world

Thousands rally against stricter gun control in U.S.

57 Comments
By WILL WEISSERT

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments
Login to comment

5 people were also shot at gun shows in the US today. These people don't represent the wider array of views on the issue that constitutes the majority of people in the US. Reporting like this just encourages the view outside the US that the entire place is full of dumb rednecks.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Thousands in Japan are scheduled to rally against stricter deadly knife registration. Americans in the western states say, "Bring a bunch and bring a lunch." It means there is not enough power to remove their weapons without a deadly battle. It may be difficult for the Japanese to understand, but the Czechs understand what happens when the weapons are surrendered to the government. There is no possible way to keep deadly weapons - knife or gun - from the mentally diseased person. They will find them, steal them, and use them.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Gun legislation 'an outrage against humanity'? Idiots like this belong in zoos.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

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.

Why don't the US just go strictly as the above admendment and have all gun owner must be enlisted as a militia member with strict enterance exam and training sessions that is regulated under the state government. Anyone that does not pass an annual exam to certify being a militia member are banned from owning a weapon. This way all abiding citizens with a weapon will be regulated and all illegal owners are subject of illegal possession of a weapon.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Why don't the US just go strictly as the above admendment and have all gun owner must be enlisted as a militia member with strict enterance exam and training sessions that is regulated under the state government.

I am for that. You want to own a military-type rifle for the purpose of fighting tyranny? Welcome to the Guard.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

about 2,000 people turned out for a chilly rally, where they chanted “We the People,” ‘‘USA,” and “Freedom.” Many carried American flags and “Don’t Tread On Me” banners.

And I'm sure they think that's a compelling argument.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The thing that so angers me, and I think so angers you, is that this president is using children as a human shield to advance a very liberal agenda that will do nothing to protect them.

Well, yeah - except for trying to make more difficult to obtain weapons which could mow down two dozen of them in less than two minutes.

The "conservative agenda" seems to make these weapons more readily available.

Representative Steve Toth. please continue to the end of where your logic leads: Mandatory gun training and possession from kindergarten, the day kids step out the door.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

" You want to own a military-type rifle for the purpose of fighting tyranny? Welcome to the Guard."

Be careful what you ask for. To be armed, as a militia, would obviously mean having actual military grade weapons. It's important to accurately define the terms.

" Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in terms of using an intermediate cartridge power that is between light machine guns firing full power cartridges, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a lower powered pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Fully automatic fire refers to an ability for a rifle to fire continuously until the magazine is empty and no rounds remain; "burst-capable" fire refers to an ability of a rifle to fire a small yet fixed multiple number of rounds with but one press of the trigger; in contrast, semi-automatic refers to an ability to fire but one round per press of a trigger. The presence of selective fire modes on assault rifles permits more efficient use of rounds to be fired for specific needs, versus having but a single mode of operation, such as fully automatic, thereby conserving ammunition while maximizing on-target accuracy and effectiveness.

Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47, [2] M16 rifle, QBZ-95, INSAS, Heckler & Koch G36, and Enfield SA80."

Currently, those are prohibited to civilians. The current hoopla from the gun-control crowd is obfuscated by inaccurate, deceptive definitions which lump common semi-auto non-military weapons with the COSMETICALLY similar(thus "scary-looking" ) but operationally different actual military versions. Your local police, is case you are unaware, actually very often have military versions, actual battlefield weapons, which are used against the citizenry.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Idiots like this belong in zoos.

Actually, that might be too much "fun" for them as they'd think thy have the right to hunt in there.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

" except for trying to make more difficult to obtain weapons which could mow down two dozen of them in less than two minutes"

Again, more conveniently erroneous information. When did Lanza off himself? He continued until First Responders arrived on scene.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The current hoopla from the gun-control crowd is obfuscated by inaccurate, deceptive definitions which lump common semi-auto non-military weapons with the COSMETICALLY similar(thus "scary-looking" ) but operationally different actual military versions.

The main difference between the two weapons is that the former fires continuously as long as the trigger is pulled, while the latter requires separate pulls. I work closely with photographers, and they are able to pull off six or seven frames a second - and that is the average rate for semi-automatic weapons.

So thanks for your weaponpalooza intro, Herve, but really, the difference between firing rate is so slight that it doesn't matter.

How gun proponents emphasize gun types so strongly is clearly a sign that they are missing the whole picture entirely

3 ( +4 / -1 )

these protesters must be communists... true patriots wouldn't protest like this - arrest them NOW....

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Glad I don't live in the States.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Kinda of a sparse turn-out for a national type protest. My guess is that many folks were out shopping and didn't have time for this as President Obama has finally found a way to stimulate the economy that doesn't involve a tax-payer bail-out, or a tax payer funded energy green loan.

Ammo Shortages Widespread, Gun Stocks Surge As Obama Pushes For Tighter Controls

"Sales have been off the charts, and it has been that way at every gun store," Brandy Liss, the owner of the Arms Room in League City, Texas, said. "We have no inventory left." The store normally displays between 30 and 40 different kinds of 9 mm pistols, but by last Monday her supply of that size gun had dwindled to one, Liss said.

Other gun stores contacted by The Huffington Post on Wednesday repeated the same thing: They were swamped with customers as gun enthusiasts continue to stock up on weapons and ammunition. Some stores used their websites and answering machines to make out-of-stock announcements. "It’s just a zoo in here," said Henry Parro, the owner of Parro’s Gun Shop in Waterbury, Vt., on Wednesday afternoon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/ammo-shortages-gun-stocks-obama-controls_n_2489763.html

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I don't delve into the right-wing shadow of the Internet, but its reverberation make itself known on sites such as this. A common claim making waves now is that "it is the Second Amendment that guarantees the First," and that "It is because of guns that America is so polite."

These claims are a slap in the face not only to Americans but to humanity at large: It is that the threat of violence is the root of democracy. Any quick glance at the demise of eastern Europe will display how little importance gun ownership is to the demise of a despised regime; the lack of such actions in democratic nations displays how democracy differs. Ironically, gun nuts argue against democratic results by threatening the very actions that brought down undemocratic regimes - and they do so while chanting patriotism.

Shame on them. A dollop of logic would do them well.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"So thanks for your weaponpalooza intro, Herve, but really, the difference between firing rate is so slight that it doesn't matter."

Oh, but it does matter a great deal, particularly when it comes to agenda-driven politicians drawing up legislation.

" The main difference between the two weapons is that the former fires continuously as long as the trigger is pulled, while the latter requires separate pulls."

That is A difference, and a big one.

And what is the firing rate of the automatic-selectable version(M16A1, A2, and A3 have operational differences)? In fact:(A2 variant)

12–15 rounds/min sustained, 45–60 rounds/min semi-automatic, 700–950 rounds/min cyclic

One of the problematic features is that they are known for jamming when fired rapidly or continuously.

Maybe your photographers friends have quick trigger-fingers, but on which semi-auto weapons did you/they conduct this research and with what timing equipment? X-Box?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

" How gun proponents emphasize gun types so strongly is clearly a sign that they are missing the whole picture entirely"

And to the gun opponents, the whole picture of the future is one where only Police and Military are permitted legal weapons of any sort, leaving the citizens unable to effectively defend themselves(like sheep) against any aggressor including home invaders(criminals who disregard laws against violent crimes). That's a dystopian view IMO.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I kind of get the feeling that the home invasion angle is pretty much the standard fantasy for some gun supporters.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I kind of get the feeling that the home invasion angle is pretty much the standard fantasy for some gun supporters.

Oklahoma mom calling 911 asks if shooting an intruder is allowed

Home alone with her 3-month-old son, Sarah Dawn McKinley of Blanchard, Oklahoma, said she decided to make a stand when two men tried to break into her home on New Year's Eve.

McKinley, who had been widowed less than a week before, placed a couch in front of one door and went to the bedroom and put a bottle in her baby's mouth before calling 911, she said on HLN's "Dr. Drew" on Wednesday.

A 911 operator calmly spoke with McKinley, who asked if it was permissible to shoot an intruder, officials said.

"I've got two guns in my hand. Is it OK to shoot him if he comes in this door?" asked McKinley, 18.

"Well, you have to do whatever you can do to protect yourself," dispatcher Diane Graham responded. "I can't tell you that you can do that, but you do what you have to do to protect your baby."

In the end, McKinley fired a 12-gauge shotgun and killed Justin Shane Martin after he entered her residence, according to a Blanchard Police Department affidavit filed in court Wednesday. Martin was armed with a knife, authorities said.

"You have to make a choice, you or him. I chose my son over him," McKinley told CNN Oklahoma City affiliate KWTV.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-04/justice/justice_oklahoma-intruder-shooting_1_affidavit-walters-ill-husband?_s=PM:JUSTICE

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"A common claim making waves now is that "it is the Second Amendment that guarantees the First," and that "It is because of guns that America is so polite."

These claims are a slap in the face not only to Americans but to humanity at large: It is that the threat of violence is the root of democracy."

First of all, Laguna, America is NOT polite, by and large, and particularly not in the urban(democrat - controlled ) areas EXCEPT in states with less strict gun laws and CCW. Stats prove that.

Secondly, you deeply misunderstand the role of guns in private life. There's an excellent piece I read a while back: why the gun is civilization.

It's gone around the web, and I think this link is the actual author: http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/ Just give it a read.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

" the home invasion angle is pretty much the standard fantasy", until you experience it in reality. Have you?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I believe that guns should be owned for self defense.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

the laws will make it more difficult to have easy mass shootings, but obviously it won't stop them nor any other shootings. The only thing that will end this illness is to start handing in the guns, and be kind to your neighbours.

I'm Canadian and I have no idea why Americans are so scared of themselves. Fear feeds more fear. Long time coming to switch that around with peace creating peace and just talking things out.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

frank07

Unfortunately under the 2nd amendment it does not refer the usage of guns for self defence it states the ownership of guns should be allowed for a REGULATED militia to the security of a free state. Those are the very words within the US Constitution therefore the usage of guns should be regulated just for that purpose and only for that purpose as written within the CONSTITUTION.

Some people are demanding rights but forgetting that with rights there follows obligations. The State has the right to mandate certain obligations that is certified within the very constitiution that gaurantees rights to the citizens. The State only needs to demand those obligations to be fulfilled.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

sf2k said "I'm Canadian and I have no idea why Americans are so scared of themselves. Fear feeds more fear. Long time coming to switch that around with peace creating peace and just talking things out."

I have been wondering the same thing. What are Americans so scared of?? If someone owns a gun it immediately produces fear....fear of using it.....fear of them using it on me....so maybe I better get one! Soon you end up with a fearful society. Fear breeds fear. I have never seen a gun in my 67 years I never want to see one I don't expect to see one!! I never wish to use one

3 ( +3 / -0 )

" Those are the very words within the US Constitution therefore the usage of guns should be regulated just for that purpose and only for that purpose as written within the CONSTITUTION."

Try reading D.C. vs Heller. The SCOTUS finding would be enlightening on the subject of right to self-defense.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Bunch of dinosaurs realising that the clock has started ticking down towards their eventual extinction. These protesters are the sad relics of a past when you sorted your arguments with a six shooter, leaving one of you dead in the middle of a dusty street.

In the 21st century there really is no need for people to behave like they still live in the 1880s and 1890s, when the Law of the West meant the man who was quickest on the draw. Neither is it the 1770s when colonial rebels fought against their masters for independence, and so had a need for armed militia.

The Army and National Guard can protect you from enemies. America hasn't been invaded in centuries... why do you need an AR15?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Herve Nmn L'Eisa

Unfortunately the Supreme court has not mentioned anyparts of the foregoing remark which is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" that becomes the basis for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" therfore the right is based on the condition forgoing remarks BUT at the moment there are no bearing stating what a "well regulated militia" is which only the individual states can discribe. The Supreme court has never stated that it was an indivudual right. My statement is the same as dissenting opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens. This dissent was also joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

So the case you state is not unequivocal and is matter of debate that can be and should be overturned. In other word it's just another interpretation.

The sticking point within the D.C. vs Heller case is that it does not mention at all the defenition of what "Well Regulated" means and itself requires further consideration.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

" So the case you state is not unequivocal and is matter of debate…"

Few or no cases that reach SCOTUS are unequivocal,,in case you haven't noticed, and surely none will be unequivocally decided here. Self-defense is human instinct.

Neither you nor I will convince the other.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

In Oklahoma you can actually shoot them thru the door -and in many Western states you can actually shoot someone that is on your property (land). Each state is different and if you are on the road in the country you really need to be careful if you decide to walk to a residence to get help (cell-phone may not work).

This type of media is typical of the difference between Japanese media and the growing grass-roots US (non-mainstream) media. In the US the private (GOV) Federal Reserve paid for media (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX ,CNN) is dying and people are going to the internet or internet TV box (Roku etc).

You see this new grass-roots movement in Japan (Fukushima disaster, Nuclear plant issues) but it acts slower and is smaller. In the US it is tens of millions = enough that they must be taken seriously and now the main-street media must deal with them (Pierce Morgan). Goto YouTube and search "Sandy Hook" = look at all those stories.

I did not even know that people were going to gun petition their State Capitols this weekend. (that's how fast it is now)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm Canadian and I have no idea why Americans are so scared of themselves.

Because of a critical mass of people in America who believe that the terror of someone breaking in and doing anything more than taking one of their material possessions is a commonplace threat. And they'll do everything they can to talk up that threat. For some of them, it's a black, Muslim, non-American, socialist, communist president who scares them with every move he makes. (Imagine that: He actually issued some presidential directives to executive branch agencies, and the right-wingnut-o-sphere reacted like Chicken Little.)

For them, it is no longer "In God we trust," but "In Guns we trust."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Too many scared people in America. These people must live their lives afraid. Its hilarious.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

sailwind: Oklahoma mom calling 911 asks if shooting an intruder is allowed

Shall I post an article about a kid shooting himself or a friend after finding a gun at home? Would that make us even?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Herve Nmn L'Eisa: " the home invasion angle is pretty much the standard fantasy", until you experience it in reality. Have you?

Hey did you hear the story about the guy in Florida who had a concealed carry permit? He keeps his gun in his pocket and went to a restaurant with his wife. He reached into his pocket and the gun went off and shot his wife in the leg.

Thank God men like this are protecting me from tyranny.

http://www.pitch.com/fatcity/archives/2013/01/08/man-shoots-wife-in-the-leg-over-dinner-at-the-longbranch-steakhouse

2 ( +2 / -0 )

On topic: the turn out was lower than many pro- advocates hoped, which may have been due to the fact that fears of highly restrictive new gun control measures have not actually materialized. A number of the Biden-Obama proposals seem destined as bargaining chips - this is politics, after all. It is interesting to note that in US media coverage, gun related stories have significantly tapered off.

On the second amendment, I would like to remind everyone (everyone) that parsing a historical text outside its context is anachronistic and frequently (always?) leads to incorrect interpretation. Arguers on both sides of the fence often focus on individual verbiage as bullworks for their particular agenda without adequate understanding of the formation of the document; this is unfortunate.

For example, the word "regulated" - this is commonly held to mean legally defined, controlled, enforced, and it meant that in the 18th century too, but in the context of arms, it also referred to military "regulars": troops issued with a standardized inventory of military equipment, typically state sponsored. An inventory that must include the full range of military hardware.

Militia is another term frequently interpreted outside the historical context. In 18th century America, the militia was a potentiality, not necessarily a standing organization. In order to call up a militia, it was necessary that all citizens (male) be potential militia members. This meant all citizens were "the militia" whether they were on a roster of militia, or not. In order for such a militia to be effective, it is necessary that all potential members - all citizens - have effective equipment on hand.

Of course, it can be debated whether that's appropriate to contemporary American society, or not, but that's a different argument. A constitution, any constitution, and its parts are inviolable as they stand but they are not immutable.

There's a lot of argument about what the Founders meant, but most of it is argument irrespective of the copious, exiting documentation that very clearly defines, in the Founders' own words, exactly what they meant. We, today, are completely free to disagree and change things, but misrepresenting what was actually said/meant due to ignorance or intent isn't actually germane.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The real purpose of universal gun background checks is to further harass the law abiding and will do absolutely nothing to reduce any type of gun-related crime at all.

U.S. liberals reason if they can't get the 2nd amendment eliminated, they will dismantle it very slowly so the majority of the people won't notice.

The universal backgroung check will probably be passed and liberals will be high-fiving themselves about it. But in the real world regarding gun crime, absolutely nothing will change. The only good thing coming out of this is the democrats will lose their Senate majority in the mid-terms next year.

RR

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

With 6 Democrat seats in heavy red states up for grabs in the next election I doubt many proposals are even going to see the light of day, let along gather the votes needed to pass.

sf2k

The only thing that will end this illness is to start handing in the guns, and be kind to your neighbours.

I'm Canadian and I have no idea why Americans are so scared of themselves.

Then as a Canadian you would know that your own country has done nothing of the sort. Aside from a few minor differences the gun laws are fairly similar with most weapons classified as prohibited, the permits are easy to get. They have a more robust registry and storage requirements but beyond that there aren't to many glaring differences. Getting a PAL for an AR-15 is likewise fairly easy and if you live in Alberta you can probably get one for restricted weapons without much difficulty. While I haven't gone through the process myself my friends in Windsor tell me it's actually easier than getting a destructive device permit in the US.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

" the home invasion angle is pretty much the standard fantasy", until you experience it in reality. Have you?

Herve, you make us smile. Thank you! I was trying to recall the last home invasion that occurred and was successfully repelled by ordinary Joe Bloggs and his mates, but I couldn't quite remember the occassion - could you enlighten me? Most grateful.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The real purpose of universal gun background checks is to further harass the law abiding and will do absolutely nothing to reduce any type of gun-related crime at all.

That is not true at all, the NRA has been for universal background checks for example, the only issue they have is how is the private citizen who does not have access to the NICS suppose to do a background check? I mean you can go to the local court room and get a criminal history but you can't get their mental/medical health record.

It is important to note that what these people are protesting against is the Assault weapon ban, they are not against the universal background check system or even requiring background checks be done when purchasing ammo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unfortunately under the 2nd amendment it does not refer the usage of guns for self defence it states the ownership of guns should be allowed for a REGULATED militia to the security of a free state.

in it's decision on the case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller the Supreme Court held that;

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The Supreme court has never stated that it was an indivudual right.

See above.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Hey did you hear the story about the guy in Florida who had a concealed carry permit?

Why yes I did. He's 71 years old and he's on video tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoLGC-n4i4

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Glad to make you smile. It improves one's face value.

" I was trying to recall the last home invasion that occurred and was successfully repelled by ordinary Joe Bloggs and his mates, but I couldn't quite remember the occassion - could you enlighten me? Most grateful."

I guess you haven't been paying attention, then. It's understandable since the media underreports or downplays those instances. One very recent case was near Atlanta where the mother with her two kids did so, and the attacker is now in custody with several non-lethal gunshot wounds. The sheriff(senior law enforcement in unincorporated areas) publicly stated at a news conference that she had absolutely done the right thing. There are more, if you look, but don't expect the biased media to headline those instances as they run counter to the media's leftist agenda.

Go ahead, smile, make my day.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

And even why they protested to keep their guns a kid was gunning 5 people down with a gun. The sad sick irony is these pro gun nutters will try to deflect the blame and say its not the guns, and this is the exact reason to have more ins in circulation.

Sadly the US is getting more dangerous to visit and live. Maybe other nations should start issuing travel warning for people visiting the US

0 ( +2 / -2 )

" Sadly the US is getting more dangerous to visit and live."

False. It's easy to verify that, overall, violent crime in US has been in decline since it peaked in the 80's, but the fearmongering media leads to believe otherwise.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If gun control is so effective, can anyone explain why so many people get murdered by guns in Chicago?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And while you are talking stats according to your FBI violent crime rates in 1960 were 160.9 per 100,000 people, in 1991 it was 758.2 per 100,000 and in 2011 it was 386.3 per 100,000 so while it is coming down from its peak it is still much higher than 50 years ago

Well what do you want? Do you want crime to go down or up? Crime overall is going down on average of around 2-5% a year, that is the normal rate of crime decrease all around the world including the UK, Canada and Australia. It has been cut in half by 50% since 1993, it is still going down at a decent rate, if crime wasn't going down but instead flat lined or was increasing I would say you have a point but it isn't and it is decreasing at a rate of 2-5%. Your not going to get faster decreases in crime than that.

Yeah it may be dropping but there was still over 14000 murders in the US, compared to Canada (554) , Australia (229), UK (722)

Ya I'm also willing to bet if you did the number of people killed by tobacco compared to the number killed by tobacco in Canada, Australia and the UK it would also be lower in those nations as well as Alcohol.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sadly the US is getting more dangerous to visit and live. Maybe other nations should start issuing travel warning for people visiting the US

So a decrease in crime including homicides means it is getting more dangerous?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yeah it may be dropping

And that is the whole point, it is dropping.

but there was still over 14000 murders in the US

Actually there was less than 12,700 not 14,000.

2011 it was 386.3 per 100,000 so while it is coming down from its peak it is still much higher than 50 years ago.....

Well what do you want? 50% reductions in 1 year? Average crime reductions are around 2-5% a year around the world. So basically in 18 years the US has nearly halved its violent crime rate per 100k while at the same time adding just over 50 million people to its population and adding more than 100 million firearms to its streets.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Noliving

Actually there was less than 12,700 not 14,000.

Yes you are correct, l was looking at previous years numbers.

Well what do you want? 50% reductions in 1 year? Average crime reductions are around 2-5% a year around the world. So basically in 18 years the US has nearly halved its violent crime rate per 100k while at the same time adding just over 50 million people to its population and adding more than 100 million firearms to its streets.

Lets see. Crime has reduced yes. I agree with that fact. However what about murders involving firearms. What have they done in the past 12 years? According to the very own site you posted (FBI yearly figures) in 2000 gun murders made up 65.6% of all weapons used in murders. In 2012 it made up 67.7%. So even though the crime rate has gone down the % of guns used in murders has actually increased.

So for all your bluster about crime going down which agreed it has n crime has increased as a %. Of course that is to be expected with an extra 100 million guns on the streets.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I guess you haven't been paying attention, then. It's understandable since the media underreports or downplays those instances. One very recent case was near Atlanta where the mother with her two kids did so, and the attacker is now in custody with several non-lethal gunshot wounds.

As I thought - not much, right?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I agree with that fact. However what about murders involving firearms. What have they done in the past 12 years? According to the very own site you posted (FBI yearly figures) in 2000 gun murders made up 65.6% of all weapons used in murders. In 2012 it made up 67.7%. So even though the crime rate has gone down the % of guns used in murders has actually increased.

Ya that is because Firearm homicides did not decrease as fast, just slightly slower. as the other weapon types. What your not telling though is that since 1993 the grand total number of firearm homicides has also been cut in half. You are also conviently leaving out that is the grand number of people shot and wounded with firearms has also been cut by nearly half as well.

Do you honestly think that because the percentage went up that it means the grand total of gun violence is also going up?

So for all your bluster about crime going down which agreed it has n crime has increased as a %. Of course that is to be expected with an extra 100 million guns on the streets.

So basically what your saying is that my bluster basically destroys your argument because my bluster about crime going down has always been about grant totals, I don't care about the percentage of a pie chart it makes up because what matters is the grand total.

2007 gun homicides made up 10,129 homicides

2008 gun homicides made up 9,528 homicides

2009 gun homicides made up 9,199 homicides

2010 gun homicides made up 8,874 homicides

2011 gun homicides made up 8.583 homicides

So yes gun homicides now make up an additional 2.1% of homicides on a pie chart but in my opinion the percentage of its share is basically irrelevant when the grand total is down just over 15%.

Your argument is like saying you have 100 homicides, 50 are being stabbed to death, 30 are strangled to death and then 20 are beaten to death and then the very next year you have 30 homicides, 25 that were stabbed to death, 5 strangled to death, and zero beaten to death and your grand total population increased by 5% and then claiming you didn't make any progress on the deaths caused by stabbings because the percentage of its share of murders went up.

Basically you are just grabbing at straws now with that argument.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Let me ask you this Outta here, what would you rather have:

Grand total going down but its share going slightly up

or

Grand total stay the same or going up but its share going down

Which would you rather have?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Noliving,

Ya that is because Firearm homicides did not decrease as fast, just slightly slower. as the other weapon types. What your not telling though is that since 1993 the grand total number of firearm homicides has also been cut in half. You are also conviently leaving out that is the grand number of people shot and wounded with firearms has also been cut by nearly half as well.

Listen I understand that talking to you NRA types about reducing the number of guns in society and that guns = death is like pulling teeth. You lot just cannot seem to be able to grasp the fact that your beloved guns cause all these issues. The fact is the % of crime committed with a gun is on the rise. The stats back this up yet you are still trying to argue it down. The fact also is there that almost every single week we have a mass killing in the US and the majority are committed with guns. The fact remains that every single day 25 people are murdered in the US with a gun. That does not count suicides or people shot by law enforcement.

The fact is many countries have instigated gun control and it works well. In my country there has not been a mass killing since the laws where introduced. Our gun crime is a fraction of yours dispute the fact that there are more guns here now than prior to the ban. So banning certain types of weapons works.

I still fail to understand why joe citizen needs or can even justify having a hand gun, let alone a semi auto anything. I think the most telling stat about your country is if you own a gun you are 4 times more likely to be shot during a crime. That to me says it all and its shoots down any argument that guns save lives.

Now I understand its your country and you do as you please in regards to your laws but if l lived in the US and thankfully l don't I would not like to have a worse murder rate than some 3 rd world nations. And honestly its only a matter of time before all these shooting start affecting things like tourism. It will only take one event, it is already being mentioned in the media that by visiting the US as a tourist you are 14 times more likely to be shot than if you visit other nations. Now that's an achievement to be proud of.

I realise from your comments that this will not sink in. So I will let you go play with your gun and this can be the end of our discussion

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Noliving

Let me ask you this Outta here, what would you rather have: Grand total going down but its share going slightly up or Grand total stay the same or going up but its share going down Which would you rather have?

Or alternative three, get your head out of the sand and address the weapon that makes up nearly 70% of all murders. I know its hard to understand but you do realise if you removed guns from the population then your murder rate would go down by a mere 67%. Yes some people would use other weapons but some wouldn't which even a 2yo would understand that this would reduce the murder rate. But hey it's hard for a third world country to understand let alone tackle these sort of issues....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@the passage,

" As I thought - not much, right?"

Come now, don't be lazy. Google "homeowner shoots robber" and then peruse the litany of reports at your leisure. It's a long list, I only mentioned one that WAS briefly spotlighted in the MSM.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The fact is the % of crime committed with a gun is on the rise.

Slightly up and that is only because it didn't decrease as fast as the other weapon types. Gun crime percentage of crime didn't go up because it was on the rise it went up because it wasn't falling as fast as the other ones. Frankly it is irrelevant when the grand total of gun crime is on the way down.

The fact remains that every single day 25 people are murdered in the US with a gun.

A fact that has for the most part been decreasing every year since 1993.

In my country there has not been a mass killing since the laws where introduced.

And which country is that? There hasn't been a mass killing in 30 states of the USA in over 30 years. Violence is extremely concentrated in the US, nearly 3% of US counties are responsible for as much as 78% of all homicides. 85% of the US counties have an annual homicide grand total of 0.

Or alternative three, get your head out of the sand and address the weapon that makes up nearly 70% of all murders. I know its hard to understand but you do realise if you removed guns from the population then your murder rate would go down by a mere 67%. Yes some people would use other weapons but some wouldn't which even a 2yo would understand that this would reduce the murder rate. But hey it's hard for a third world country to understand let alone tackle these sort of issues....

That is not an answer to my question. Really it would decrease by 67%? Australia did that and their murder rate decrease did not accelerate and stayed the same as it had for the years prior to their gun confiscation. Their gun confiscation did not do anything to to make their murder rate suddenly drop nor did it accelerate the fall of homicide rates either. In fact if I'm not mistaken the number of homicides stayed exactly the same the year after they did their gun confiscation. If you really think that taking guns out would cause the homicides to decrease by lets say 60% you are extremely naive. The US has been addressing it why else would the grand total of gun crime go down when the grand total of guns in circulation goes up? There is obviously a lot more that needs to be done but it is not like the US hasn't been making progress.

The are lots of things you can do to decrease the murder rate by simply banning things such as metal knives, you don't need them because plastic knives can do the job. Alcohol kills 100,000 people in the US every year, in as much as 50% of the homicides in the US it is stated as a very significant contributing factor to a homicide.

Here is the biggest thing you can do to reduce the rate of homicide in the US:

End the Drug War.

Guns only equal death when you A: Intend to kill someone or yourself or B: You don't show the proper respect for what you have in your hands and or doing and guess what this true for every single object.

Now I understand its your country and you do as you please in regards to your laws but if l lived in the US and thankfully l don't I would not like to have a worse murder rate than some 3 rd world nations.

Well come to the state of Minnesota where I live, we have a homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000 people in 2011.

Do you really honestly think that America's violence problem is a gun issue and not a culture issue on how it resolves conflict? Especially in the inner cities?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If you think an increase of guns decreases crime, wouldn't the US be the safest country in the history of the world?

I never claimed it caused crime to go down now did I? All I said was that it doesn't cause crime to increase. Are you claiming that if I put a gun in your hands SuperLib that your thoughts on committing crime would increase?

Imagine if people said the solution was more alcohol.

Maybe you are on to something here, I mean South Korean consumes more alcohol per person than the US does and their crime rate is lower.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites