world

3 million Americans carry a handgun daily: study

178 Comments
By ERICH SCHLEGEL

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

© 2017 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

178 Comments
Login to comment

personal protection is a top reason for walking around with a deadly weapon

Hmmm... This is still the Far West?

17 ( +18 / -1 )

That’s 3 million potential mass slaughters per day.. yeah no thanks

11 ( +19 / -8 )

Land of the free? Really? How sad.

23 ( +26 / -3 )

Most of these gun-toting Americans are young men, live in the south and say personal protection is a top reason for walking around with a deadly weapon,

This is another sad comment on the US, another example how a minority of Americans, in this case an insecure and frightened sub-group of young ‘men’ (Do they think carrying a handgun makes them tough? If so, they must not be very strong men.), are making life riskier for the majority of Americans who choose not to own handguns, or any other weapon for that matter. 

The very presence of these young ‘men’ carrying weapons endangers all around them. How many of these ‘men’ are actually criminals? How many are even capable of using handguns, a weapon used primarily to shoot another human? Leave handguns to the police and military.

There are many reasons I enjoy living in Japan. The restrictions on gun ownership is definitely one of them.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

Geez, next they will walking around with hand mini nuke launchers.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Most of these gun-toting Americans are young men, live in the south and say personal protection is a top reason for walking around with a deadly weapon

Large parts of the US are Third World now, especially in the south. Third World, afflicted with poverty, racism, and awash with guns and drugs is a very bad combination.

19 ( +23 / -4 )

That’s 3 million potential mass slaughters per day.. yeah no thanks

But it doesn’t happen at all like that unless it’s in cities with a lot of gang or drug problems. Texas is a conceal, carry State where a large number of people carry with them, but the homicide rate in Dallas isn’t even close to cities like Chicago has the most gun violence anywhere in the country.

-12 ( +11 / -23 )

Guns in everyday life are mostly for people who have too much fear to function in American society without the ability to instantly shoot someone in the face.

14 ( +20 / -6 )

No thanks prefer a gun free society myself..

21 ( +24 / -3 )

Guns in everyday life are mostly for people who have too much fear to function in American society without the ability to instantly shoot someone in the face.

Tell that to all the Hollywood stars. They all have the money and power to buy the best security and they do carry a firearm. So why can the celebs protect themselves and the rest of us can’t. Most of us don’t trust the government anyway and we should disarm and trust they will protect us? Congressman Scalise who was shot earlier this summer was thankful that his security had a gun and was able to kill the man that tried to kill him. He’s doesn’t want our 2nd amendment violated as well. Besides, as a hunter, I need my guns and if you life on a farm in the West, you’d be stupid not to have one, given some of the dangers looming around in the woods and prairie.

-23 ( +5 / -28 )

Most of us don’t trust the government

you’d be stupid not to have one, given some of the dangers looming around

This I just don't get. If people don't trust the government (to keep you safe? not to shoot you?) and it's just so darned dangerous out there generally, why not move to somewhere safer/better/freer? Why continue to live in a state of heightened fear? Just geddouda there!

(Note again, it's the flag-waving, we-love-our-2nd-amendment so-called patriots who are telling us how awful/dangerous/sick their fellow Americans are.)

16 ( +21 / -5 )

In 'defence' of the millions of Americans who carry a handgun, have to say it does look pretty cool & tough though. Almost as cool as the also indispensable mobile phone belt clips/holsters (I said 'almost').

1 ( +5 / -4 )

This I just don't get. If people don't trust the government (to keep you safe? not to shoot you?) and it's just so darned dangerous out there generally, why not move to somewhere safer/better/freer?

Why? Just because many of us distrust the government doesn’t mean we have to leave, but having the second amendment it allows us to take our safety in our own hands, which I’m very proud of, you may not understand, but that’s ok. I don’t expect people that never grew up without a 2nd amendment like ours to understand this. I personally don’t understand the opposite of how people can’t purchase a firearm. Look, our laws and rights give us that privilege to purchase a firearm and I’m proud of that, you grew up without it and you are proud of that, I get it. But we will never agree on the gun issue.

Why continue to live in a state of heightened fear? Just geddouda there!

I don’t live in Chicago or LA, so I’m not living in a heightened state of fear.

(Note again, it's the flag-waving, we-love-our-2nd-amendment so-called patriots who are telling us how awful/dangerous/sick their fellow Americans are.)

The thugs, yes.

-23 ( +3 / -26 )

An acquaintance was visiting Japan from South Africa. He kept touching his hip and commenting that he felt naked without his gun. I guess a few weeks here would have helped the vulnerable opening to heal up nicely.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

But it doesn’t happen at all like that unless it’s in cities with a lot of gang or drug problems. Texas is a conceal, carry State where a large number of people carry with them, but the homicide rate in Dallas isn’t even close to cities like Chicago has the most gun violence anywhere in the country.

Is that even fair to say?

In Texas, you can shoot almost anyone without it being a homicide. As long as you think you are defending your property, shoot first. Car repo guys wear bullet proof vests there for a reason.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Tell that to all the Hollywood stars.

OK, I'll tell it to the Hollywood stars when I see them. As for me personally, I don't live in fear, so Imdont need a gun,

16 ( +18 / -2 )

Yeah, why do we have to tell it to ALL the Hollywood stars? I'm personally on a first name basis with only about 25% of the Hollywood elite, so by expecting me to tell 100% you are setting me up for failure. Thanks for the impossible mission, Captain Kirk.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

@bass The thugs, yes.

The thugs are protected by the 2nd Amendment, too. Many of them are in gangs, militias, whatever you want to call them, and at war with the government. They can use the same argument the gun crowd does.

Meanwhile, the body count grows and the gun industry gets richer.

20 ( +21 / -1 )

Meanwhile, the body count grows and the gun industry gets richer.

And non-gun owners pay higher taxes for extra police and emergency services, and have their lives put at risk because of gun owners. Especially those who own and handguns and have arsenals of semi-automatic weapons plus get devices that can make their weapons fully automatic..

10 ( +11 / -1 )

...cities like Chicago has the most gun violence anywhere in the country.

And Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S. too.

I remember Marion Barry, former Mayor of Washington DC and a staunch gun control advocate, was once mugged. Not long afterwards he bought a handgun "for protection".

Then there's Switzerland, a country which is heavily armed per capita, yet has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

yeah identity politics again it had to be said it's young "men" from "the south" carrying guns daily.

Yet most of the gun murders seem to be in liberal run cities in the north. How can that be?

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

So my point is that it matters not who carries the most guns. It matters who uses them for crime and murder.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

Texas is a conceal, carry State where a large number of people carry with them, but the homicide rate in Dallas isn’t even close to cities like Chicago has the most gun violence anywhere in the country.

And the neighborhoods in Chicago with the most homicides, robberies, assaults, thefts and narcotics charges have some of the lowest rates of concealed carry permits in the country. The vast majority of licenses in Illinois go to wealthier whites. Go figure.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Then there's Switzerland, a country which is heavily armed per capita, yet has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

The logical thing to assume is the Swiss can be trusted with firearms and the Americans cannot. Too many lunatics running round in the US according to the gun nuts and too much gang violence.

Having a society like that armed to the teeth yields predicable results.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Ahh people going on about Chicago's gun control laws again.

Trying to say that Chicago should have no gun problems because they have strict gun control is like saying the non-smoking half of a restaurant that doesn't section off the smoking area should be smoke-free.

If you don't wall off the non-smoking (non-gun) areas, then you cannot have any expectation of there being few or no-guns in that area.

All the strict gun-control laws do in Chicago is give the police stronger laws to work with after a criminal is caught. They do not prevent guns coming into Chicago anymore than putting up a sign that says 'this side of the line is non-smoking' will stop smoke from crossing that line.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

There is a strong culture of responsibility and safety among the Swiss who carry military style weapons in public for target practice but it really doesn't have any relevance to the article.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

A day will eventually come when guns completely disappear from American streets. There will be no more shots ringing out in the night, no more bullets being pulled out of victims in emergency rooms. Future generations will look back and wonder how people ever managed to live in a world.. without pocket lazers.

But in all seriousness, technology might offer the only way out of this when you consider that the odds of repealing the 2nd amendment are near zero. If a better (and not constitutionally protected) method of selfdefence is invented, it could render conventional firearms obsolete and put the entire industry largely out of business.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

most of the gun murders seem to be in liberal run cities in the north.

Maybe you should stop looking at how things 'seem', and spend some more time looking at how things 'are'.

How can that be?

If you had actually looked at real numbers, instead of how things 'seem', you'd find out that it isn't. So to answer your question: 'it's not'.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

All it takes is for one of these gunners to lose their temper and "boom". I don't like this at all.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

blacklab@dept4provocations yeah identity politics again it had to be said it's young "men" from "the south" carrying guns daily.

Yet most of the gun murders seem to be in liberal run cities in the north. How can that be?

Yeah, identity politics again.

@basspliagerize Tell that to all the Hollywood stars. Chicago has the most gun violence anywhere in the country.

Yeah, identity politics again.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

OK, I'll tell it to the Hollywood stars when I see them. As for me personally, I don't live in fear, so Imdont need a gun,

That goes for the both of us, but then again, I love to hunt, so I need them.

The thugs are protected by the 2nd Amendment, too.

Not if the firearm was stolen and used to off a rival gang member or to rob or intimidate and murder someone, nice try, but the 2nd amendment doesn’t protect you from committing crimes where you have the personal choice to partake in.

Many of them are in gangs, militias, whatever you want to call them, and at war with the government.

Yeah and where are these people?

They can use the same argument the gun crowd does. 

They can and if it is determined that their needs are for nefarious purposes or to intimidate people, threaten them with physical violence, then they don’t have that right.

Meanwhile, the body count grows and the gun industry gets richer.

Rahm Emanuel is doing such a great job for Chicgo.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

3 million Americans carry a handgun daily

Great, and 320 million don't.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

U.S.A. Today says:

Suicide is the leading cause of gun-related deaths across the country in recent years. Of the 33,636 firearm deaths in 2013, more than 21,000 were suicides. In fact, suicide accounted for more than half of gun-related deaths in all but one state with the most gun violence. In three states — Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming — suicide accounted for more than 80% of all firearm deaths.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

@bass Not if the firearm was stolen and used to off a rival gang member or to rob or intimidate and murder someone,

Nice try, but you know full well thugs, regardless of social class, even people on terrorist watch lists, can legally purchase guns of all varieties. LMAO

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Nice try, but you know full well thugs, regardless of social class, even people on terrorist watch lists, can legally purchase guns of all varieties. LMAO

They can’t, not if they run a background check, but either way, if people can’t purchase guns legally, they will purchase them “illegally.”

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Sure sounds like a small fragment of the population spoiling things for the rest.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Does this include brothas in the hood ?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Sure sounds like a small fragment of the population spoiling things for the rest.

https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-owners-percentage-of-state-populations-3325153

Small fragment, eh...

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

The header photo to this article is disturbing. I still get nervous seeing armed police at airports in the UK... seeing civilians with guns strapped on is just wrong on so many levels. It's like some throwback to the 19th century... next thing you know they'll ditch cars and return to horses.

What is wrong with Americans that they feel the need to parade around with a gun on their hip, or hidden in a waistband, or under a jacket... Bass says people feel the need because they want to defend themselves... who from? Another posturing paranoid fool with a handgun?

Americans are scared of their own shadow... such low levels of trust. How do people function on a daily basis?

"Off to work, dear!"

"OK honey, don't forget your Glock!"

Coming from a country with very strict gun control laws you couldn't pay me to go to America... I value my life too much!

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Americans are scared of their own shadow..

Some will stoop so low and say anything for a little recognition.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

What is wrong with Americans that they feel the need to parade around with a gun on their hip, or hidden in a waistband, or under a jacket...

I can't speak for those people that are allowed to legally carry, but for me being born and growing up half of my life in Europe and the States, for ME, I feel safer and better to have a firearm, has nothing to do with fear or living in a bad area, it's none of the above. I live in a very affluent area with one of the lowest crime rates in this country and many people do own a firearm. 

I have zero problems towards anyone that has a fear or dislikes firearms, I just won't tolerate anyone scolding me or trying to convince ME that I am wrong, I am not wrong, it's just my choice to own a firearm and collect and to own hunting rifles, it's my business if I want to go camping and take my kids with me and the 2nd amendment gives me that right.

Bass says people feel the need because they want to defend themselves... who from? Another posturing paranoid fool with a handgun?

Some people, I don't speak for everyone, every gun owner that is law-abiding has his/her own reasons.

Americans are scared of their own shadow... such low levels of trust. How do people function on a daily basis?

Dear lord...lol....I don't know anyone that is quaking in their boots sitting in a rocking chair and waiting to shoot some vermin.

"Off to work, dear!"

"OK honey, don't forget your Glock!"

Coming from a country with very strict gun control laws you couldn't pay me to go to America... I value my life too much!

I value my life, but I feel the same when I go to Europe, I value my life as well and have no desire to go, especially now, that's my choice and I have my own valid reasons, but I do respect yours. To each his own.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

People with big egos and very little physical courage find safety in guns.

We are fortunate that there are only 3 million of them.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

So my point is that it matters not who carries the most guns. It matters who uses them for crime and murder.

The majority of gun deaths are suicides, and many of these are preventable by ditching guns.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

But in all seriousness, technology might offer the only way out of this when you consider that the odds of repealing the 2nd amendment are near zero. If a better (and not constitutionally protected) method of selfdefence is invented, it could render conventional firearms obsolete and put the entire industry largely out of business.

I'm not so sure. The brutal simplicity of these devices seems to be part of their appeal. Watch the almost erotic worship of these things on 'history' programmes, let alone the pure idiocy of gun-blasting dramas and films. A futuristic stun gun just won't stir their loins in the same way. These people want to blast holes in things with a bang and smoke and stuff like that.

It's a very depraved vice. I can imagine some delirious lunatic in the future bellowing that the second amendment didn't say anything about fancy stun guns and quibbling over the definition of 'arms'. The authors clearly had drilling holes in people in mind.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Every place that has been banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

the problem now with the gun culture in the USA its like a cancer, its hard to get rid of now it so deeply ingrained

3 ( +7 / -4 )

It's a very depraved vice.

There is no other country like America. Fake multiculturalism and male chickens walking around with their heads moving back and forth doesn't give you a pass to understand us. Maybe when the rest of the world decides to join us some will finally understand. Peace or freedom, you can't have both. We choose freewill.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Peace or freedom, you can't have both. We choose freewill

Your definition of freedom is what, walking around with a firearm?

Switzerland has lots of firearms but nothing approaching the carnage of the US. Do they have peace and freedom in your eyes?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

The 2nd amendment protects the right to maintain a militia and bear arms?

So regulate the hell out of ammo sales, and then maybe people will not waste their precious bullets any more. A fall in supply might even drive up demand, thus prices, which should keep the industry and NRA supporters happy.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Switzerland? Switzerland??

A population of 8 million+ compared to 320 million+? Try again.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

A population of 8 million+ compared to 320 million+? Try again.

How many people do you need before firearms become essential?

Do you think the well armed people of Switzerland have peace and freedom? You did say the two can't coexist.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

but the homicide rate in Dallas isn’t even close to cities like Chicago

But still about 10 times higher than London.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

How many people do you need before firearms become essential? 

How many thousands of years of human conflict and government lies do you need before you realize that it's ALWAYS about government vs the people. Star Trek is just a TV show.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The 2nd amendment right simply is the right to bear arms.

it doesn't specify type.

how about give everyone a 12ft pike?

difficult to have concealed carry though.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I feel safer and better to have a firearm

Then how do you stay safe in Japan?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I can't speak for those people that are allowed to legally carry, but for me being born and growing up half of my life in Europe and the States, for ME, I feel safer and better to have a firearm, has nothing to do with fear or living in a bad area, it's none of the above. I live in a very affluent area with one of the lowest crime rates in this country and many people do own a firearm. 

I have zero problems towards anyone that has a fear or dislikes firearms, I just won't tolerate anyone scolding me or trying to convince ME that I am wrong, I am not wrong, it's just my choice to own a firearm and collect and to own hunting rifles, it's my business if I want to go camping and take my kids with me and the 2nd amendment gives me that right.

Right. What if we scale up the numbers? What if the US government gave out handguns to every citizen (you know, because it's their right to carry) so that not 3 million, but 320 million had guns? You think murders wouldn't increase? Or would they decrease because now everyone can defend themselves.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

London? Even most police didn't have guns. Which wasn't helpful as radical Islamic terrorists were killing people.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Yet most of the gun murders

Most of the mass shootings are by white conservatives like Dylan Roof. Mass shootings are doing the most damage overall and that's mostly by white people like in Las Vegas.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

And the same number of people are killed every month in Chicago as were killed in the latest "mass shooting."

So basically Chicago is a mass shooting just spread out over multiple locations on multiple days.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Must really pain some people that you can only call the Las Vegas shooter "white" and not a white "conservative".

And a white guy shooting people in a black church? Also a black guy shot people in a white church. This method of scoring points must be getting difficult.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

So basically Chicago is a mass shooting just spread out over multiple locations on multiple days.

No, if it's a simple murder it's just that. But if it's a mass shooting then in the end it means higher security and fortification costs and this makes it expensive for everybody. This is mostly the fault of white people. Also, from my point of view the NRA is a Liberal entity.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Also a black guy

Mostly white people.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

its a sad country when you have to carry a gun to feel safe or strong. gun lobbys answer , everybody should carry a gun then gun crime would drop. LOL.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

London? Even most police didn't have guns. Which wasn't helpful as radical Islamic terrorists were killing people.

With knives and vehicles... not guns. In London there ARE quite a few armed officers, hence the reason why the London Bridge attack was stopped in 8 minutes flat. We're lucky that guns are harder to get hold of.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

How many thousands of years of human conflict and government lies do you need before you realize that it's ALWAYS about government vs the people. Star Trek is just a TV show.

So numbers don't matter then. Eight million people or 320 million. They all need firearms to either prevent a government turning tyrannical or to wage a guerilla war against it if it does.

I'm very interested in the peace and freedom idea. I think many countries around the world regard themselves as peaceful and free, but you don't seem to think this is possible.

I'm interested in your definitions of these ideas and what firearms have to do with them.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Jimizo

Yeah, I think you're probably right about people who will try to stretch the 2nd amendment to include almost any type of weapon, current and future. I completely agree with the logic in your comment at 12:41 btw. It's almost an inescapable conclusion.

I used to be convinced that the easy availability of guns was the main problem, but after looking at countries like Switzerland and especially the Czech Republic, it's hard to escape the conclusion that culture plays a huge role, and maybe even the most decisive role in this problem. Either way, it seems intractable unless the 2nd amendment can be repealed or amended, which is probably not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There are over 3M law enforcement people in the USA. These are Americans and carry a handgun daily.

There are tens of thousands of people who work at gun ranges/indoor shooting ranges. These people need to show they support firearms, so they take one to work, daily.

Sorta like if you work at a Ford plant, you had better drive a Ford (BTW, I used to work for Ford).

The 2nd amendment guarantees the "right" to have firearms. This is a "right" just like free speech and religion. I cannot fault anyone who follows all the laws for taking advantage of these rights. BTW, there is no right to own a car or drive it.

Also, most Americans don't actually trust their govts. We are taught that govts are a necessary evil. That power corrupts. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Either way, it seems intractable unless the 2nd amendment can be repealed or amended, which is probably not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

Just get rid of the five percent of counties that account for over 70 percent of murders in the US, or better the neighborhoods within those gun homicide zones that are driving the statistics. It is very difficult for law abiding urbanites to obtain guns for both legal and cultural reasons. So there is culture, law, economy, geography and a lot of factors. Except for gun ownership, the US is not in first place on any of these measures compared to the rest of the world.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Also, most Americans don't actually trust their govts.

Is that the most important reason to have guns? If so they should demand to be allowed to have the same firepower the military has. If not then it sounds like the NRA is one seriously Liberal entity if they are not pushing for the legal ownership for modern military grade weaponry for the common citizen. Real fully automatic machine guns more effective for fighting governments and could have even fought off the Las Vegas shooter (he had a fully auto).

There are over 3M law enforcement people in the USA. These are Americans and carry a handgun daily.

Not sure how many J-cops there are in Japan but I seem to see them carry guns all the time.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Here it is:

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.

The part "well regulated Militia" is always forgotten by the gun industry and gun nuts because it's inconvenient.

There was no standing army. A well regulated Militia was a reserve force to protect against invasion. The US has a standing army now, even though it's used for invasion.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Is that the most important reason to have guns? If so they should demand to be allowed to have the same firepower the military has. If not then it sounds like the NRA is one seriously Liberal entity if they are not pushing for the legal ownership for modern military grade weaponry for the common citizen. Real fully automatic machine guns more effective for fighting governments and could have even fought off the Las Vegas shooter (he had a fully auto)

Just making an aurgment like a socialist. Look what happened to the socialists when they followed their "all inclusive" leaders. Millions dead. What kind of leadership do you like and what kind of freedoms are you prepared to take away?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Just making an augment like a socialist

The NRA is a socialist organization?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The 2nd Amendment didn't give the federal government any specific power to regulate guns on a national level. Because there was so much apprehension about a standing army it was merely a restriction of federal power of the new militia system. All personal ownership and regulation of firearms was left to the states. The founders certainly did not intend to outlaw hunting or self protection or other unenumerated rights etc.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear weapons of mass destruction, shall not be infringed."

There, fixed that. If the Boston bomber can be charged with using a WMD, then the Las Vegas shooter was definitely planning to use weapons designed to cause maximum mass destruction.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Just making an aurgment like a socialist. Look what happened to the socialists when they followed their "all inclusive" leaders. Millions dead. What kind of leadership do you like and what kind of freedoms are you prepared to take away?

Are you confusing Socialist with Communist?... They aren't the same, you know.

Back to the guns carried overtly by modern day gunslingers... I still don't understand WHY? What are people afraid of? Don't say you're not afraid, because you are... afraid of another person shooting you... afraid your government will turn on the people... zombies, New World Order, aliens, communists, global apocalypse, crazed survivors of said apocalypse... all sound reasons for lugging around a gun like a cowboy in days of yore.

And yes, I am taking the pi$$... because gun supporters are paranoid little people who think a death dealing lump of metal makes them a bigger person... someone to be respected...

It's a joke... a sick, twisted joke.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Are you confusing Socialist with Communist?... They aren't the same, you know.

Don’t bother. The brainwashed don’t bother to make the distinction and swallow the rightist narrative whole. They’d equate the elected government of Sweden to Stalin’s reign.

That aside, my interest here is if freedom is possible without having the population armed to the teeth and drilling holes in each other on a regular basis. My old friend in Texas once sent me a link to some tongue-flapping bonehead on Fox News who said that Norway couldn’t call itself a democracy because the police are not carrying firearms.

The gun nuts, whether following the MSM or other more entertaining sites seem to share this idea. Very predictable but still confusing.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

What are legal gun owners afraid of? That's easy....getting shot by illegal gun users (criminals)

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

PTownshend is absolutely right on about it. The 'gun issue' has been stirred up by racist ignorant rabble-rousers who have kicked up so much paranoia, hysteria and fear that guns have become a god in America. The whole insanity has become a religious cult in this country because a few greedy fearmongers have raised such a stink and whoever carries a weapon in public on person is a CRIMINAL - with or without a carrying permit. These people are SCARED because they're told to be scared and they think carrying a weapon on them makes them "macho", "mature", "smart" or "patriotic". They're not. They're insecure, immature and ignorant.  This is a sick phenomena that is destroying democracy. Never mind the hate ideologies going around. It's a sick fanatical CULT.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

So gun owners are "racist" now too?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

What are legal gun owners afraid of? That's easy....getting shot by illegal gun users (criminals)

There is nothing to fear from legal gun users? Tell that to people who attended a certain concert in Las Vegas. Unfortunately, scores of them can’t reply.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

200 countries in the world, only 1 is foolish enough to allow people to have guns. Parents, DO NOT send your children to study or travel or work in the USA, or else they will DIE a grisly death.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

People with big egos and very little physical courage find safety in guns.

We are fortunate that there are only 3 million of them.

https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-owners-percentage-of-state-populations-3325153

A lot more than a few.

I'm not so sure. The brutal simplicity of these devices seems to be part of their appeal.

No, just the fact that I have the right which the 2nd amendment gives me. You find them horrible, I find them awesome.

Your definition of freedom is what, walking around with a firearm? 

Having rhe right to own one.

Switzerland has lots of firearms but nothing approaching the carnage of the US. Do they have peace and freedom in your eyes?

Different country, different people, different culture, weak argument. That’s like saying, why the Swiss have the best chocolate in the world and the US can’t make chocolate that good?

We are not the Swiss and they are not us, love the country, the alps, the chocolate, the fondue and The you yodeling is great as well, but we are different, I’m not jealous of them and they don’t need to be jealous of us. Most of us could care less what anyone else thinks, if others don’t like it, too bad. The 2nd amendment is going to stay and the rest of the world can’t change it, thank God!

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

I know I will get bombed on this but, I have found it somewhat ironic that organizations that have been pushing the fear factor of destabilized societies and more violence with Climate Change are also very strong gun control proponents. If anything that prophecy makes me think of buying a modern weapon - seeing how ineffective the "landmark" Paris Accord has been thus far in reducing emissions of signers. (Full disclosure, I have one .22 bolt action rifle that has been in the family ~85 years.)

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

If you have a gun too proootect yourself from robbers, lock house, and keep your gun bullet loaded. Kind hard to load bullets. After Mandalay Bay shooting, I tried to prepare and found not easy to load bullets. Will go back to katana protection.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Handguns are for hunting humans, not game.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

cleo - (Note again, it's the flag-waving, we-love-our-2nd-amendment so-called patriots who are telling us how awful/dangerous/sick their fellow Americans are.)

I've noticed that the some internet users, those who are non-residents, non-citizens, or non-voters, insist on telling U.S. voters how to run their country. I guess that's what the internet is for? I've also noticed that most U.S. voters don't seem to vote according to the whim of outsiders.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

viking68 - Is that even fair to say?

In Texas, you can shoot almost anyone without it being a homicide. As long as you think you are defending your property, shoot first.

That is not true. All shootings are considered to be a homicide. Some homicides are considered to be justifable (aka self-defense).

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

yakyak - Great, and 320 million don't.

I doubt that many Americans in 2015 would actually tell a pollster, or the government, that they were carrying firearms either concealed, or openly. I suspect that the actual number of Americans carrying firearms would be much higher.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

nandakandamanda - The 2nd amendment protects the right to maintain a militia and bear arms?

So regulate the hell out of ammo sales, and then maybe people will not waste their precious bullets any more. A fall in supply might even drive up demand, thus prices, which should keep the industry and NRA supporters happy.

The 2nd Amendment is about the right of self-defense.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

"The 2nd Ammendment is about the right of self-defense."

Wrong. It is about the security of a free State and a well-regulated militia. It has zero to do with self-defense.

Reading it might help.

"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."

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Midnight Sun Tribe - Wrong. It is about the security of a free State and a well-regulated militia. It has zero to do with self-defense.

Try telling that to the U.S. Supreme Court.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554U.S.570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

States and cities can not require gun owners to keep ammunition separate from their firearms, nor require the use of trigger locks.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The 2nd Amendment is about the right of self-defense.

vs.

Wrong. It is about the security of a free State

Either way, the current legal maximum firepower that is allowed is quite wimpie with what's going on these days and the paranoia about evil governments.

The Las Vegas shooting? The only way to legally defend against that is to legalize fully auto machine guns or shoulder mounted rocket launchers, which would have made an effective solution from a shooter with a fully auto from way up high.

Paranoid about the security of a free state (and living in Japan with no guns allowed?????)?. You need something a lot more powerful than what you can find at your local Walmart or gun shop. You will be sitting what you can legally have (which is not that much) while the US government rams a tank through your house and takes you out. And again, what's all the paranoid about having to be cocked and ready to fight for a free state while expressing such paranoia in a country like Japan?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"Then there's Switzerland, a country which is heavily armed per capita, yet has one of the lowest crime rates in the world."

So is this proving the phrase, Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people? Handguns everywhere cause the carnage allowing road rage, suicidal thoughts, crimes of passion, accidents, curious children and fear to lead to death.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Watching the news about the US, I had the impression that something like 50 million people were probably carrying handguns. And 100% in Texas.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I've noticed that the some internet users, those who are non-residents, non-citizens, or non-voters, insist on telling U.S. voters how to run their country.

No one's telling you how to run your country. Just shaking our heads in disbelief at the way a supposedly well-educated, advanced 21st-century country with a wealth of resources at its disposal can make such a &%%# of things - and be proud of it. (Applied equally to gun rights and chocolate. Chocolate is particularly dire.)

the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

So the 9 million walking around in public with a loaded firearm are not covered by that ruling?

*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.*

It talks about a well-regulated militia (as in, 'a military force raised from the civil population to supplement the regular army in an emergency', not hunting, or 'self-defence within the home') to protect the state as the purpose, and 'the people', not 'the individual' (as in 'any Tom, Dick or Cletus scared of his own shadow') as the owner of the right. I don't see how that sensibly translates into those 9 million walking around with firearms in the absence of any national emergency requiring extra fire power.

I found an opposing view to this, which for the sake of balance I'll cite here; T*he overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army *(http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm)

If we follow this line of thought, then these bozos walking around with their dinky little handguns are not acting in line with the Second Amendment. They need to beef their act up quite some way to even contemplate being able to go up against the US military.

Either way, they're very sad people.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

A well regulated militia is a prefatory clause explaining the reason that it was codified in a written Constitution (because of the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms). Guns were widely owned and widely used in colonial America and at the time of the Revolution was understood to be an individual right under English law. It is unthinkable really that the founders would try to suppress liberty through the confiscation or limitation of arms when it was already a common law right in the states and a formal law in Britain.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

No one's telling you how to run your country. Just shaking our heads in disbelief at the way a supposedly well-educated, advanced 21st-century country with a wealth of resources at its disposal can make such a &%%# of things - and be proud of it. (Applied equally to gun rights and chocolate. Chocolate is particularly dire.)

But with all due respect, you don't have to understand because if every gun owner in the States thought like you, we wouldn't have guns at all, but just because millions do that doesn't mean they are less intelligent or less sensitive or blood thirsty, we just have different life experiences, culture and different needs and values. It's ok if you don't like guns and think they are horrible instruments of destruction, I get it, I understand and I totally respect that point of view. I see it though from both angles being raised both in the States and in Europe. I personally prefer our 2nd amendment and our right to own firearms, I hunt and that's my prerogative and just because we disagree on the issue doesn't mean Americans are crazy, it's just our preference and we are proud of that and if people can't understand, don't want to understand it, it is perfectly ok to do so, just don't tell me I shouldn't be allowed or it's a bad thing, not for me and not for the millions of Americans that are hunters and law-abiding. I am a member of the NRA and deeply support it and proud of it and I have met hundreds of people from all walks of life from doctors, hunters, politicians, celebrities men and women and the list goes on and on and for me and my experiences I feel more comfortable living in the States and having my 2nd amendment than in Europe without it, that's how I feel and my opinion and through the myopic view and experiences I dealt with in my life. I never get angry if people are opposed to firearms, I just get angry when people try to put me down as if I'm a villain because I am passionate about firearms, that's where I draw the line. Gun haters don't have the right to lecture gun owners about moral, decency or how they are allowed to defend themselves or if they want to use their firearm for sport or hunting or being lectured on what is right or wrong about the issue. We can all have a healthy debate without demonizing one another on the issue.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

and 'the people', not 'the individual' (as in 'any Tom, Dick or Cletus scared of his own shadow') as the owner of the right. 

There is no arguing the Amendment is one of the worst drafted provisions in the entire document. But as Justice Scalia has pointed out, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the Bill of Rights uses the phrase “right of the people,” the text “unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights.”

In short, the colonists remembered the Stuart king’s tyrannical efforts of the late 17th Century to suppress liberty in part through the confiscation of arms. The Second Amendment was the response.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

with all due respect, you don't have to understand

I certainly don't understand how you can stomach Hershey's....

if every gun owner in the States thought like you, we wouldn't have guns at all

Omit two words from that sentence....

just don't tell me I shouldn't be allowed or it's a bad thing, not for me and not for the millions of Americans that are hunters and law-abiding

What about the 30-odd thousand Americans that are dead each year because of guns? It's not a bad thing for them and their families?

that's how I feel and my opinion and through the myopic view and experiences I dealt with in my life

You said it.

Gun haters don't have the right to lecture gun owners about moral, decency or how they are allowed to defend themselves

No, the lecture is about how having the country awash with guns means that tens of thousands of innocent people die each year. Because you want the thrill of killing furry animals and walking around with a gun because it makes you feel strong in your affluent, well-guarded, crime-free residential area.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

When the last sword is beaten into a plowshare, the man with a stick will be called a tyrant.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What about the 30-odd thousand Americans that are dead each year because of guns? It's not a bad thing for them and their families?

Sadly it is, but that doesn’t mean we have to demonize all gun holders. In the UK when someone is murdered by a crazed killer with a truck, we don’t call for the banning of trucks either.

No, the lecture is about how having the country awash with guns means that tens of thousands of innocent people die each year.

And tens of thousands of people live in cities where they live in fear like Chicago and that need a gun, whatever the reason whether you understand it or don’t, the 2nd amendment is here to stay.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

No, the lecture is about how having the country awash with guns means that tens of thousands of innocent people die each year. 

The question relevant to the article at least is how far courts can go to upheld restrictions that stop short of handgun bans, not what any particular individual likes or segments of a society practices as a hobby or whatever.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Spanish PM vows to end Catalonia standoff and force region to obey law

I think the Catalonians will be needing their guns soon. Unless of course the Spanish government and some goofy Trekies have decided people don't need guns anymore.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

that doesn’t mean we have to demonize all gun holders. In the UK when someone is murdered by a crazed killer with a truck, we don’t call for the banning of trucks either.

Yet didn't you defend Trump and his dad refusing to rent to black people because (you said) some black people get behind in the rent/trash the place/commit crimes (can't remember exactly what the reason you gave was, but it certainly wasn't anything genetic)? And didn't you defend Trump trying to stop all people from some predominantly Muslim countries from entering the US, because some other people, who might be bad guys, came from other predominantly Muslim countries? What's the difference?

Using your logic, bass, I assert that anyone who wants to own a gun belongs to a group of people who are not fit to be allowed access to lethal weapons. And I think they should be locked up in those mental institutions you want built all over the country, until their illness is cured.

tens of thousands of people live in cities where they live in fear like Chicago

Then go and live somewhere more salubrious, where you don't spend every moment in fear of your life. It isn't rocket science.

you prefer some strange butcher to do it for you

Nothing that has been butchered gets in my kitchen, never mind on my plate.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@Blacklabel and Strangerland

Here is an article for you guys to chew over

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-3

I am (almost) neutral on this issue but my thoughts are....

The gun issue in the U.S. will never be resolved unless a strong armed government is willing to repeal the 2nd Amendment and violate the 4th. There are many in the U.S. who will never willingly give up their arms and in addition there are far too many unregistered firearms.

There are more privately owned firearms in the U.S. than there are people (in 2015 it is 310 million guns to 306 million people)...and that is only the guns that the government knows about (so for those of you from New Zealand who endure the sheep jokes - well..... I would much rather endure the sheep jokes).

Without something really radical occurring this is an unsolvable problem. Strangerland makes a very good point that gun laws give cops more power to prosecute when crimes involving guns occur, however this still does not prove effective in reducing gun crime (statistically speaking)

Lacking something extremely radical happening in the U.S., I do not see this even coming close to being solved in my lifetime.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There is nothing to fear from legal gun users? Tell that to people who attended a certain concert in Las Vegas. Unfortunately, scores of them can’t reply.

Ok finally the admittance that liberals are trying to enact gun control based on the actions of a LEGAL gun owner? If the guns were legal, then isnt the blame (and any solutions) simply based on the owners, not the guns?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Tokyo-Engr

That is an interesting article you posted. My first impression is that I suspected every one of those cities is run by a Democratic mayor. But people wont want to hear that and will say it is just a coincidence. So my second impression is that these cities are all 'sanctuary cities', but maybe that is just a coincidence too. Then there is the issue of these cities having higher than normal rates of gang violence. Maybe a Coincidence too,? But I think when gangs dont have guns they just knife or beat people to death. Killing by gun is just a convenience. wouldnt stop killings if there were no guns just would take longer.

So basically my thing is this. Where I grew up, everyone had multiple guns and everyone knew so. As a result, crimes were unheard of. You dont break into someone's house. you dont get into excessive violent arguments with people, you dont try to steal or rape or rob or fight because you know that everyone has a gun and that you will get shot. Its places where criminals with guns know people are unarmed that they feel emboldened.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Lacking something extremely radical happening in the U.S., I do not see this even coming close to being solved in my lifetime.

You should have been here in the early '90's if it seems bad now. The number of gun homicides has fallen by half in the last 25 years. The key now is doing something about the drug and gang problems in large cities where violent crime is rising again.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

the 2nd amendment quotes to bare arms, it does not mention fire arms, arms could mean, pitch fork, plank of wood, a large stick with a nail, or knife, a piece of glass.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

They are mostly scared folks. I'm 46 and never needed a gun. Had two pulled in me. A rifle in college and I disarmed the guy and a pistol to my head in my 20s and I talked him down.

In both situations I am sure one or both of us would have died had I carried a gun. It doesn't take courage to walk around with a killing machine.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Lizz has a point. The problems are not caused by the guns, but by the underlying social issues in the country. Any research shows that crime, especially gun crime, is falling steadily. It is getting more and more confined to specific areas and situations.

We have to be realistic. Americans who own guns will never give them up. And why should they? The vast majority are peaceful and law abiding.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Every place that has been banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.

Areas with higher gun ownership have higher homicide rates.

There is a culture of fear in the US and I believe there are many who carry guns out of fear or cowardice-both criminals and law abiding citizens. I have great respect for police who have to enter dangerous situations everyday, but they live in this culture of fear too and many have shown how it affects them by their irresponsible use of their weapons when they kill folks who shouldn't have been shot.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Forgot the study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

2 ( +2 / -0 )

that liberals are trying to enact gun control

That's actually the Republicans and the reason why Las Vegas happened. The NRA does not push for legalizing enough firepower which could have eliminated the threat. If I were a real gun person I would consider the NRA to be a Liberal organization.

But I think when gangs dont have guns they just knife or beat people to death.

In Japan?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Forgot the study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

Is that the one where the researchers didn't do a survey of firearms but instead relied on suicide statistics to count numbers of guns at the state level ?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

A US Supreme Court decision does not always equal rational thinking. It's a vote by people who are influenced by politics as much as anyone. The court has reversed itself many times in history.

The Swiss have always had a (well regulated) militia, cough, cough, so about 1/4 of households have rifles. The US still has four times the number of guns per person as Switzerland, so let's just stop using Switzerland as some rationale for US gun nuttiness.
0 ( +2 / -2 )

Absurdistan.

Americans seem to live in this paranoid, siege mentality - in most fear of their fellow countrymen. And don't seem to be able to see how completely absurd that is.

Can't trust the neighbours, can't trust the government - it's the kind of discourse you would expect from a totalitarian regime, not a functional democracy where reason and sensible decision making prevails.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

cleo - possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. So the 9 million walking around in public with a loaded firearm are not covered by that ruling?

Un-connected with service in a militia.....

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.

It talks about a well-regulated militia (as in, 'a military force raised from the civil population to supplement the regular army in an emergency', not hunting, or 'self-defence within the home') to protect the state as the purpose, and 'the people', not 'the individual'

Ahem, the term "the people" is used five (5) times in the U.S. Bill of Rights and every time it is used to describe the rights of the individual. Besides creating a constitution, the framers also created a bill of individual rights. The creation, funding, and arming of a militia would have been addressed in the U.S. Constitution, not in the Bill of (Individual) Rights.

I wasn't aware that the newly ratified U.S. Constitution provided for a regular standing army. It did provide for a navy.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The Bill of Rights was not adopted to give us certain rights. It was adopted as a protection to limit government and to keep government from infringing upon our God-given rights. The people already had the freedom to bear arms and if the founders had intended for that to be taken away it would have been at the time.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

), are making life riskier for the majority of Americans who choose not to own handguns, or any other weapon for that matter. 

PTownsend - How much do you think the risk is increased by? By that I mean odds like is it a 1 in 10 odds you will be shot because of this or is more like your odds of being shot are 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 10,000?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ahem, the term "the people" is used five (5) times in the U.S. Bill of Rights

Then how come the people. More specifically people who get We the People tattooed on their arms. In other words Real Americans as they consider themselves to be don't demand military grade weaponry. It's hypocritical. They go to the extent of inking the constitution on their bodies but they stop short of demanding the NRA and government to push for real weapons. The good stuff for fighting governments and shooters with fully autos up high from hotel rooms. Compared to that. The tatooed We the People people are just carrying laughable cap guns compared to what the real evil government has and the Las Vegas shooter had. It sounds like these We the People people are simply NRA cultists. If I were a We the People person I would not settle for that the NRA says should be legal. I want the same high grade weaponry the military has. It's guaranteed in the constitution.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I want the same high grade weaponry the military has. It's guaranteed in the constitution.

Then get a destructive device permit and you can have them.

Fully operational tanks are legal to own for civilians in the USA, same with fighter jets and bombers. Flame throwers are for the most part nearly completely unregulated relative to other weapons.

The only real issue is going to be can you afford the cost of the product in general and then you are going to have the issue of getting the chief law enforcement officer or DA to sign off on your purchase.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The creation, funding, and arming of a militia would have been addressed in the U.S. Constitution, not in the Bill of (Individual) Rights.

I don't understand your use of would have; either it was addressed, or it wasn't. It seems in fact it was addressed, in Article 1 Section 8, clauses 15 and 16. Interestingly, clause 16 refers to the arming and disciplining of the Militia being in the power of the Congress. Not sure how that fits in with guns being freely on sale at Walmart.

(As an aside, clause 12 of Section 8 states that the Congress has the power 'to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years'. And here we are today with the US pouring virtually unlimited resources into the military...do we ever hear talk of two-year limits on military budgets? Seems those who swear by the Constitution most loudly are the same as those who swear by the Bible; trumpet the cherry-picked bits, and ignore the awkward bits. Rant over.)

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

It would seem that for the discussion to go anywhere we need to know what was meant by the Militia; it obviously did not mean the normal standing army. The Militia Act of 1792 states that '*each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia'. Are the 'law-abiding gun owners' we hear so much about all 'able-bodied white males'? Do they hand in their weapons when they reach the age of 45, no longer being eligible for the militia? The same section of the Act also states what kind of weapon the militia members need to arm themselves with; a good musket or firelock ... or with a good rifle...the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword. *No mention of handguns, semi-automatics and the like. Either the very idea of a militia is woefully out of date, in which case the 2nd amendment needs amending to bring it into the 21st century; or the people gleefully waving their guns around really don't care, it's all about how they cherry-pick the Constitution, not about what it actually says/means.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/2nd_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_33

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Then get a destructive device permit and you can have them.

For the We the People Americans that's against the constitution. I'm talking about getting them discreetly so the government doesn't know your business. Like the Las Vegas shooter but much more powerful weaponry.

The only real issue is going to be can you afford the cost of the product in general

Yes, many people can afford the cost of the actual product (The wealthy Las Vegas shooter sure could have). Beyond that like high registration fees, that's against the We the People beliefs

getting the chief law enforcement officer or DA to sign off on your purchase.

Not acceptable for We the People. and if I were one of those type of real Americans I would be very very upset that the government is infringing on my rights.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"The survey found that 80 percent of surveyed handgun owners who carried their handgun had a concealed-carry permit."

These concealed-carry permits require a rigorous background check and training requirements. More rigorous than some police departments. This states that these men are as fit to own a gun as your gun toting officers of any country. 

If you believe that guns are not needed, please let's get rid of all guns that every Government has. Why do police officers need guns. 

You want to gripe about mass killings. Let's talk about the Native American Indian, Raping of Nanjing, Pearl Harbor, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler. THESE WERE MASS MURDERS, not Las Vegas. These mass murders were carried out by ordinary people at the behest of their respective leaders. These ordinary men who killed justified their actions by belief of skewed virtues.

Saying that guns should only be carried by a select few that are deemed mentally fit and morally aligned to do so is stating that all the rest are mentally incapable of this privilege. 

I reiterate, PLEASE start with the disarmament of your own government if you stated the irrelevance of firearms in this moral and loving world we live in. 

The key to peace is in respect given to others before ourselves demand it from others.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I reiterate, PLEASE start with the disarmament of your own government if you stated the irrelevance of firearms in this moral and loving world we live in. 

Right!

As I've always said, when my US government gives up its guns, so will I. Until then, fat chance hommie.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

As I've always said, when my US government gives up its guns, so will I. Until then, fat chance hommie.

Yes, including Japan....oh wait!!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yes, including Japan....oh wait!!!

I own a US passport.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I don’t live in Chicago or LA, so I’m not living in a heightened state of fear.

But wimpish enough to need a gun.If you were all that you wouldn't need one.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Half of the handguns on earth are in the US.

If the argument is that guns keep people safe, why isn't the US the safest place on the planet?

One million people in the US have been killed by guns in only the last 30 years. That's double the amount killed in the Civil War, which was even more than WWII. Total up all of the deaths in all the wars and that many have been killed on US streets and homes since the the the middle of Clinton's last term as president.

And yet the nation is cowering in fear of terrorism thanks to boogeyman diversion and the media.

Toddlers getting a hold of guns shoot and kill more Americans by accident every year than Americans killed by terrorism.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Those gun carriers are whimpering misled children. They follow some loudmouth hysteria-shrieking demagogue who wants money + influence + power and watches these followers commit gross crimes and they grin. Guns and gun ownership is a GOD in America. Some motormouth starts up the rumor that so-and-so wants to barge in your home and take them ALL away, and the sheep tremble to the massive mind manipulation. Gun show billboards scream this absurd lie and what current gun laws that exist are not enforced. Police officers can't protect the public from these thugs. 

 I am violently SICK of all this immature rumor-mongering and hysteria being by a bunch of ignorant (flag-waving, dope-selling, gangsta - take your pick) criminals who shoot off the mouth all the time like the 3th grade bullies they are because they never grew up (mentally). Some of them use the race card, or childish political name-calling or just plain smart-mouth attitudes but either way it's a DISGUSTING FANATICAL CULT that plagues the U.S.A. like a cancer.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If the argument is that guns keep people safe, why isn't the US the safest place on the planet?

Easy answer, that is guns are not only factor that deter or cause crime. Economics(poverty/lack of opportunities/drug war), cultural beliefs(honor killings), religious beliefs, environmental poisons(lead poisoning), justice system that is oppressive, etc.

One million people in the US have been killed by guns in only the last 30 years. That's double the amount killed in the Civil War, which was even more than WWII. Total up all of the deaths in all the wars and that many have been killed on US streets and homes since the the the middle of Clinton's last term as president.

Only people naive about death are surprised by the above quote. The USA annually has 2-3 million deaths by all causes combined. Firearms make up 1 to 1.5% of all deaths in the USA annually. Alcohol is, for example, estimated to kill 88,000 people each year in the USA, that means it basically kills a million people nearly every 12 years in the USA.

And yet the nation is cowering in fear of terrorism thanks to boogeyman diversion and the media.

Toddlers getting a hold of guns shoot and kill more Americans by accident every year than Americans killed by terrorism.

The fear of foreign terrorism is a totally irrational fear, things like patriot act need to be repealed.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Half of the handguns on earth are in the US.

If the argument is that guns keep people safe, why isn't the US the safest place on the planet?

Safest from foreign invasion, definitely.

the 2nd amendment quotes to bare arms, it does not mention fire arms, arms could mean, pitch fork, plank of wood, a large stick with a nail, or knife, a piece of glass.

It could also mean tanks, warships, fighter jets, missiles, and nuclear “arms.”

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Economics(poverty/lack of opportunities/drug war), cultural beliefs(honor killings), religious beliefs, environmental poisons(lead poisoning), justice system

Las Vegas?

Alcohol is, for example, estimated to kill 88,000 people each year in the USA, that means...

...guns should be as easy to buy as a can of beer?

Firearms make up 1 to 1.5% of all deaths in the USA annually

And mass shootings are starting to make running public and private establishments more expensive because of security costs. This is not done by alcohol or car crashes, but by semi auto guns and above. You probably won't get hit by a bullet by going to a concert but you will get hit with an extra security fee so I am for making new sales of semi autos illegal and all guns have to be registered or gun owners face a crime. What is the practical reason to have a semi auto other than mass murder?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

In the UK when someone is murdered by a crazed killer with a truck, we don’t call for the banning of trucks either.

Really? Is that the lengths to defend guns that people will go to now? Sometimes you just wish that some peoples parents had never met.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Las Vegas?

......? Las Vegas doesn't refute the assertion that there are other factors in violent crime than just simply the gun existing and that they are more important to deterring and causing crime.

...guns should be as easy to buy as a can of beer?

If guns being as easy to buy as a can beer still results in less people being killed and injured than Alcohol then the answer to that question is yes.

And mass shootings are starting to make running public and private establishments more expensive because of security costs

That would be an irrational reaction considering how rare the threat is compared to other cause of death and injury.

This is not done by alcohol or car crashes, but by semi auto guns and above. You probably won't get hit by a bullet by going to a concert but you will get hit with an extra security fee 

You do realize that most of the "security" at venues is to prevent people who don't have a ticket from entering the venue, and second to primarily kick out intoxicated people who start fights and yes they do provide some extra security due to vehicles to protect patrons on their way to the facility, especially at inter-sections. The fact that alcohol and cars are the bigger threat in terms of causing injury and death and yet they don't inspire the same reaction only proves that the fear of gun crimes at these events is irrational.

I am for making new sales of semi autos illegal and all guns have to be registered or gun owners face a crime. What is the practical reason to have a semi auto other than mass murder?

Registration does not work in terms of reducing crime, this is especially true for the sex offender registry and the car registry, therefore the money is wasted. Money that could have been used to save lives from other causes that are just as important.

Practical reasons to own a semi-automatic is recreation, hunting, and self defense.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That would be an irrational reaction considering how rare the threat is compared to other cause of death and injury.

But places like public schools (they want to arm teachers in classrooms with semi autos), Disney, places where there are lots of people are increasing their security. Going through Disney now is like going through airport security (look it up). This extra security does not grow on trees. It's making prices and public operations more expensive for all. My hometown supermarket now has some security clown walking around with a gun. This extra cost is passed on to the higher priced groceries. Then there is talk of increased movie theater security that would add a dollar cost per ticket. These are just a few specific examples out of many. And how to prevent Las Vegas Part II? Also, who is going to pay for all the guns for the teachers to carry and the training? It's taxes just so the We the People people can be pacified.

If guns being as easy to buy as a can beer still results in less people being killed and injured than Alcohol then the answer to that question is yes.

OK, then including military grade weaponry- get that military grade fully auto by simply flashing an ID. Fine. Should teenagers (like 16) be allowed to conceal carry to protect themselves as long as they are reliable and no juvenile record?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

In the UK when someone is murdered by a crazed killer with a truck, we don’t call for the banning of trucks either.

Because the people in the UK aren't morons. Ban trucks, and society collapses. Ban guns and society is safer.

Enough with the ridiculous arguments please. If you are stupid enough to believe the above is a logical argument, then you need to stop making any arguments at all, as you've either shown yourself to be well into the lower IQ levels of humanity, or you're being deceitful. Either way, you have shown that your opinions should not be included in a grown-up discussion.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

while the US government rams a tank through your house and takes you out. yep and while those armed militia are at training at their gun range in preparation for a government attack a little drone just quietly flys over and drops a coupe of hellfire missiles to spoil their day.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I am one of those 3 million and with Americas drug problems and lack of mental health care it is a necessity. I am surrounded by police officers daily at work who carry as well. The inability of Police to help in time makes it necessary for private citizens to be their own first responders. I truly like the Koban in Japan and the awesome number of Police there. America can no more be like Japan as Japan can not be like America.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

with Americas drug problems and lack of mental health care it is a necessity

If it's really so dire, why not move to somewhere safer?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Because the people in the UK aren't morons.

Because they’re superior??? ROFL

Ban trucks, and society collapses. Ban guns and society is safer.

No, that’s not what the stats show, in fact, they were showing quite the opposite.

Enough with the ridiculous arguments please. If you are stupid enough to believe the above is a logical argument, then you need to stop making any arguments at all, as you've either shown yourself to be well into the lower IQ levels of humanity, or you're being deceitful. Either way, you have shown that your opinions should not be included in a grown-up discussion.

Hmmmm....I wouldn’t consider myself stupid, not even close, but nice try. I’m just not an emotional person and I just think the lefts arguments and in particular European left arguments are totally weak when it comes to this issue, even if you guys get mad and frustrated regardless, but I can guarantee you that by next year this time around and in the following years to come 2nd amendment will still be here as well as the NRA. Just relax.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

they were showing quite the opposite

Japan proves it

as well as the NRA

The NRA is a Liberal organization

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think what this discussion has shown is that the people are totally polarised: those with guns and want to preserve the 2nd Amendment tend to be more right wing, aggressive and paranoid... and would probably get on quite well in the Wild West.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I wouldn’t consider myself stupid, not even close

Then why live in a gun free zone?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The NRA is a Liberal organization.

Yes, that’s why liberals will never get rid of the 2nd amendment because they know a vast majority of their constituents are NRA supporters.

I think what this discussion has shown is that the people are totally polarised: those with guns and want to preserve the 2nd Amendment tend to be more right wing, aggressive and paranoid...

Seems like the left that so desperately want to revoke the 2nd amendment are the ones that are paranoid.

Then why live in a gun free zone?

I don’t live in a gun free zone. I live in Texas.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I don’t live in a gun free zone. I live in Texas.

When you are living in Japan. With no gun.

Yes, that’s why liberals

No, because of the NRA and Conservatives Las Vegas happened.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

1787 was the year folks - bearing arms pertained to 'State Militias' not 'individuals' and State Militias do not exist anymore. So the 2nd Amendment arguments touted by these right-leaning crazies and NRA affiliated members against gun control are the ones who claim it is natural to carry/conceal weapons should be the ones we all fear.

The argument that guns keep people safe couldn't be farther from the truth.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

But places like public schools (they want to arm teachers in classrooms with semi autos), Disney, places where there are lots of people are increasing their security. Going through Disney now is like going through airport security (look it up). This extra security does not grow on trees. It's making prices and public operations more expensive for all. My hometown supermarket now has some security clown walking around with a gun. This extra cost is passed on to the higher priced groceries. Then there is talk of increased movie theater security that would add a dollar cost per ticket. These are just a few specific examples out of many. And how to prevent Las Vegas Part II? Also, who is going to pay for all the guns for the teachers to carry and the training? It's taxes just so the We the People people can be pacified.

All of the above measures are further evidence of the irrational reactions to a very small threat level relative to other mundane threats in our lives.

OK, then including military grade weaponry- get that military grade fully auto by simply flashing an ID. Fine. Should teenagers (like 16) be allowed to conceal carry to protect themselves as long as they are reliable and no juvenile record?

If it can be shown that the activity hurts the same amount of people or less people than what is already allowed then the answer to that question is yes. We already allow teenagers to carry firearms on them for hunting or to and from target shooting ranges, so yeah if they have shown themselves to be reliable and no immediate past criminal record then yes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

We already allow teenagers to carry

No, we don't, not like adults. And the question was not answered. Should teens be allowed to carry (handguns) like adults? Semi auto Glocks and the like? The age of 16?

If it can be shown

(If...)

A little uncertain there. Should common citizens be allowed to purchase shoulder mounted rocket launchers or not? Should they be allowed to carry them to outdoor concerts in case there is another hotel shooter and he can be taken out?

....are further evidence....

...that the We the People people are increasing security costs since specifics were made. Security does not grow on trees. It's not threat. It's money. Who is going to pay for these extra security costs?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No, we don't, not like adults. And the question was not answered. Should teens be allowed to carry (handguns) like adults? Semi auto Glocks and the like? The age of 16?

I didn't claim we already allowed them to carry hand guns in public. I'm claiming that we already allow them to carry hand guns for hunting and to and from target ranges. Should a teen be allowed to carry a handgun like an adult, well if the deaths and injuries is lower than another activity that we already allow teenagers to do like an adult, like driving a motor vehicle. Then the answer to that question is yes.

A little uncertain there.

No uncertainty at all, I'm clearly saying that if the number of killed and or wounded is within a range of other activities that we allow then the answer to that question is yes. If it is in a class of its own, that is to say no other product, services, hobby, activity, etc matches the casualty rate then yes I would agree that they could be restricted.

Should common citizens be allowed to purchase shoulder mounted rocket launchers or not?

Already are, again get a destructive device permit.

Should they be allowed to carry them to outdoor concerts in case there is another hotel shooter and he can be taken out?

That is up to the concert organizer, if they want to allow it then fine.

...that the We the People people are increasing security costs since specifics were made. Security does not grow on trees. It's not threat. It's money. Who is going to pay for these extra security costs?

Well I don't think that security measures are justified or cost effective. Sp I do not advocate for them and if they have already been implemented I would call for their repeal. These security measures are choices, there is nothing that says we are under an obligation to do anything after an incident.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

PTownsend - How much do you think the risk is increased by? By that I mean odds like is it a 1 in 10 odds you will be shot because of this or is more like your odds of being shot are 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 10,000?

After taking out suicides and urban gang/drug related gun homicides the ratio is somewhere around 4,000 or 5,000 murders a year -- in a country with a population over 320 million.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Why? Just because many of us distrust the government doesn’t mean we have to leave, but having the second amendment it allows us to take our safety in our own hands, which I’m very proud of, you may not understand, but that’s ok.

Bass,

SERIOUS question, please explain to us HOW a hand gun can protect YOU from the US govt? One or 2 examples if you have them?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

SERIOUS question, please explain to us HOW a hand gun can protect YOU from the US govt? One or 2 examples if you have them?

Take your pick, I live on a farm and whether it’s shooting Coyotes, foxes, a possible break-in, you can’t always demand on the police to be there at a moments notice, it gives me peace of mind to have it available regardless of the reason, that and I love collecting them

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Lizz After taking out suicides and urban gang/drug related gun homicides the ratio is somewhere around 4,000 or 5,000 murders a year -- in a country with a population over 320 million.

I hope no one you know becomes a statistic. And if they do, please refer back to what you just wrote. Are you seriously using those stats, wherever you got them, to downplay gun deaths and their effects on US society? As long as we're being callous, do you have info showing how much money all the gun deaths and crimes cost the taxpayers of the US? TAX GUN OWNERS AND THE GUN INDUSTRIES!!!

a GW SERIOUS question, please explain to us HOW a hand gun can protect YOU from the US govt

I echo the question.

@bass it’s shooting Coyotes, foxes, a possible break-in, 

Shooting coyotes and foxes with a handgun? LOL I hope your move to Texas went well; my sense is you have enough in the way of 'fertilizer' to make your farm prosper. ROFL

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Shooting coyotes and foxes with a handgun?

I was talking about all firearms in general terms.

LOL I hope your move to Texas went well; my sense is you have enough in the way of 'fertilizer' to make your farm prosper. ROFL

Liberals are really talented at filibustering, but horrible when it comes to comedy. Smh

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

get a destructive device permit.

That's against 2A. It means the government knows your business. It's an infringement on 2A? That means the government can confiscate your weapons and We the People cannot fight tyranny.

Then the answer to that question is yes.

OK, then a group of teens like from age 13 with no adult around should be allowed to carry semi auto Glocks because teens often hang out with no adult and they have a right to protect themselves just as much as adults. Teens can be in life/death self defense situation just as much as adults when these teens are alone

Well I don't think that security measures are justified or cost effective

But they exist and they are costing. Tax money is being spent to build armories in school with extra anti-gun security infrastructure and have training in case the school is stormed with automatic weapons that the government allows sales of. This extra security does not grow on trees.

These security measures are choices

And they are being chosen more and more with these costs being passed on to everyone to pay for (in the USA, not Japan)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I think if you do more research that the 3million figure understates just how many American are armed (and dangerous?). Just because they are not strapped on their sides, doesn’t mean they don’t have auick easy access such as the glove compartment of their car, desk drawer or several home easy to access locations. We Americans mostly grew up in an environment where guns were and are readily available.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Are you seriously using those stats, wherever you got them, to downplay gun deaths and their effects on US society?

PTownsend - One person's minimization is another person's hyperbole. You made a comment about how gun owners place other people at risk. I asked you question about how much of the increase the risk was. I'm still waiting for an answer from you.

Furthermore the point you are making about how gun owners increase the risk of injury or death then begs further questions. Are you saying that people should not be allowed to own products, purchases, enjoy hobbies, recreational activities if it increases the risk of injury or death to anyone including oneself by any amount?

If not then are we claiming that the amount of increase in risk itself is unacceptable? If so what is it?

If we are assuming for arguments sake that the increase in risk is evenly distributed then that means that at a per capita rate of 10 per 100,000 the increase in risk of death is one hundredth of one percent annually and two hundredths of one percent if we do non-fatal injuries. Grand total increase in risk of death or injury per year is three hundredths of one percent.

Are we then claiming that people, especially an with ownership rate of between 30-50% of the adult population, should not be allowed to own a product, purchase a service, etc if it increases the risk of injury or death to the general population by three hundredths of one percent on an annual basis?

If the answer is yes to the above questions then I can't say that I agree. If the answer is no to the above questions then what is the point of pointing out that ownership of firearms increases the risk of injury or death?

As long as we're being callous, do you have info showing how much money all the gun deaths and crimes cost the taxpayers of the US? TAX GUN OWNERS AND THE GUN INDUSTRIES!!!

Pointing out the sobering statistical insignificance of an unspeakable tragedy doesn't mean you're disrespecting said tragedy.

To answer your question it is estimated that guns cause a combined indirect and direct costs of $200-300 billion dollars per year in the USA.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@noliving I asked you question about how much of the increase the risk was. I'm still waiting for an answer from you.

For me, the death of a close friend has made it so any gun death is one too many. The risk for me is not worth it.

Gun owners 'rights' to own guns, especially handguns, like the one used to murder my friend, even those like the one the murderer purchased legally, ended my friend's life. Anyone carrying a hand gun puts me, my friends and family members, and everyone else, at risk.

Get all actuarial if you want, justify unnecessary deaths with statistics any way you want. Call my response hyperbole. The death of my friend has convinced me your 'right' to own guns is not worth the risk for me, nor for my friends and family.

Let the military and police carry weapons. Make gun owners and the gun industry pay more for gun related problems. You're a minority of the population. You cost the rest of us too much already.

I'm happy I live in Japan where my risk of getting shot by some weak, scared person is low. I'll take the other risks of being here as part of everyday living.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Lizz & @Nolivg Given your concern for more data, I want to add that this summer I returned to my home town. While I was there there was a high school reunion. There were around 400 in my graduating class. Two men from that class were murdered by handguns. Because I know you're both interested in data (make it information anyway you deem appropriate and apply it to your sense of 'acceptable risk'), both were white males who were each murdered by another white male. One had one child, the other two. The person I referenced earlier was a mother of 3. She was also murdered by a white male. Each of these deaths was workplace-related. None of the 3 murdered by a handgun had anything to do with drugs.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Whether people like guns or not, the simple fact is more guns = more gun crimes. Don't think about your own selfishness in wanting a gun, think about those who get killed by them.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-study/nevada-gun-shows-tied-to-firearm-violence-in-california-study-idUSKBN1CS2P8

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why? Just because many of us distrust the government doesn’t mean we have to leave, but having the second amendment it allows us to take our safety in our own hands, which I’m very proud of, you may not understand, but that’s ok.

Bass,

Let me try re-wording my question, actually I will leave it as it was

SERIOUS question, please explain to us HOW a hand gun can protect YOU from the US govt? One or 2 examples if you have them?

Shooting animals with   what I would assume to be rifles......What I was asking is HOW is your HAND GUN going to help you DEFEND yourself against the US govt potentially??!!??

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Let me try re-wording my question, actually I will leave it as it was

SERIOUS question, please explain to us HOW a hand gun can protect YOU from the US govt? One or 2 examples if you have them?

Shooting animals with  what I would assume to be rifles......What I was asking is HOW is your HAND GUN going to help you DEFEND yourself against the US govt potentially??!!??

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Doesn't matter if it's about hand guns or rifles. Or whether to hunt, or to feel safe (i.e. because of fear of gov't oppression if it ever happens) or protect ourselves and our families because the nearest police "koban" is 50 kms away, our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If it's really so dire, why not move to somewhere safer?

> I would like to do that and if my planning works out I will be. Many Dallas neighborhoods are littered with drug paraphernalia. I am a civil servant and work with the citizens in all of the neighborhoods in Dallas Texas. Police officers have been leaving the force in record numbers and private citizens must be their own protection. Has nothing to do with wanting to be a badass it has everything to do with personal safety. I really did enjoy my time in Tokyo when I was there and the fact that I didn't feel like I needed to have a firearm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But they exist and they are costing. Tax money is being spent to build armories in school with extra anti-gun security infrastructure and have training in case the school is stormed with automatic weapons that the government allows sales of. This extra security does not grow on trees.

And they are being chosen more and more with these costs being passed on to everyone to pay for (in the USA, not Japan)

Nishikat - Right...so the answer to that is to stand up and point out to them that these security measures are not cost effective and should not be implemented. Just because they are increasingly being chosen does not make the decision any more rational or correct.

OK, then a group of teens like from age 13 with no adult around should be allowed to carry semi auto Glocks because teens often hang out with no adult and they have a right to protect themselves just as much as adults. Teens can be in life/death self defense situation just as much as adults when these teens are alone

Nishikat - OK.....again if it can be shown that 13 year olds with no adults around are carrying firearms and as a result of that it results in a range of casualties that we allow for other activities that other 13 year old do without parental supervision then fine.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Good. If each gun carrier shoots one other gun carrier each day, solves that problem.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

PTownsend - Shooting coyotes and foxes with a handgun? LOL

It's not that difficult. All it takes is practice.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

cleo - I don't understand your use of would have;

What you don't, won't, or refuse to, understand is why the Bill of Rights was created. They are not the rights of the government, or of government militias. All of the rights mentioned in the BoR are rights of the individual. All of the references to "the people" as mentioned in the BoR refer to the individual. Some gun-banners have found that the existence of a Bill of (Individual) Rights has repeatedly foiled the gun-banner's attempts to ban guns. And the voting supporters of the Bill of (Individual) Rights seem to make it difficult for some elected Democrats to remain in office, if those elected Democrats attempt to ban guns.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You should not sell yourself short. After all, you're the one who is repeatedly telling others what they can think or say. It only appears that the other side isn't listening to your advice.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@bass4funk“ I don’t expect people that never grew up without a 2nd amendment like ours to understand this. I personally don’t understand the opposite of how people can’t purchase a firearm. Look, our laws and rights give us that privilege to purchase a firearm and I’m proud of that, “...

OKAY...Growing up WITH the 2nd amendment IS what led me here. I love the States but this archaic amendment makes a huge negative contribution to its society as a whole.

Getting off the wrong bus stop can get you shot to death. So can walking to a friend’s house.(Tampa news)

Americans are MUCH less free than they think they are. We keep saying how proud we are but are we able to really believe this while knowing that SO many INNOCENT human beings, Americans, are and have been losing their right to live in alarming numbers?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Nishikat - OK.....again if it can be shown that 13 year olds with no adults around are carrying firearms and as a result of that it results in a range of casualties that we allow for other activities that other 13 year old do without parental supervision then fine.

Then you are OK with 13-year olds carrying. A bit radical....but OK. Maybe it makes sense since even 13-year-olds can be victims of violence and the rights of We the People don't just apply to adults.

these security measures are not cost effective

The more We the People demand the most dangerous military grade weaponry the more security costs will go up. But if any We the People people come to Japan they have to leave their toy guns (and they are toys) at home. And they are willing to live an a big gun free zone. It's so funny.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Then you are OK with 13-year olds carrying.

Example if they live on a farm and If their parents are responsible and are ok with it, why not. I started using guns from nine. Depends on the parent.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And so what, 1 to 3% of people and all of them likely law abiding because the millions of criminals are not likely in a poll. The 20% of the world wide Muslim population are terrorists or want to be. That’s 0ver 200 million psycho jihadists also carrying guns and other weapons all of whom ready and willing to kill. Talk about a pointless study

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

There are strict laws and license for carrying a firearm in America. Without a license it is a felony offense. It's absurd to think people are just carrying around firearms and shooting people because they have an argument. Firearms are for protection of oneself or property and for protection of those who can't carry because of fear or criminal record. From 2005 to 2011 my car was broken into 6 times. I was chased by a lunatic wielding a crowbar. That is the reason I obtained a license to carry a gun. For those who have good jobs and live in good neighborhoods carrying a gun would seem extreme. I personally never dreamed it would be necessary to carry a gun, but at the age of 50 that all changed. Must be nice to be privileged and look down upon those who must fend for themselves.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

 From 2005 to 2011 my car was broken into 6 times. I was chased by a lunatic wielding a crowbar. 

I experienced worse. Just on my three-week visit home my rental car was broken into 8 times. And Two lunatics (each with two crowbars) were chasing me at the same time. I don't have a gun. But luckily I used to be an olympic sprinter. Staying safe in Japan.

Example if they live on a farm 

No-- Glocks on the blocks. In the street 13-yr olds. The city is where these 13-year olds have a right to carry semi auto Glocks to protect themselves just like adults do. Remember, it's We the People. Anyone who disagrees is a Liberals who just wants to ban ownership of guns, in general.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

America scares me. Not because of the guns themselves. It's the amount of stupid people with guns I'm concerned about.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Then you are OK with 13-year olds carrying. A bit radical....but OK. Maybe it makes sense since even 13-year-olds can be victims of violence and the rights of We the People don't just apply to adults.

Nishikat - If it can be shown that the amount of death and injuries it would cause is in line with other things that 13 year olds do without adult supervision then yes. I don't understand why I have to keep repeating myself to you nor the fact that you keep moving the goal post on this in terms of age.

The more We the People demand the most dangerous military grade weaponry the more security costs will go up..

Nishikat - If that is a true statement then it is only due to irrational reactions.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

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