True or false: More Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than all US wars…
Posted by staff / February 10, 2013 GoogleTrue or false: More Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than all US wars combined.
Now watch someone say that if the 1,384,171 people had been carrying guns, they would not have been killed, so the solution is more guns…
Photo credit: PD-USGOV-MILITARY-NAVY
Google+: View post on Google+
False
True. I just did the research myself through records.
I gave up arguing with the gun fetishists… they come up with all kind of made up statistics and comparisons that it is simply ridiculous to start a gun control debate.
True.. But what's the point???
Seeing those death figures broken out in the article's tables is mind-numbing and really brings it home.
Isn't that in wars both sides carry guns? How come that so many people die in wars…
the come up with all sorts of statistics but no actual points as to why we shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
They may still have been killed… But they would have had the chance for self defense. Just sayin'.
+Hunter S because somebody with a gun is more likely to kill somebody… very simple
it's a trap
+Stefan Pahor don't you think that more and better weapons increases casualties?
Guy,
Do those numbers contain the "bad guys" that were killed in the progress of a crime? Do they contain those who committed suicide with a firearm?
Finally, please provide the number of people who thwarted a criminal attack using a firearm. If you do this you're post will have greater credibility.
Everyday, people are protecting themselves, their lived ones, and their property using their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. However, the main stream media refuses to give these stories the same coverage as it covers those stories of mad men committing crimes with firearms.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/
This is a fact claim on this statistic, and you can decide yourself who the “bad guys” are. I noticed that you mentioned the second amendment, and I just wanted to clarify something for you.
Do you know the second amendment by heart?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Notice that the first portion of the amendment is a clause. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”.
A militia means that the civil population supplements the established army. This is no longer true, we do not need a militia to keep our freedoms.
A clause is only ever used in the constitution twice, when something is intended to go out of play. This clause, being no longer true, annuls the second amendment.
People tend to not know this.
So please, do not use the second amendment in your defense of gun liberty.
They are going to replace guns with sling shots and practice marbles
+Panu Hassi I totally agree, give me a nuke and I can kill a million people in a second.
+Hunter S It doesn't make you curious that more people have died from guns than war?
Tell me how criminals are going to follow gun laws if we ban them? lol
we are much more civilized.
Ok I am going to defend the NRA and then blow them away. Guns don't kill, people do. Criminals and Insane people will still get guns, so we need to try to stop them from getting them. Now the logical part. How do we stop criminals and insane from getting guns? Permits, tracking and background checks. If you track where all the guns come from and go to you can try to stop the flow of illegal guns. Do real background checks and stop people from buying guns who should not have them. Last, if you require owners of guns to get permits for each gun, then when guns are lost or sold we can better track how they got into the hands of criminals. If you buy and sell a car you have to fill out forms to release liability and assume liability. So I agree that gun violence will never go down unless we decide to stop. But we need to change the minds of people about guns. We also cant continue doing what we have been doing (nothing).
You don’t mean “Gun Permit”, you mean “Gun Registration”.
A permit simply means you’re permitted to own it, carry it, hunt with it, conceal it, etc… but it doesn’t mean the gun make/model/serial-number gets put in any registry.
In many states, gun permits don’t record anything about the guns owned or purchased. It will simply state that John Doe is permitted to own pistols, or Marry Jane is permitted to carry a pistol concealed her person, or Uncle Thom is permitted to hunt deer this season.
A gun registry, like what we have in California for Pistols, will tie the purchase and ownership of a specific pistol to the purchaser, until it’s legally transferred, or reported stolen (and right now we’re not even required to report stolen weapons, yikes ! ! !).
Stefan, since when do criminal follow gun laws? The only thing you'd be doing would be taking away someone's right to defend themselves.
You do realize the 2nd amendment was put into place to protect us from those in charge in Washington?
Siempre los criminales se matan uno a otros
the right of killing human being doesn't exist in Europe.
Nor does it exist in the United States of America…
2nd Amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Hunter, are you a part of a militia? If you are, I assume that the leadership of the militia vetted you, perhaps even a background check. So you are part of a militia, had a background check, been trained to use a gun? If not why do you have a gun.
+Hunter S how many times did the American population use guns to protect themselves from Washington? How many times instead a kid killed himself in a domestic gun accident? How many time a man that was considered normal grabbed his gun and went to kill people on the streets?
about the same as…
…1/100th of each time a woman was rapped.
…1/44th of each time a kid was killed crossing the freeway illegally.
…1/1000th of each time that a person was beaten, strangled, or stabbed to death.
Can it be that it's not just guns but gun culture ?
In Europe guns have a "for hunting and target practice (sports and fun)" image rather than a "self-defence" one, as the latter is so very unlikely. This is what many Americans seem to see differently,
the NRA is always talking self-defence. Counterproductive ?
What about my right not to own a gun and to be free from gun violence??
+Hunter S Not ban them.
This is the closest evidence/line of reasoning I've seen so far that shows that tighter gun control could be a good thing.
This argument is probably anti-gun's best line of reasoning for implementing even stricter gun control laws. Not a reason to ban guns, however.
A better approach to reducing gun related deaths it to focus on general crime reduction methods, such as civic building, moral education, more law enforcement, etc.
+Guy Kawasaki I don't know that anyone's said the solution is more guns, I'd like you to point to an actual (not an internet troll) comment or argument that we need more lethal force running around, that doesn't have something to do with a white-supremacy group.
I know some have suggested that purely defensive non-lethal ranged weapons (such as tasers, batons, water turrets in schools, etc) measures could be implemented in schools in the instance that some non-law following crook does storm a classroom, but that's a far, far cry from claiming that we should arm our teachers with high capacity machine guns or something ridiculous like that.
I think pro-gun advocates are pretty consistent in their line of reasoning; they are only against outright bans, not more gun safety.
Not even in self defense?
+Jack Longchamps this is why in Europe the number of gun related deaths is much much smaller than in the USA. Not to talk that the diffusion of semi automatic guns in Europe is much smaller too.
I love guns. And Men.
only stupid people believe that having guns around makes one safer. if it was illegal for people to have handguns, almost no criminals would have them, as the vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals were stolen from people who bought them legally.
people in UK have rifles…no one is saying we cannot hunt, but handguns, and military-style firearms exist only to kill people. if the statistic was a lie, there would be the same number of gun-related deaths in UK, and there just are not.
" if it was illegal for people to have handguns, almost no criminals would have them"
Hahahahaha. omg.
+Sebastian Audet I think you missed when the NRA said teachers should be armed with guns. More guns. Ohio is trying to pass a law to have teachers get guns. We have guns in airplanes with pilots. Walmart sold out of certain guns. So there is definitely the message that more guns will solve the problem. The message in fact is that even more guns will eventually solve the problem. Its strange coming from the same groups that claims increased government spending cant get us out of the current financial crisis. So there is a message. Just not a good one.
a simple test in conceptual validity proves your article spam
/shrug
only 1% or less of all humans on earth in any given year die violent war deaths since Iran v Iraq
Stipulating guns walk for themselves and kill people via their very presence is also amazing…
This thread will go on for MILES and MILES and accomplish nothing.
So, type away! Hahahahahaha
You know, Guy, we get it. Guns = bad, no guns = good. Anyone with half a brain gets it. The very real problem people in your position seem to ignore is that guns aren't going anywhere. So rather than continue to spout "see, you're wrong and this is why," which doesn't actually change perception nor reality, we need to address this very complex issue in multiple steps cognizant of the fact that guns aren't going anywhere.
1. Secure likely and possible target rich locations. Simply put, we are going to have to guard, with police or private armed security, locations where mass casualties are a possible outcome of an armed attack. This is not debatable; not a single one of these acts has ever been prevented or mitigated by legislation, either existing or after the fact.
2. Eliminate all loopholes in current legislation. If any military grade weapon is outlawed, we can't allow grandfather clauses. Such a clause is the reason Nancy Lanza still legally owned that Bushmaster. Likewise, leaving functionally identical weapons untouched because they lack cosmetic, non-essential features that make them look scary. A semi-auto rifle chambered for 5.56mm NATO ball with no bayonette lug or pistol grip is just as effective as an AR-15 clone. The problem here is capacity and rate of fire, not how much it looks like something from Call of Duty.
3. While on that tangent, the red herring of mature video games contributing to this problem (despite multiple studies proving otherwise) is taking attention away from the real problem. Legislators banging that drum are pandering just as much as the ones in the NRA's pocket.
4. The 2nd Amendment needs a long hard look. Regardless of what court has said what about it, the bottom line is that grammatically, technically and plainly, it was written at a time when no standing Army was funded or mandated, and as such ensured that Congress didn't do something stupid like leave the country without men to protect it in short notice. We have currently 3 levels of well regulated militia: police departments, National Guard and a standing military of 1.5 to 2 million. Clearly, that takes care of the current wording of the amendment. If, in fact, we aim to protect the right of self-preservation by armed defense, than the 2nd Amendment needs to change to reflect that. Any first year English major can tell you that the 2nd Amendment, as it is written and applied today, is superfluous.
5. Real money & time has to be invested into researching the actual causes of gun violence in this country before any legislation further restricting legal gun ownership is enacted. The mere existence of firearms is not the issue here. There are very real causes to the violence that has plagued our nation for more than 50 years, and in those 50 years the numbe of studies still numbers in the single digits.
It's not as simple as "ban this" or "legislate that." It never has been. The position of power we've allowed lobbyists in this country would make Washington, Jefferson, et al want to nuke it all to hell & start over. It's time to attack the problem with reason, data, and circumspection. Anything else is reactionary and will never address the issue the way it needs to be.
+Jose Velazquez lolhater
+Rachelle Greene
"only stupid people" – you raise a very valid point about gun safety, however its not stupid to realize that guns in the hands of trained, concientious folks are the only way to ensure that, when a fight does break out, there is someone on both sides ready to 'fight for the cause'.
Only stupid people fail to recognize that being the only one without a gun in a fight for your life and liberty is detrimental.
+Jose Velazquez when jose cant take that i voted for the other guy and snaps when msnbc reality shatters ill have my gun for when he starts knifing in public… /buttknifer
Jose makes excellent points.
+Joo Kim I was busy trying to not get involved in the shoot-out, so I missed out on that factoid 😉
+Sebastian Audet I am not a firearm owner, but those I know who are would agree with you. If the State took up firearms training as an absolute requirement for gun ownership (gun ed., right along with driver ed.) I think you would see a substantial reduction in gun deaths. Knowing how to shoot, and just as importantly, when to shoot, should be mandatory skills.
+David Essex
Laugh all you want David, but in New Zealand where it is almost impossible to own a hand gun there are almost no crimes committed with them. There are some gun crimes but it is a very small percentage of the total, and shotguns and rifles are the weapons of choice, and also the easiest to buy. Banning hand guns has worked. Has it prevented 100% of of gun crime? No. Has it prevented 99% of hand gun crimes? Yes. I'll take the 1% risk over the 99% certainty.
This is not a very accurate fact… about 2/3 or more of all the deaths by guns are suicide. This shouldn't be counted. Only homicides.
Simple fact: people can't kill people with guns…if they don't have guns. Guns are the problem.
+Jose Velazquez I disagree with your conclusions about the second amendment. The right of the people to keep and bear arms assures that we can have a well regulated militia. I won't argue with considering the armed forces, the national guard and law enforcement as part of a well regulated militia but where do the members of those groups come from if it isn't the people of the country? Heaven help us if everyone in this country was as afraid of guns as many who have had absolutely no exposure to them.
More americans have been killed by death than all wars combined…
+Steve Hart they can still strangle eachother. 😉 let's take away their arms..
So what are the rates for knives, swords, clubs etc.. In Britain theres on average 6 murders a week with knives. At the end of the day guns are more about tyranny than murder. 99.9% of people never commit crimes with guns so everyone should get rid of their guns? So a certain portion of the populace insist on unprotected sex and contract all types of diseases so everyone else should stop having sex? I dont concern myself with New Zealand.
+Guy Kawasaki Unfortunately, it doesn't make me curious that more people have died from guns than war and it's not because I'm pro-2nd Amendment (aka "a gun nut") or that I'm callous about loss of life.
I'm a firm believer that we live in a relatively "free" society. That's what our country was originally built on. And in a "free" society there will be conflict because everyone is not forced to walk in lock step of each other. So, there will be violent conflict within a society where people have opposing views and diverse choices. This is a side effect of "freedom" of thought, voice, action, and movement.
Even, if we lived in a completely Fascist society, where the government only had possession of firearms, don't you think sharp knives, blunt objects (eg baseball bats, the most popular weapon according to the recent FBI stats), and volatile chemicals would become very popular for those with ill intent? Furthermore, how "free" do you think you'll continue to be when politicians with ill will are the only ones with the gun powder?
These points have been argued ad nauseum some 200 years ago by men who designed this country. All you have to do is read their writings to get a better understanding of their argument. Their arguments are very lucent and still relevant in today's high tech society. They didn't do these things because they thought tactical muskets looked "cool".
What I don't get is why do many foreign people have such concerns on whether or not United States Citizens have guns. Just because you don't have guns and you live in a Monarchy or Socialism don't mean everyone else has to also. If you don't like American Democracy then don't come over. I really think they need to worry about their own Country and maybe be glad we're picking each other off instead of invading and knocking on their door.
+Joo Kim I disagree that we can stop the wrong people from getting guns if we justy try harder. Please demonstrate how effective we have been at keeping the wrong people from getting illegal drugs. All we do is create new and more lucrative illegal business opportunities.
I also disagree with your second amendment interpretation but I've already posted on that. Sorry for not referencing your post.
Gun owners as a whole aren't real safe people. They may think they are, but they aren't.
+Eric Powell Do you think that the smartest politicians we have today can create laws that will be effective and relevant for 2213? I don't. Frankly, I don't think that they can create laws for 2014.
Do I think that politicians in 1776 were any smarter than the ones we have today? Nope.
By the way, info on your baseball bat analogy:
https://plus.google.com/112374836634096795698/posts/VZ9EJsWUdTY
Do not forget the 50 million or so that was never born in the same time, since Roe vs Wade…
+Thomas Jefferson Orwell Convicted felons, who are barred from gun ownership or even living in homes where guns are present, are also prohibited from serving in any military/LEO capacity. These "well regulated militias" all provide the firearms used in carrying out their duties. At no time is gun ownership transferred to the servicemember/LEO, neither are they required to provide their own firearms in service.
I don't have a problem at all with people having the proper tool for the job; pistol for self defense away from home, shotgun for protection in the home, bolt-action rifle or shotgun for hunting… There's no room at all for military grade/semi-auto weapons in that in this day and age…
+Guy Kawasaki Yes, and far more than 1,384,171 were killed by second hand smoke since 1968, not to mention tobacco overall.
Why the fetish with guns when tobacco kills far more?
Those killed by second hand smoke are much more innocent and much more worthy of being saved, compared to those killed by guns — the vast majority of gun deaths are either criminals or suicide.
First deal with the bigger problems where we know the solution, then you can go on to smaller ones.
All gun deaths are less than 2% of total preventable causes of death in the US. It's a tiny problem. There are many far larger problems that deserve our attention first.
+Joo Kim Mr Kim, you didn't blow away the NRA, you just blew away the 2nd Amendment.
Read it. It says the right to bear arms shall not be "infringed". As soon as you start tracking weapons, the next step is for an as yet domestically hostile government taking them from lawful citizens.
Oh you don't believe the government would ever do that? Pre 9/11, many never believed that we'd overtly use torture, enact the Patriot Act, NDAA, and other laws that destroy civil liberties. Hell, Gitmo is still open after President Obama promised to close it during his first term. I voted for him so that he would do away with all of these things.
Think about it this way. Giving up your uninfringed 2nd Amendment right is a mistake the citizenry can only make once. After that, you'll be a subject to the Emperor/King. Again read the history behind the Bill of Rights and WHY they fought to make it explicit in the Constitution when they didn't have to.
+Jose Velazquez I can guarantee you we will never go back to the 1800's. A ban on all semi could never be enforced and for any politician who promotes that is knowingly shooting themselves and the ban in the foot.
+Joo Kim This addresses your "Who is the militia?" question.
You are either misinformed or just intent on spreading misinformation. Here's the definition of "militia" I won't explain because I wont read because I want you to educate yourself … that liberty thing again.
US Code Title 10Subtitle A, Part I Chapter 13 (10 USC311)
"Militia Composition and Classes"
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Source
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7),Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a),Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)
+Steve Hall I do not disagree that it's difficult, hell seems impossible. But it is the solution we need, re-election be damned. In fact, career politicians are why we're in this mess. It wasn't a problem until it was little rich white kids dying (politically.) They could ignore it then. Now it HAS to be addressed.
+Jose Velazquez I suggest you read the writings of the Founders, the 2nd was never about hunting.
These men had just defeated the Global Super Power of thier day and the last thing they was thinking about was hunting.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
The Constitution is the RULE OF LAW!
Our rights are not to be taken without Force and then you will never win because these rights are not Ordained of Men but from a higher power and should be recognized.
Quit trying to get Congress and a Traitorous President to do your dirty work, and call for a change in the Constitution and see how far that gets you.
+Jack Longchamps You're making a broad stroked comment on Europe's view of guns for hunting and target practice.
Please look at how Switzerland, (yes the Swiss of all people!) view their guns. They have compulsory military duty and after leaving the military they stock their guns at home. They can mobilize an army within 24 to 48 hours if necessary.
+Hunter S To be fair I don't think that the second amendment was specifically addressing tyranny when it talks about the security of a free state. I think the founders were more worried about foreign and domestic attacks from groups outside the federal government. I think that those threats are as real today as they ever were and are far less likely to be considered no longer relevant. Tyrants today are a lot smarter than they used to be and the free expression of ideas is actually a far better weapon than guns on that front. The second amendment does still serve as a fall back plan though.
What I find funniest is that the number 1 thing said by the gun control side is either banning assault rifles (in reality a pretty useless but symbolic play) or tighter controls like background checks etc (shown to work). In short those of us on the "more control side" want more responsible ownership/stewardship of guns.
The one thing NOBODY has said is to take away the guns.
However the number one overwhelming response seemingly EVERYONE on the NRA side has said is "don't you dare try to take my guns"
NOBODY HAS EVEN SUGGESTED THAT!!! It is the mark of truly paranoid delusion to even infer that anyone has. Why do we keep trying to have a discussion about one thing and getting a totally different response.
I saw a good comparison that equated the NRA arguments with a bartender saying "with more drinks we will have less drunk people". I feel it is just as absurd a comment.
Jon Stewart was right on the mark. Lets attack guns the same way we attacked smoking and drunk driving 30 years ago. Change the mindset and change the level of personal responsibility.
We are not trying to take away your F'ING guns! (Unless you prove you can't be trusted with them!)
I'll tell you what, +Terry Martin , you tell me how these scenarios play out: A President somehow manages to turn the military on the public, how long does your AR-15 & 1000 rounds last against the brigade sent to get your neighborhood under control? Scenario 2, the military arrests the President that tried to turn them on the American people? That's right, in both scenarios your Red Dawn wet dream is renderred moot.
Hmmm car accidents account for almost double of the gun related deaths in U.S. so let's start there:
1) strict background check for anyone applying for a driving license. minimum driving age: 21 (to give you time to form a background to check )
2) ban on cars that can go faster than the average suburb speed limit.
and on the social side let us all start judging and watch suspiciously on everyone that drives a car because someone, somewhere, sometime has used a car to kill people.
Interresting…..The gun laws in germany and many other european states are very hard…..and we don't have so many killings with guns…..so think about it. Less guns ….less killed people….
I bet if every one that died had a autopsy we would be amazed how many died from alcohol .. how many die from drugs legal or nonlegal..i know two people killed by guns…
I know 12 from alcohol and five drugs
+Duane Donovan You can't compare New Zealand to the US. There geographies, demographics, and populations alone make it an apples to orange argument.
This would be like my saying there's no gun violence in the Antarctica because there are no guns.
You are not talking about a militia! You are talking about 300 million NON-REGULATED GUNS floating about.
This is the text, please read all of it…
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Where the f is the well regulated part of any of this?
+Jose Velazquez Lets look at it like this,
Its not about one person. There is about 160 million gun owners in the US, if 1% of them decide to return fire, thats 1.6 million people, how long will it take before your army is decimated with from Militia behind trees, houses etc to decimate your standing army or police. You will have a full on revolution that will be lost.
Still it doesn't change the fact you can not Legislate away a RIGHT and people will not stand for it.
This is not a place We want to go as a country when the numbers do not justify such an action and History proves time and time again you disarm the people and it leads to millions killed by the very same government that would say its for the Children.
I have guns ..compound bow.. and a crossbow..all do the same thing
+Chris Gillespie I suggest you read what a Militia is, it is every able bodied man from age to old age.
it is never a standing Government army.
We are the militia, not someone paid by the government to fight over there.
A great look at what a "militia" really is: http://backstoryradio.org/straight-shot-guns-in-america-rebroadcast/
Best look at Gun history in America so far.
What damn difference does it make how many have died from gun violence in the street or by war – the common factor here is the gun. The important thing to do is to have more gun control.
While the financial situation of the country gets worse every second, and the president blames "the rich", it is easy to see where we are heading. Mobs with proverbial pitchforks, riled up by divisive politicians who place blame on everyone but themselves, will eventually take what they believe is rightfully theirs. Those who work and save and are responsible for themselves will be attacked by those who are not. Good people with guns will repel these mobs. The violent left is a true fact of life. It will only get worse as the government runs out of money and the wards of the nanny state demand what doesn't exist.
Guy, I publicly challenge you, to share the answers to this question with your followers: How many people have met untimely deaths since 1968 because of: (Top causes of untimely death in the US)
1. Heart Disease
2. Cancer
3. Stroke
4. Chronic Lung Disease
5. Accidents
6. Alzheimer's
7. Diabetes
8. Influenza and Pneumonia
9. Nephritis/Kidney Disease
10. Blood Poisoning
11. Suicide
12. Liver Disease
13. Hypertension/Renal
14. Parkinson's Disease
15. Homicide
Yes, most homicides ARE perpetrated with ILLEGAL firearms, which would NOT be effected by any type of 2nd Amendment violating gun grab, which you seem hell bent on promoting. It's important to note that "Suicide deaths outnumber homicide deaths by five to three."
Suicide, like homicide, is an act of violence those seeking to limit gun ownership, tout as a justifiable reason. It should be noted the United States trails the developed world (46th ish) in suicides per-capita and that hanging is the most common form of suicide worldwide. Furthermore, most of the countries with higher suicide rates also have strict gun control laws!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods
http://facts.randomhistory.com/2009/07/15_suicide.html
And stop bringing up the bloody Swiss. They are irrelevant.
Irrelevant because they are well regulated! All the people with those guns are well trained and were part of the military.
It's not like you turn 18 in Geneva and go pick up your Sturmgewehr 90 and 100 rounds.
And in Switzerland the punishment for misusing a firearm is severe. So lets not count them. They would be highly offended to be counted as an example FOR the current gun situation in the us.
+Guy Kawasaki I can't argue with you that they were smarter back then or the guys today are smarter or less smart.
My point is that these guys back then actually "experienced" tyranny in its purist form from King George. He took their, property, rights, AND their guns to defend themselves when things really started to heat up. These guys actually bled in their front yards. They even killed some of their neighbors. We haven't experienced anything like that here since 1863. Nor have we experienced that kind of tyranny unless you're an immigrant from Castro's Cuba, Cambodia's Pol Pot regime, etc.
Again, we only have to make the mistake of giving the government too much power once. Guys in Washington know this. That's why every year since 9/11 we've been giving up our freedoms a little at a time. Mark my words, there will be a time in your old age when you look around and the rights you enjoy now, especially the digital ones, will be gone in the name of safety and security.
You know this comments section reads like a bunch of commonly known facts, taken completely out of their individual contexts.
There needs to be a manifesto on common sense, written jointly by both sides here. I see funny things being said by both sides here (very gruesome humor perhaps).
Everyone posting here (including the poster) has been wrong, in one way or another, we are all just too numbskulled to see the common sense of the other side. Everyone's been just as right (too).
Again I say… Who the F has said they want to take your guns away???
I agree with personal responsibly, everyone who has a gun should be held accountable for it/them. No more ops and no more crazy plea. If you do the crime with the gun then it should be 0 tolerance for it. No more excuses for why you committed that crime and that means even if you're a kid. No one is held accountable anymore. If you knife someone then you die by the knife if you shoot someone then you die by the gun, if you steal then your fingers get cut off. That will slow acts of violence down!
As far as a ban on all semi… it will boil down to another civil war again and the ban side would have to win before that will ever happen. We have too many honest/ accountable gun owners and Constitution upholders for that to ever happen.
"These men" held a valiant holding action until the French got around to coming here with their ships and troops.
Look, these are pretty one sided arguments. Gun ownership is a personal choice, but I am always leery of arguments that never examine gun ownership benefits but only see negatives. There are real downsides to gun ownership, but these statistics are misleading.
First, most gun related deaths are suicides (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25463844/ns/us_news-life/t/surprising-fact-half-gun-deaths-are-suicides/#.URgqIKVX3rE).
Homicides account for 40% of all gun deaths.
So, let's take the gun statistic cited in this CDC study (which lumps suicides, homicides and all other gun activity) which is 1,384,171.
Forty percent of that is 553,668.
This study covers 43 years, so that's 12,876 homicides a year. A really shocking statistic, no doubt. Those are truly horrific numbers.
However, annual incidents of guns used in defense are 162,000 per year (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/86-1.html).
Gun ownership is a choice. Accidents happen with gun owners and children. People are harmed with guns. People are also kept safe with guns. There are too few police to go around, and they cannot respond fast enough. Personal defense is a personal responsibility. No government is powerful or pervasive enough to guarantee personal safety. They can only provide a judicial system to sort out facts after something has happened.
I have my personal beliefs, but I respect those who differ. I, too, have friends who have lost children to gun accidents. But I'm not so blind that I can't see their positive uses.
Number of mass shootings stopped by an arm bystander?
Z E R O!
+Duane Donovan that's BS. You outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns! Please provide supporting evidence from the Federal government to support your claim.
+Scott Bourne actually Pearl, Mississippi, shooting stopped by assistant Vice Principal Joel Myrick after he got his .45 caliber from his car. (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20123633,00.html).
+Scott Bourne That's just the way statistics work. You will never know of potential mass shootings stopped by gun owners because they would never have been classified as mass shootings…
To me this is a matter of pragmatism. If you have an element capable of producing a serious impact on life of a large amount of people, in terms of expectancy or quality throughout time, than it should be removed. Clearly statistically that is what's happening.
I'm not from the USA but of course I am concerned for the people living there. The stats provided, show us at the very least, that civilians are dying in a non war zone, America, because of weapons that are typically used in combat areas. I'm all for security carrying a gun but I don't like the idea of paranoia and terrorism having one.
They were fun playing with in my teens and hunting with my father. But once I reached my twenties I realized how pointless they are.
We should ban cars and ladders.
+Eltjon Metko no, because it never happens, no matter what you call them.
there is no valid argument for individuals to have handguns, or any firearms other than rifles. spin it any way you want, we are the only industrialised nation to have them, and we are the only industrialised nation to have these sorts of deaths, period.
if "law-abiding" citizens did not have them to be stolen, criminals would not have them–period. nothing at all any of you sheeple can say negates that fact.
+Jason Honingford you make such a great argument…let's just make the dumbest argument possible!!!
let's see…knives kill people, so let's outlaw surgeons.
poisons kill people, so let's outlaw everything poisonous.
rocks kill people, so let's outlaw rocks.
wow, Jason, this is fun!!! men kill people, so let's outlaw men!!!
you are a moron, jason, and making such stupid arguments only makes you and the idiots like you look so very, very stupid.
+Steve Hall why do you gun-nuts always have to try to make analogies of completely unrelated things?
is it that you are too stupid to make a reasoned argument, or too lazy?
+Rachelle Greene "if "law-abiding" citizens did not have them to be stolen, criminals would not have them–period" Really!? Then what what do your call Fast & Furious? http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/18/cbs-news-fast-and-furious-gun-found-at-site-where-mexican-beauty-queen-killed/
+Rachelle Greene So what your saying is all these drug addicts are stealing law-abiding citizens drugs along with our guns?
+Rachelle Greene "let's see…knives kill people, so let's outlaw surgeons.
poisons kill people, so let's outlaw everything poisonous.
rocks kill people, so let's outlaw rocks.
wow, Jason, this is fun!!! men kill people, so let's outlaw men!!!
you are a moron, jason, and making such stupid arguments only makes you and the idiots like you look so very, very stupid."
I wouldn't be calling the kettle black.
+Rachelle Greene Here's one, just one valid argument to own a firearm. There are many but you just won't hear about it on CNN, MSNBC, etc.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/02/10/victim-shoots-assault-suspect-in-highland-ill/
+Steve Hall Posions don't usually kill several (or 50) at once. Neither do hammers or whatever the hell else Glenn Beck told ya'll to say this week.
+Betty Southerland April 19th, 1995, Oklahoma City, OK, Tim McVeigh took down a whole FBI headquarters that included a day care center full of children with nothing but industrial grade fertilizer.
That's one example of mass murder without firing a bullet. I can name several more if you like.
+Betty Southerland well not until Kool-aid is involved then its too late.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
many more examples if you bother to search. However the crucial thing is not how many mass shootings have they stopped but how many crimes have they stopped. 20-single homicides are just as worthy to be spared as 1 mass shooting with 20 deaths.
blocked
if +Guy Kawasaki has something important to say, i guess i'll see it in the news…
but i don't want to be pestered with your political views in G+
this isn't the place for it :/
+Eric Larson actually, it is, moron.
point of fact: if the criminals in nations where no such insanity as ours exists were killing people with guns, you mindless, blind death-worshippers might have even a tiny chance of making sense, but as they don't…none of you make any sense. you just don't.
if you were right, there would be millions dying from gunshots delivered by criminals, as the law-abiding would be mowed-down, without the legal right to own the guns necessary to fight back.
that is just not happening, and therefore, you are all WRONG; dead wrong. as wrong as anyone has ever been about anything, in the history of things about which to be wrong.
you are all wrong, every last thick, wilfully ignorant, hateful tool of the most dark evil that has ever plagued any human heart is just plain wrong.
+Eric Larson who says this isn't the place for Guy to share his views? YOU? You're nothing and nobody and have no right to try to shut down conversation just because you don't agree with it. I am sure Guy will somehow cope with one less right wing lemming trying to censor him. And it works both ways – YOU are blocked.
Honey, that's just what these types say when they don't have any more intellectual ammo…they run away and say "this isn't the place or time" Remember what the NRA said right after Sandy Hook? It's exactly the right time and place.
+Betty Southerland that is what they say, when thy've run out of nonsensical analogies, and illogical assertions.
What frightens me is if you put certain caveats against the 2nd amendment, what is stop them from putting certain caveats against, lets say our 1st amendment or any of our rights. It is a slippery slope.
If I have a gun, and your walking across the street, I going to stop the truck or car to get out to shoot you? Or am I just going to run you over? It's not the gun, it's the person. You may want to read about the off duty female officer. After the school shooting, a few days after, there was a robbery where the robber killed the store clerk. The robber then ran into a movie theater next door. Her was going to kill more people but the off duty police officer pulled her gun and shot him. Media helps make you side with what the government or what the papers owners want you to think. They never talked much about this hero, they chose to focus on the guy from the school killing. If they don't publish the school killing, the next guy won't try to out do the guy before him. If you did something wrong when you were a kid, you were fearful of the consequence. Maybe it was your dad smacking you with a belt. We had fear of authority. Now you get a time out, stuff taken away and no fear of anyone because if you hit a kid you go to jail. Everyone needs to toughen up. with the appropriate rules and guidance, anyone can carry a gun. You get proper training to drive a car, and yet people get killed by cars all the time. You all say because people get killed by guns, we should disarm everyone. So are you going to take away cars then? We don't carry guns, but we have 50 murders a year! Should we take away knives too then? Respect. No one has it anymore. Fear of authority. Gone. Media making jersey shore morons look like normal people in society, real house wives, or any other waste of life that is put in the publics eye for any reason is part of the problem. It teaches the younger generation that you can be a complete waste of skin and become rich and famous yet contribute nothing morally to society. Morality is what kills people, not guns.
I think if guns are outlawed its not going to make big impact on the killings by people who are plotting a murder. A killer will always find a way with another weapon. A weapon could be a baseball bat, a car would be easy kill, a knife or lets see some house hold chemicals from the store could make a very powerful chemical bomb. Even killings caused by spontaneous anger and rage can will still occur if guns are illegal but now they will be categorized in separate causes. Just Google stats on killings and murders in general and you”ll find there are just as many killings not by a gun if you include the ones by vehicle homicide, poison, knifes machetes, so forth and so on. And statistically speaking the number one or two thing that kills more people in America is Americas health care system and its malpractice doctors and hospitals. It kills more people than anything does every year look up the stats for yourself. Should they be illegal too. People kill people that will never change the method may change but desire will stay the same. We need to fix the people and the killing will stop.
+Mike Martin you're right and so many are either to blind or too stupid to see this.
Backpack anyone? The people who make the rules are fools!
When guns get outlawed I am going to build lasers, When lasers get outlawed, sonic weapons, and so and so on. We started with sticks and stones, now just a step away from protons and sound waves.
+Rick Taylor so, why then are we tho only nation on the planet with the statistics we have? how many people would be alive, i wonder if there had not been a gun in the house?
how many toddlers would be dead from the baseball bats left unattended? how many 4-year-olds would be dead from the cars left improperly locked up? how many children would have died from the chemical weapons we all keep?
oh wait…that's silly. children are killing each other and themselves with guns, not the nonexistent chemical weapons, and they do not drive cars they find in their parents' closets…that would be crazy.
if your position were valid, death statistics would be the same in the nations that do not allow for the same sort of gun ownership, and they are not the same. it is insane to suggest that all things being equal, guns in the homes of law-abiding citizens are a great idea: all things are not equal, and they never will be.
we who despise guns, and see no need for anyone to have them are in a lot more danger because of you, and that is the simple truth.
"More American fetuses have been killed since 2010, than soldiers in all US wars combined."
Hey, this game is easy!
Partical beams!
+Leibo Raibstein I wish there was a +10 button.
+Rogi Ocnorb i wish there was a logic button, or a button that would make all of the dangerously crazy people become mute, and incapable of communicating with the sane folk.
Well see the truth is that if everyone had guns then there wouldn't be as many kidnapping or homicides because the criminals would judge it as too risky. Unless the criminal is crazy and still robs a house and gets shot by the owner in the process or some other story along those lines deaths would be much lower
Well there you go, less people were killed in all the wars because both the sides had guns, there is your proof that if more people had been carrying guns less of them would have been killed. You cannot argue with your own data? Can you 🙂
That's gotta be false!!!
Mayan14
Remove the word "guns" and put in the word "cars", and you have a truth.
Keep posting this kind of nonsense, Guy. Sooner or later you'll learn why your position has no merit.
False, you're forgetting about the 6million Jews, Christians, handicapped, gay, and non aryians who were murdered because they were unable to defend themselves.
+Stefan Pahor
more likely to kill someone than what???? Your post makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying that the mere presence of a gun will influence a person in such a way as to make them into a murderer? This is demonstrably false. There are 300,000,000 firearms in the US and less than 10,000 murders with firearms every year. This means that 99.996% of guns are NOT used to commit a murder. Would you like to retract your statement now?
NRA" rsponse? Wonderful!
+Rachelle Greene
the simple truth is that you are NOT in a lot more danger because of someone owning a gun, unless you are involved in the criminal world. You can easily check the FBI statistics for yourself, but random murder of strangers is very rare. We also hear that you are more likely to be killed by someone you know – but the fact behind that saying is that it's only true if you are a criminal and another criminal kills you. The vast, vast majority of murder victims are criminals themselves, who are killed by other criminals, most of whom know each other.
The answer depends on whether "all US wars" includes the failed war on drugs and whether the "americans killed by guns since 1968" excludes the ones killed in US wars.
Based on +Guy Kawasaki 's original post, it appears that the US is really good at waging war and really bad at stopping crime. Was that what you were going for there, Guy?
+David Ragsdale No, I wanted to see what kind of people read my posts. I know the answer now.
Also, since I've started posting about gun control, my Klout score has risen, so I thank you for your comment.
SBD Dauntless from U.S. aircraft carrier about to finish off Japanese ship seen burning. America had a lot of these bombers on hand at the start of hostilities. These planes and their couragous crews made big battleships obsolete.
I will start this by saying I am a gun owner. I own handguns, rifles and shotguns. I have a license to collect "different" weapons as well. I have never been in the military or police. I have gone through the checks and balances. ATF checks, local sheriff, state police and local police department. I am an avid target shooter. I am for background checks on all purchases. If you have nothing to hide then your fine.
I find it slightly amusing that a pistol grip or a flash suppressor make a weapon classified in the assault weapon category. That is just stupid. For the masses that say a semiautomatic weapon should be illegal. Thats stupid as well. Any person who has spent time with any style of gun can almost be as fast and accurate with a pump action or bolt action weapon. JFK as an example. No conspiracy theorists please. To touch base on the numbers given here. Long story short. ..does this include gang activity, suicide, accidents and (as I call it) one time killers. The people who find their wife/husband in bed with someone else. If it does, I think it should be broken down into groups just so this can be laid to rest. Now where I live we went a whole 3 hours into the new year before the first shooting. Gang related of course. I do carry. I do not do it to make me feel like a man or to feel safe. I do not walk around paranoid either. I carry for the just in case. Half the people in my neighborhood no not know I carry or even own guns. I never pulled it out for defense and I hope I dont have to. I have taken self defense classes as well. So I think that I have done all of correct things for me to own weapons. I think that people should stop comparing the United States of America to European countries. If you like the way that country works, move. Do people screw up with guns? Hell yes. Should all of the law abiding citizens pay the price, no. To the people who say there is no need for certain types of weapons. You are allowed to have your opinion. I think there is no need for high performance cars. Speed kills and to my knowledge most of the States have speed limits around 65. I see no need for cars that can go 150+ . I'm not going around saying they need to give them up and be banned. America tried to outlaw booze. Prohibition to the history buffs. See how well that worked. I think more booze was sold during that time then when it was legal. You need to educate yourself and the younger generation. My nephews are young. Too young to hold any weapons. But they know what to do if they see one. I.e. dont touch and get an adult. I also have meet some people who were deathly afraid of guns for one reason or another. Some of them now target shoot with my family. That is the end of my soap box ranting. Thanks for reading.
I really hope you're seeing that there is a wide cross-section of Americans who are law-abiding gun owners. In many other areas of the political arena, I would be considered fairly "progressive," but I see the ability to own a gun as a basic civil right that I'm not willing to give up lightly.
+Rachelle Greene Let me guess: the "sane folk" are the ones who agree with you. Marginalizing those you don't agree with never makes you right; just FYI.
If you don't get the point of my comment, I will not help you. If you think I'm lying, do your own research; I will not help you.
+David Ragsdale Who is asking you to give up your gun?
Hmmmm… it says SINCE 1968 and the Vietnam war raged on for another 7 years with the fall of Saigon…. but I just can't believe that's true. WWI saw over 30 million casualities and WWII roughly around 60 million with most estimates. Consider even just half of those as military deaths that puts you at around perhaps 45 million deaths. Figure in guns vs other causes. I can't believe that statement is true.
The second amendment protects all other rights that we have. Slowly the progresives, socialist, marxist what ever you want to call them have been eroding our rights. After guns, comes the freedom of speech and thought. Even now, those of us who think contray to "the norm" are vilified. We have laws in place simply enforce those laws.
+Leibo Raibstein But that logic does work for the +Guy Kawasaki of the world, the logic only works when it can support their personal agenda.
+Guy Kawasaki "Also, since I've started posting about gun control, my Klout score has risen, so I thank you for your comment. " I believe that +Guy Kawasaki is simply an antagonist hell bent on increasing his ranking.
+Guy Kawasaki, face it. this has nothing to do with guns. fact is that the U.S. is the most violent nation in the world.
I love the fact that Guy is still ignoring the RWNJs … it's like they just don't exist :-p
“Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.” – H.G Wells
+Guy Kawasaki The legislature of the State of California, for one. They are now trying to expand the definition of "assault weapon" to include any semi-automatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine. I have an old WW2 M1 Carbine – it was specifically exempted under existing Assault Weapon laws in California. I would wager a M1 carbine has not been used in 10 crimes in the last decade in California, but now they want to ban it just because the time is ripe to "take the next step." When the time is ripe again they will try to ban handguns. The next time, pump action shotguns. This same scenario has been played out in other countries. The proposed Federal ban is a classic example of opportunity trumping reality. The types of guns they are trying to ban are used in very, very few crimes, but the opportunity has presented itself to go after them, so after them they go.
+David Ragsdale at this rate, the slingshot doesn't have much of a future. You know, David used one to kill Goliath…
To the Captain Obvious folks saying me and my guns aren't going to do a lot against tanks and drones.
You really don't understand the concepts involved.
While I abhor what's going on in So Cal, currently, It does show how one person can put the fear of God into TPB.
+Guy Kawasaki troll, irrelevant image, etc…
The logical leap you take here is kindergarten.
Are you using this argument in support of banning guns? If so, that's really stupid. It can just as easily be turned in an argument in support of gun freedoms. Got logic?
Nice try trolling tonight…the far-left usually sends a better troll than you.
+Atlas Blinked if this thread had a dumbest comment award, I'd vote for yours.
+Yitzchak Baruch Fishel True story: when I was about 12, my dad and I were camping at a local lake. I was on a creek bank shooting at tree trunks with a slingshot. The ranger came by and confiscated by slingshot, saying it was considered a firearm under park rules. He could have just asked me not to shoot it, and I would have put it away for the duration, but he felt compelled to exercise his authority over me and take it away. I've been a little leery of people in authority telling me, "trust us, we just want to take these awful assault weapons, then you can keep everything else you have" ever since that time.
+David Ragsdale yeah California… the state where pretty much everything is illegal.
I find that mind blowing. Americans hate themselves THAT much?
+David Ragsdale, incredible. Thanks for sharing.
Goofy logic. And while we are at it, let's ban cars, too. Oh, yes, and alcohol. Let's, um, really kill the nascent death by texting problem by banning texting. And red meat.
Really, Mark "Maxi" Shields is sad propagandist.
+Guy Kawasaki why do we have the second amendment, anyway? Do you know? Do you care? No, I don't think you do.
+David LeBlanc That information isn't on MSNBC or HuffPo, so he'll be unable to answer.
Population control,not implimented consciously,present however.
Somebody count all the people then the square footage of the earth's surface.then stand all the people up and see how much space is still available.
Compare those numbers to the genocide figures from the top 10 genocides in the 20th and 21st centuries. Mao Ze-Dong's empire alone killed between 49-78million people making that figure seem almost meaningless.
It's not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue. Simple as that.
False
+Joo Kim Under U.S. code, we are (pretty much) all members of the
militia. Do not confuse "militia" with military or National Guard.
+AJ Schroeder I actually think it's a lot more complicated than that. The root causes of violence are very complex. The causal factors that lead to typical antisocial criminal behavior are like very different than the factors that lead to the mass killing episodes, such as we saw at Newtown. I think the mass killers are motivated by our society's fascination with fame – they want to "one-up" the last guy they saw on the news, so couple a murder spree with their suicide. +Guy Kawasaki mentioned a Klout score above. I had to go look that up, but it is apparently some measure of social media influence. This is where our culture has brought us – grasping for validation, either through the highest Klout score or the highest body count…
IMO, 1.5 million isn't an accurate number, or maybe just not an alarming number when you consider there are over 8 billion people on the planet. Census says 6 billionish but there's a lot of folks that aren't on a Census. … 1,500,000 vs 8,000,000,000 = Trivial.
+Peter Dalmaris I don't think Americans hate themselves. I personally am a proud American and I love my country. Although with that being said, I do NOT love my government. There is a big difference.
People have been killing people long before assault rifles. If someone is going to go on a killing spree they don't need a gun. Might as well ban knives, bats, and and cars. Pretty sure drunk drivers have killed more people than guns. None of these things kill unless a person is behind them. Blame the true culprit… The person who wields them.
Always remember guns do NOT kill people. Go get a gun, set it down in front of you and see if anything bad happens. The fact is that PEOPLE kill people and it has been that way since humans first walked the earth. No amount of gun laws will ever change that fact.
I will support any form of gun legislation only if the same criteria are also applied to voting, immigration & taxpayer funded benefits.
This obsession with prevention is a waste of time and resources. Crimes prevention cannot be guaranteed. We can only protect, deter, and limit foreseebility.
Only people who have no measurable experience with guns think that people who own guns are more likely to kill. Law abiding gun owners understand the risks and responsibilities they bear.
Only people with no respect for guns would choose to act irresponsibly, or think that such actions are normal and common.
Very false
True, false, or irrelevant?
+1 for irrelevant lol
I think the fatality rate of guns is probably greater than cancer or aides. It is the greatest cause of dis-ease of the twenty first century. Both the lethal weapons and the projectiles are the cause. Limiting their effect is the only cure!
I'm getting really tired of the gun control debate, both pro and anti. I'm going hunting with my Dad next weekend and I really hope I get the opportunity to hunt with my son someday. Time will tell.
True
Alexander Hamilton's explanation for the need of an armed citizenry and the intent of the 2nd Amendment, "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." And if the 2nd Amendment has no veracity then what in the Constitution does. We would no longer be a nation of laws. The Constitution is the foundation for our laws. No foundation then no viable laws and anarchy. The other side of tyranny our founding fathers sought to avoid as well, as they watched the chaos of the French revolution.
So by reviewing the stats, the highest rate of gun related deaths were black males. Were they keeping track of whether or not the gun related deaths were from legally obtained firearms and illegally obtained firearms?
During the 1980's and 1990's there was a significant increase in gang related shootings. Most of which were in inner city settings. Most of which were committed with illegally obtained firearms.
Penalizing law abiding citizens for criminal acts committed by criminals is stupid. The tried prohibition with alcohol and it didn't work. Prohibition only made more criminals.
The real issue that needs to be discuss is the poor, or even lack of treatment of mental health issues in the USA. We need better screening and treatment for people with mental health issues.
There are lies, damn lies and then there are statics, which people can massage into whatever they wish to push forward.
Stop playing games with statistics and start looking at the actual cause of the problem and find real solutions!
And +Guy Kawasaki I think our founding fathers were ridiculously smarter than most politicians of today. They created in the Constitution something never seen before and entirely brilliant. Do not lump these men in with these career politicians. That does not jibe with history. It disrespects the work they did creating the greatest nation in history while maintaining individual freedom.
True! And they never learn
America will always fail to see the bigger picture.
please see my blog and tell how it is
http://www.99localsearch.com
guns, dont kill people, people kill people, its the ammunition in the gun that kills. To fix that, keep your guns just have rubber bullets as ammo. better yet learn to use the SAI.
Would not surprise me. They are gun crazy.
+Guy Kawasaki just remind all the people who say their guns are to protect them from Washington that Washington is better armed and manned no contest to amateur hour.
Don't know exact stats but a large number of people are killed with their own gun.
If military style weapons were outlawed for the public United States gun manufacturers would not make them in the large numbers they do today.
+Shaun Loney Are you talking about suicide? Isn't that a personal choice? What's your point?
Problem is the other guy will always have a bigger gun…so where does it end
+Guy Kawasaki , where are you getting this statistic? It looks like you may be including the number of "bad guys" killed by the police and Americans killed in self defense by citizens in public and at home. I normally agree with you, and have followed you for a while. I do not agree with your "Now watch someone say" comment. I want to carry a loaded firearm on me, responsibly and concealed so that you, or anyone else who doesn't understand is saved from the stress of seeing it. I want to carry it to protect myself and anyone around me if at all possible. I don't carry because I'm scared. I carry because I am prepared. My rights should not be taken from me because of someone else's crime. Please leave me, and the millions of other responsible, gun owning, law abiding citizens alone.
"We should note that these figures refer to all gun-fire related deaths — not just homicides, but also suicides and accidental deaths. In 2011, about one-quarter of firearm-related deaths were homicides, according to FBI and CDC data. Using total firearm-related deaths makes the case against guns more dramatic than just using homicides alone."
Keywords: "one-quarter" and "more dramatic"
+Jared Hendrickson He states quite clearly where he gets his statistic, it's in the link below. In the linked article they also reveal their sources.
If you take one of those sources:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
you can specify exactly which numbers you want to see, and you can calculate that the deaths by "Legal Intervention" are in fact less than 1 percent of the total gun related deaths.
It doesn't tally self defense deaths.
Thank you, +Philbert De Zwart
420 never kills ^_^,this all seems more like a distraction if ask me. Why isn't other issues more important? This only blew up, because of the required media attention. If all of you truly care, then do something. Otherwise, it's just like a pointless argument. Robots is the answer, because….it solves everything. Trolling or not, it's more positive than what all you are doing. Have any of you gave up alcohol? Or tried stop texting while driving? Thing is, I see hipocracy more of the issue here. Everything else is just more bumps in the road waiting to be filled in. We have had all different types of weapons for how long? Fact is, it's always going to be around, criminality is about the mindset. Everything else is just the tool. Take away one tool, and another will present itself. I think we should be focusing on so much more. This fight will be a tug-a-war, and in a fight there are no winners. No offensive intended, but grow up, and Guy, you should learn to answer people, and not be super bias. I know young adults with better attitudes, more intelligence, and way better gun safety, than most of you.
False
Very unscientific. 1968 world population 3.5 B today 7 B
more people= more people to kill other people. (also the world wide trend for percentage of battlefield deaths has been on an exponential downward trend since recorded history) How does all this spin if you looked at it as a percentage of world population?
Here:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/
So we can conclude that clubs are more deadly than rifles OR shotguns??? NO!!!! well yes but NO! This is propaganda. What can be concluded from this tidbit of information? The only thing I get is we have too many people doing bad things to other people.
I hate the way numbers and statistics are used to make a specific point when you can not conclude from the data given that the statistic is in any way meaningful. I can say in all truthfulness that Americans killed by gunfire since 1968 is at least four times greater than all the people killed by atomic bombs ever. But it doesn't really mean anything.
Let me be clear I am not arguing for or against guns or gun control. I think we should concentrate on fixing people. There's your problem. Solve violence and you don't have any issues.
You can ban assault rifles, you can ban hand guns, you can ban knives and dynamite. If one is determined enough to kill they will find a way. Fix the people part of the equation and the rest melts away. And for all our sake [Mr Internets] please stop spreading propaganda in the guise of statistics. If you want to use numbers then by all means state the numbers but don't draw conclusions where there isn't enough stated data to do so and don't try to make comparisons where clearly a comparison can not be made.
Gawd I hate the internet.
+John Westra Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts.
More people are murdered without guns than with. Violent crime is higher in places with stricter gun laws.
Bottom line is that its a people issue, and I'm saying all of this as friend sits in icu, who was shot 8 times by his wife who had a metal breakdown. He was sleeping, she could have just as easily stabbed him or hit him with a hammer. It was her not the him that did it.
gosh, if only the current laws like the NCIS system worked, the wack job in Aurora wouldn't have got a gun. He was seeing a psychiatrist, and on medication but got a gun anyway from a gun store because his background was clear. Lets start enforcing the laws we have now before we enact new ones. Otherwise, we are delusional.
The only true answer to whether a gun can solve a problem is a question itself. "If you shoot everyone on the planet would the problem still exist?"
Beautiful thoughts , Sir !!! How long time mankind or human being solve the problems with a war ?
This is a matter of controlling others, usually by out-of-control censors.
Savonarola said: "books are bad", and mobs burned books.
more babies have been killed in America by abortion between 1973 and 2008 than in all U.S. wars combined. but nobody likes to talk about that. 😉
It must be difficult to work out exactly how many Americans died in all the wars fought since your independence. For instance how many from both sides died at Gettysburg or in the wilderness in the civil war?
"these figures refer to all gun-fire related deaths — not just homicides, but also suicides and accidental deaths. In 2011, about one-quarter of firearm-related deaths were homicides, according to FBI and CDC data. Using total firearm-related deaths makes the case against guns more dramatic than just using homicides alone." (from the post)
"these figures refer to all gun-fire related deaths — not just homicides, but also suicides and accidental deaths. In 2011, about one-quarter of firearm-related deaths were homicides, according to FBI and CDC data. Using total firearm-related deaths makes the case against guns more dramatic than just using homicides alone." (from the post)
Irrelevant factoid.
Irrelevant factoid.
Actually, +Jon Carnes, apparently people like to talk about abortion all the freaking time — as they have at least three times in this thread — including when it's not the topic.
Notice, please, that we're living within a system in which those guns are legal, and those wars are legal, and those abortions are legal.
Actually, +Jon Carnes, apparently people like to talk about abortion all the freaking time — as they have at least three times in this thread — including when it's not the topic.
Notice, please, that we're living within a system in which those guns are legal, and those wars are legal, and those abortions are legal.
Point?
Point?
Just liberal hypocracy. Like the cartoon with the lib standing on the top of a hill holding a sign that reads: "Guns kill!!" …while he's surrounded by graves of aborted babies! Yeah, they won't talk abut that. I honestly believe it is some sort of mental illness. Guilt complex disorder maybe. :/
Just liberal hypocracy. Like the cartoon with the lib standing on the top of a hill holding a sign that reads: "Guns kill!!" …while he's surrounded by graves of aborted babies! Yeah, they won't talk abut that. I honestly believe it is some sort of mental illness. Guilt complex disorder maybe. :/
I wonder if the foetus tastes hypocrisy.
I wonder too if they have any opinions on guns.
Throw them in to the oceans.You will all be much happier.
More British soldiers have been killed by American soldiers than by the Taliban.
False
Totaly disagree. If there are no guns people still kill people with something else, knife, baseball bat, poison, etc. It about our Morals & values.
Fair point Matthew, but still takes longer and is harder to do with those other things. Also, when fighting everything, except for poison, the victims of the attacks stand a chance. With guns, death is pretty certain.
People will always believe owning a gun will protect them and keep them safe… Little do you know if someone shoots you first… You have no chance to defend yourself with your own gun…
There have been more humans who lived since the invention of guns than ever lived in all of eternity before we had them. Statistics are funny like that.
+Jamie McCleod Unless they miss; shooting people is a lot different from targets and even from hunting animals. Unless you've got some form of combat time your body will usually shake and make you miss.
A comparison of apples and oranges: in war generally you are killed by someone else intentionally. The "killed by gunfire" stat quoted includes EVERYTHING, suicides, accidents, justifiable homicide, deaths by police action….
How about checking some other stats like: drug related deaths, vehicle deaths? If you play with stats enough you can make them prove anything if you fail to follow scientific method and compare apples to apples. The important take away here is "according to LIBERAL PBS commentator", so he manipulated the data to promote his own political agenda? Shocking!!!!
A comparison of apples and oranges: in war generally you are killed by someone else intentionally. The "killed by gunfire" stat quoted includes EVERYTHING, suicides, accidents, justifiable homicide, deaths by police action….
How about checking some other stats like: drug related deaths, vehicle deaths? If you play with stats enough you can make them prove anything if you fail to follow scientific method and compare apples to apples. The important take away here is "according to LIBERAL PBS commentator", so he manipulated the data to promote his own political agenda? Shocking!!!!
+Joseph Ormerod The irrelevance of this statistic is made even more clear by the fact that the US suicide rate is not higher than in the average European country that so often are used as comparisons. Despite that suicidal US persons do have access to guns. If the "Guns kill people" logic was right it would have to be higher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
+Joseph Ormerod The irrelevance of this statistic is made even more clear by the fact that the US suicide rate is not higher than in the average European country that so often are used as comparisons. Despite that suicidal US persons do have access to guns. If the "Guns kill people" logic was right it would have to be higher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
+Steve Hall the reason so many foreigners care is that we all are morbidly fascinated with the bizarre seemingly freakishly paranoid obsession that americans have in feeling they MUST have SOOO MANY guns. there are loads of countries where you can have guns. and people do not feel the need to own them.
Another convenient anti-gun stat that is presented in a complete vaccum. Feel free to consume, sheeple.
1. Again, who has said we are going to try to take your guns?
2. If the govt is so facist and horrible… name one freedom you had 5 years ago that you do not have now.
3. When you say "ok, if we take away the guns then people will use bats and bows and god knows what else… actually, no they wont. main reason is that a gun allows you to kill and maintain a disconnected stance. you do not need to overpower a person, you just need to point and pull! and for the record… WE HAVE THE DATA! compare deaths/murders in other countries with far less guns and the same amount of (if not more) alcohol, video games, movies etc. look at japan and the samurai culture… do we soo lots of mass "swordings?" no we do not. gun provides an opportunity to do far more damage far more quickly at the drop of a hat.
and the part of all of this that really pisses me off is the inference that if you are FOR gun control you have either never fired a weapon or are some sort of peace loving hippie!
A. what the F does it matter? the wackjob next door with an AR15 under his bed loaded with armor piercing rounds can kill my kids with his wayward rounds just as easily as the VW bus that just backfired at 2 in the am. your grotesque interpretations of the second amendment and paranoid delusions that cause you to have that WMM (weapon of Mass Murder) loaded with military grade armaments seriously infringe on my right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness! and by the way, that is not an amendment, that is original text of the declaration of independence. so keep in mind that this is not just about you!
B. for the record, i have fired a weapon. i am ex special forces, i have fired lots of weapons and have fired them both in practice and for real. i have seen the pink mist. and all of that did nothing more to me that ensure that i feel even stronger about the things that ARE BEING TALKED ABOUT IN THE DEBATE… better background checks, restricting military grade hardware, closing loopholes.
i will admit that an assault weapons ban is largely symbolic. and who knows, maybe they just brought it up in order to push other points harder and back off on that one. i will also recognize that pistols cause far more deaths than rifles of any type. but i will also say that i feel pistols should be highly highly restricted. there is no need for one. you want to defend your house… get a shotgun and load it with buckshot. no need to aim well, lots of spray and very few walls will it go through.
how about just changing the discourse. how about if you are a responsible gun owner looking at what is really being debated. all us on the other side want is more responsible ownership. how about NRA approved standards on how to store weapons SECURELY in a home. how about better background checks which the NRA was FIRMLY for before they were against. how about having to show your firearms license in order to buy ammo. (i have to show my scuba license in order to get air in my tank for gods sake…) how about severe punishments if your gun goes missing and is then used in a crime.
how about some ownership of the problem? how about an acceptance that there is a problem and curing things will take lots of different solutions.
+Chris Gillespie says:
1. Again, who has said we are going to try to take your guns? —
Dianne Feinstein says it:
Comrade Dianne Feinstein: I would have confiscated your guns if I had the votes in the Senate
Tyrants are smarter than they used to be. They are smart enough to claim to recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But at the same time there were four supreme court justices that voted against the decision in the District of Columbia v Heller case. Do you really think the constitutional scholar in the President sides with the five justices who voted for the decision? Do you think those backing all sorts of new gun gontrol laws agree with the decision? Who said they are going to try to take our guns? You might as well ask "who said they are going to try to rob/mug/tax/deceive us?"
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
Will Rogers
More people in the US have been killed in automobile accidents since 1968 than in wars or by guns. Over 1.9 Million according to wikipedia. Shall we ban large automobiles and put more restrictions on drivers? Certainly we need to do better and help address gun violence. However, we also should be careful how we use data and statistics to emotionally charge people into action.
+David Ragsdale so your paranoid fear that the "guv'ment" is cummin fer yer gunz… is based on a comment from dianne feinstein about the debate in the 90's… not anything in the last 18 years or so. and not anything REALISTIC in any proposal that might make it before congress.
good lord man, up the Xanax dosage!
and as far as your comments on automobile accidents +Rich Porter every year the CDC and the NHTSA put forward new recommendations and rules to make driving safer. and automobile manufacturers constantly work on ways to make driving safer. and if you are found driving unsafely you are ticketed and fined or have your car taken away.
and lets talk about cars… you need a license. you take a written and a practical test to ensure that you can safely use it. there are laws on how you use it. you must hold insurance so that if you OR YOUR CAR UNDER THE CONTROL OF SOMEBODY ELSE causes damage, there is sufficient insurance. and every 5-10 years you must retest to to ensure you still can drive! and oh yeah, if your car is not in proper working condition, the govt can force you to fix it… shall i go on???
how about we all agree that guns should be held at the same standard as a car. i think we ALL would be fine with that.
+Rich Porter Interestingly if you look the the high risk groups, there is a huge overlap between death caused with cars and guns: males between 16 and 24 (or a similar bracket depending on the study). Might make a lot of sense to look at that a bit more and add some mitigating measures without overreacting. – If that is possible. (Easy for an old guy like me to say 😉
+Chris Gillespie Do you have any evidence that Dianne Feinstein has changed her position from that stated in the video? I didn't think so.
Ah, the tired old car analogy.
We license drivers because, when one operates a car, one must know hundreds of rules of the road and must negotiate roadways filled with other drivers. The license is to ensure a minimum level of expertise in operating the car on the roads (you don't need a license if you only drive on private property). You have to know what a broken yellow line means, what a flashing red light means, which lane to turn into, etc. etc. etc. By contrast, operating a firearm requires knowledge of the 4 rules of gun safety. That's four rules. Follow them and nothing bad will happen with your gun. Quite a difference in scale there. Your comparison might work if the normal method of using a gun was to have everyone stand around in a field and shoot at each other.
Liability insurance will not cover criminal acts, so what was your point on insurance again? If it involves an accident, a person's normal homeowner's liability policy would apply. No, you don't want to take our guns, you just want to inflict economic hardship on gun owners to the point that they can't afford to own them. No back door confiscation there….
As far as registration of cars, again, if the car is not driven on public roads, it doesn't need to be registered. When a car is operated on roads, it is using a publicly owned resource (the road) and registration is the method of collecting taxes to pay for those roads. A gun, used in its normal, law-abiding manner, does not use public resources in this way, so registration doesn't make any sense.
Please post your next tired old argument so I can refute it.
Wow hows this one for "Klout" +Guy Kawasaki your biggest one yet! Here's to hoping the next one is about clubbing aborted baby seals! That will send you threw the roof!!!!
+Guy Kawasaki a funny thing happened the other day at work. a coworker who is a republican (and the odd part is that he is a native bay area person who is a life long republican… go figure) anyways, we were talking about guns etc… and he agreed that tighter rules for ownership should not be a concern for anybody who is a responsible gun owner, he also agreed in penalties if your gun is stolen and used in a crime and a handful of other fairly sane suggestions. he even agreed that if you are a registered gun owner with more than ___X number of guns, that the police should be able to visit your house once every few years to validate that you still have your guns and that they are properly stored. (although he agreed that there was no way something like that would ever fly)
here is the funny part though…
two people with different political views had a sane conversation about gun control with neither jumping to a ridiculous extreme. it was like we were int he twilight zone or something!
Not very well stated. Most of those killed in wars were killed with guns.
From the politifact article:
"We should note that these figures refer to all gun-fire related deaths — not just homicides, but also suicides and accidental deaths. In 2011, about one-quarter of firearm-related deaths were homicides, according to FBI and CDC data. Using total firearm-related deaths makes the case against guns more dramatic than just using homicides alone."
Wouldn't you think that percentage would be roughly equivalent for the other years? If so, multiply by .25 and that's more what you're really dealing with (346,042). Not even entirely then because it doesn't list out justified homicide by defending yourself, etc. It didn't list out suicides vs accidents. The percentage of suicides would still be suicides. I wonder how many people have jumped off bridges since 1968. Should we ban bridges? Statistics is fun. You can make them say anything with proper motivation.
I know I'm not changing anyone's mind on this. It's just like religion and politics. Just do a little research of your own and know what the numbers mean and where they come from instead of taking them for granted.
+Chris Gillespie
"neither jumping to a ridiculous extreme" – in other words, as long as someone agrees with your ridiculously extreme views, they are sane and reasonable!
I think having the police infringing upon my 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches is a ridiculous, extreme position.
I think holding a gun owner criminally liable for the actions of a criminal who breaks the law several times in entering a house, stealing a gun, then using that gun, is a ridiculous, extreme position. If someone steals your car and then gets in a fatal accident, should you be charged with manslaughter?
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they are supporting tighter rules for ownership for people who aren't criminals. What in the world do you think that will accomplish?
None of these proposals are aimed at stopping criminal behavior. Why is that? It's because gun control advocates aren't really interested in addressing criminal violence, they just want to ban guns. That bears repeating: all of the proposals being put forth in Washington and Sacramento are just aimed at banning guns, they are not directed at criminal acts.
Just seeing these old fighters makes me want to watch papi bowington!
+victor encinas Those are not fighters. Dive bombers.
+Chris Gillespie Just because he is a Republican and agrees with you does not make it right. Calling yourself a Republican does not make you a conservative nor a Constitutionalist. And He happens to be very wrong. I do not think the police should have the right to come in my house unless they have probable cause or a warrant. No conservative or Constitutionalist in their right mind would be okay with that scenario. That would be a violation of another amendment the 4th Amendment. This is the domino effect of eroding the Constitution. Destroy one and the totality becomes in question and therefore falls.
+Mariana Farinha "If you have an element capable of producing a serious impact on life of a large amount of people, in terms of expectancy or quality throughout time, than it should be removed." I agree! Let's start with Obama and the rest of the Liberals in Congress, Hollywood, etc!