:03 PM

If I am law-abiding why should I need a background check for gun ownership which is a constitutional right. I carried secret and top secret security clearances in the military that should be sufficient proof I am reliable w/o the added burden of further checks. What you really are saying is you don’t think law-abiding citizens are actually law-abiding.

chemman on December 26, 2012 at 3:04 PM

1. If you are law-abiding, that is fine. But you have to prove it. Sadly in this day and age simply saying “I am law-abiding”.

2. Gun ownership is a constitutional right, but as I told your dim debate “opponent”, it’s also a privilege. For example, you would need to get a hunting license should you wish to hunt in a National or State Forest. And you would be required in order to get said license to take gun safety training courses.

Likewise, your right to Adult Beverages was restored when the Constitution was amended to end Prohibition. Yet you still have to prove via a background check (photo ID) that you are old enough to legally purchase and consume said beverages.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 5:09 PM

chemman on December 26, 2012 at 3:04 PM

1. If you are law-abiding, that is fine. But you have to prove it. Sadly in this day and age simply saying “I am law-abiding” cannot be considered proof that you are.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 5:24 PM

1. If you are law-abiding, that is fine. But you have to prove it. Sadly in this day and age simply saying “I am law-abiding”.

2. Gun ownership is a constitutional right, but as I told your dim debate “opponent”, it’s also a privilege. For example, you would need to get a hunting license should you wish to hunt in a National or State Forest. And you would be required in order to get said license to take gun safety training courses.

Likewise, your right to Adult Beverages was restored when the Constitution was amended to end Prohibition. Yet you still have to prove via a background check (photo ID) that you are old enough to legally purchase and consume said beverages.

Del Dolemonte

1. No, it is the role of the government to ‘prove’ anything. The phrase ‘guilty until proven innocent’ might ring a bell.

In terms of Federal regulations of firearms, the current system is unconstitutional but it is a compromise with which the majority of voters are comfortable, and one few courts are willing to disturb.

2. There is no definition of a privilege in our Constitution. It is called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges. A strict reading of allows no such distinctions.

Hunting licenses are for the most part state legislation.

Alcohol laws; see state legislation.

chimney sweep on December 26, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Mass shootings in Europe—Facts

Agence France-Presse
First Posted 03:27:00 04/10/2011

Filed Under: Europe, Armed conflict, Children, Schools, People, Curiosities

PARIS?Following are the worst mass shootings in Europe, after a gunman opened fire in a packed mall in The Netherlands Saturday, killing six people and wounding at least 10 others before shooting himself dead.

- September 24, 1995 – France

Sixteen people are killed and many injured in the southern French towns of Sollies-le-Pont and Cuers when a 17-year-old boy goes on a shooting rampage. He kills himself a few hours after the carnage.

- March 13, 1996 – Scotland

A deranged gun collector kills 16 children aged four to six and their teacher at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. He then kills himself.

- September 27, 2001 – Switzerland

A man bursts into the local assembly in the central Swiss town of Zug and opens fire, killing 14 and then turning the gun on himself.

- March 27, 2002 – France

Eight people are killed and 19 injured when a man opens fire on members of the municipal council of Nanterre, a region of Paris. He kills himself the next day while in police custody.

- April 26, 2002 – Germany

Sixteen people, including 12 teachers and two students, are gunned down at a school in Erfurt in eastern Germany by a 19-year-old former student, apparently in revenge for having been expelled, who then killed himself.

- October 15, 2002 – Italy

A recently divorced man shoots his ex-wife and her family and neighbours in the northern Italian city of Turin, leaving eight dead, before killing himself.

- November 7, 2007 – Finland

An 18-year-old man goes on a shooting rampage in a school in the southern Finnish town of Tuusula, killing eight people before shooting himself.

- September 23, 2008 – Finland

Eleven people, including the gunman, die in a massacre at a training school at Kauhajoki, Finland.

- March 11, 2009 – Germany

Nine pupils, three teachers and three passers-by are killed in a school shooting at Winnenden in southern Germany by a former pupil who then kills himself.

- June 2, 2010 – England

Twelve people are killed when a 52-year-old taxi driver goes on a shooting spree in the English region of Cumbria, before killing himself.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20110410-330320/Mass-shootings-in-EuropeFacts

This was published before the nut in Norway went on a rampage and killed 77.

toliver on December 26, 2012 at 5:39 PM

If only there was some way an individual disadvantaged by strength, weight, force of numbers could defend themselves and avoid becoming a victim of criminal attack. Some kind of “equalizer”, that would put a 110 lbs. old man on the same footing as 3 murderous thugs with ball bats. Some magical new technology that could allow a young lady to fend off a rapist. Something that could stop vicious attackers cold, and put a stop to their rampage. If only there were something like that.

Kenosha Kid on December 26, 2012 at 6:01 PM

If banning blunt objects would save just one child’s life, then I’m for it. And anybody who isn’t is a monster.

hepcat on December 26, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Like I was saying earlier, a point which the ignorant fools segaz and nonpartisan ignore…

Safer pint glasses are set to be introduced in British pubs to reduce the injuries caused by nearly 87,000 glass attacks each year.

87000 glass attacks. Ban glass. Amirite leftists?

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Alcohol laws; see state legislation.

chimney sweep on December 26, 2012 at 5:33 PM

But alcohol was initially made illegal by a Federal Constitutional Amendment, and was later made legal again by the repeal of said Amendment. So it is a Constitutional Right just as gun ownership is.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 6:25 PM

toliver on December 26, 2012 at 5:39 PM

So how will the libtards explain these away – since across all of Europe they have far stricter gun control laws than we do?

dentarthurdent on December 26, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Kenosha Kid on December 26, 2012 at 6:01 PM

I understand scientists are working feverishly to invent just such a thing. Perhaps we may have some such tool some day……

dentarthurdent on December 26, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Sometimes a little gun violence is good.
http://bigcountryhomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=558612

Tc0061 on December 26, 2012 at 7:32 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

So, you freely admit that you are partisan…which would make your nickname a blatant falsehood. An attempt, in fact, to deceive people with regard to your objectivity on any subject.

Solaratov on December 26, 2012 at 8:21 PM

The reduction in gun violence can also be attributed to a different factor. For those of you who are familiar with the book Freakonomics, there is a (hotly disputed, but quantitatively sound) statistical analysis that links the lowering of violence in the mid 90′s to the 20th year anniversary of Roe v Wade. The hypothesis is that the individuals who could have grown to be criminals because of their surroundings were aborted, thereby reducing their number in an adult population.

The authors of the study were careful to mention that their study was not condoning any specific social solution, merely correlating the reduction in gun violence to all the other potential reasons like increase in police force, prison sentences, etc.

peter_griffin on December 26, 2012 at 8:25 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

Making a “straw purchase” is already a federal offense. It is prohibited! How can it be more “limited” than that?

Solaratov on December 26, 2012 at 8:27 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

Maybe your boy in da white hizzle could take your advice and not encourage straw purchases by mexican narco-terrorists. The result of which is an ever growing body count.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Criminals in mass shootings tend to kill themselves. Criminals in more common shootings tend not to. That one difference could dictate how one deals with either situation.

Do you feel that just because people end up dead, they both should be dealt with the same way?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Why, yes. The perpetrator (bad guy) should be shot – again and again, until he ceases to be a threat.

Why would there be any difference in how you dealt with a shooter; just because one is trying to kill a large number of people and the other is only trying to kill one or two?

Solaratov on December 26, 2012 at 8:58 PM

I agree with ppl with most of these gun laws are abosolutely pointless…either ban all guns or don’t pretend to do anything about it.

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Sounds good.

No more gun laws.

Problem solved.

Go see if your mommy has your hot pockets ready for your snack.

Solaratov on December 26, 2012 at 9:01 PM

So, when a criminal breaks into your home and threans you and your family, what will you do?

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM

how is he gonna break into my home if my doors are locked? is this a movie where a pack of serbian gang is coming after my family?

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I LOLed! In fact, I ROFLed.

The poor, naive little fascist made me spit coffee all over the place.

Maybe he should put a sign on his door: “Gun free zone – but the door’s locked, so robbers go somewhere else.”

“Doors locked!!!” BWAHAHAhahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Solaratov on December 26, 2012 at 9:19 PM

how is he gonna break into my home if my doors are locked? is this a movie where a pack of serbian gang is coming after my family?

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

…this one walks around in public?…
they DO need to concentrate a little more on mental health in this country!

KOOLAID2 on December 26, 2012 at 9:27 PM

“pack of serbian gang”

Classic.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Yes, we should make laws based on mights and maybes. That the only way laws are made.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I’d sure like an example of a “might or maybe” law.

I don’t recall one, offhand.

Solaratov on December 26, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Statistics about crimes with or without guns are irrelevant to the issue of “gun control.”

Americans have the right to be armed (and have armed guards at their schools), period — regardless of any statistics. This is a matter of rights, not statistics.

Steve Stoddard on December 27, 2012 at 3:29 AM

The left–gleefully riding the great wave of the perfect Marxist storm–has come out of the closet and admitted their real goal all along was to deprive (confiscate) the good guys guns.

The truth is they lie (read Alinsky and Marx) and have lied for decades about their motive, but they cannot force in their real unacceptable agenda until they remove common folks guns.

They’ve never made any real federal attempt to take away the gazillions of illegal guns used daily in crime in our inner cities (The strong police action required might just cost them votes.)

They’ve used guns illegally in “fast and furious” Was it in order to get “gun control” this final obstacle to their real agenda being put into place.

Gun control to the left means one thing–people control! What is it they intend to do to us once our guns are gone (oh yeah-that also should be asked of those criminals)

Unfortunately, the seduced by tainted free candy from the dirty old government man, has a cost, people are far to eager to give up MY freedom to keep their freebies and corrupted lifestyles.

The left is no fool. They knew the war could only be won by taking down our morals,our culture, our families, and our churches.

Our nation, I fear, will be the first in history to voluntarily give up its freedom for the allure of oppressive government control (You don’t think it will continue being “nice” do you?)

Don L on December 27, 2012 at 5:30 AM

Don L on December 27, 2012 at 5:30 AM

.
Very well said, sir (or madam).

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Please, no one tell Piers Morgan about this, his medical plan doesn’t have unlimited psychological counseling.

Another Drew on December 27, 2012 at 1:52 PM

how is he gonna break into my home if my doors are locked? is this a movie where a pack of serbian gang is coming after my family?

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Wow. Where to start. Are you saying that the idea of someone kicking in your locked door is simply beyond your comprehension (even though this very thing happens thousands of times each year,) or are you stating that you live in some sort of a super-bunker in mom’s basement, the doors of which cannot be breached short of a direct hit from a depleted uranium round?

CaptFlood on December 26, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Funny stuff and I needed a good laugh after all the jibba jabba from communist tv on confiscating guns. :) My cousin would like to get one of nonpartisan’s famous locked door force fields for her house, since looters managed to get through her locked door and steal her expensive photography equipment.

Ibanez Lotus on December 27, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Statistics about crimes with or without guns are irrelevant to the issue of “gun control.”

Americans have the right to be armed (and have armed guards at their schools), period — regardless of any statistics. This is a matter of rights, not statistics.

Steve Stoddard on December 27, 2012 at 3:29 AM

Amen!
It get’s so tiring having to explain to friends why we have the 2nd amendment. Don’t they teach the history of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights anymore?

Ibanez Lotus on December 27, 2012 at 8:01 PM

So, when a criminal breaks into your home and threatens you and your family, what will you do?

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM

.
how is he gonna break into my home if my doors are locked? is this a movie where a pack of serbian gang is coming after my family?

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

.
Do you live inside a “Jehovah’s Witnesses Kingdom Hall”, with armored doors?

listens2glenn on December 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3