Three million Americans carry loaded handguns daily, study finds

handgun
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

An estimated 3 million adult American handgun owners carry a firearm loaded and on their person on a daily basis, and 9 million do so on a monthly basis, new research indicates. The vast majority cited protection as their primary reason for carrying a firearm.

Researchers from the University of Washington School of Public Health, the University of Colorado, the Harvard School of Public Health, and Northeastern University produced the study, to be published October 19, 2017, in the American Journal of Public Health.

It is the first research in more than 20 years to scrutinize why, how often, and in what manner U.S. adults carry loaded handguns. It also examines how concealed handgun-carrying behavior differs across , depending on their laws.

"Carrying firearms in public places can have significant implications for and public safety," said lead author Dr. Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, an associate professor of epidemiology at the UW School of Public Health. "An important first step to examining the consequences of firearm carrying at the national level is an accurate measurement of the occurrence of this behavior and characterization of those who engage in it."

Compared with handgun owners who did not carry, those who did report carrying handguns tended to be younger, and more often male, live in the southern United States, have grown up in firearm-owning households, self-identify as politically conservative, and own more than one type of firearm.

Rowhani-Rahbar and doctoral student Vivian Lyons collaborated with Drs. Matthew Miller of Northeastern, Deborah Azrael of Harvard, and Joseph Simonetti of Colorado. They reviewed handgun-carrying behavior of 1,444 gun owners, using data from a 2015 nationally representative survey designed by Miller and Azrael.

"It was important to study handgun carrying because about 90 percent of all firearm homicides and nonfatal firearm crimes for which the type of firearm is known are committed with a handgun," said Rowhani-Rahbar, who is also an adjunct assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Among the findings: 80 percent of surveyed handgun owners who carried their handgun had a concealed-carry permit, and 66 percent said they always carried their handguns concealed, compared with 10 percent who said they always carry their weapons openly.

When comparing handgun-carrying behavior with corresponding states' laws, researchers found that proportionally fewer handgun owners carried a concealed handgun if they lived in a state whose laws afforded greater discretion to issuing agencies in the review of concealed-carry applications. Some owners nevertheless reported carrying a concealed handgun without a permit in states in which doing so was illegal.

State laws on handgun carrying have become less restrictive over the last 30 years. Many states that formerly gave local governing bodies the authority to review applications have moved to constrain local authorities' discretion, thereby easing the permit process for adult residents.

In this same time period, the number of U.S. concealed-carry permit holders has increased significantly.

Rowhani-Rahbar said more research is needed to comprehensively evaluate the impact of increasingly permissive firearm-carry laws. Future studies should focus on analyzing how different concealed-carry laws influence carrying, and characterizing illegal carrying behavior among those who have been denied permits.


Explore further

Changes in state policies impact fatal and non-fatal assaults of law enforcement officers

More information: American Journal of Public Health (2017). ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ … 105/AJPH.2017.304072
Provided by University of Washington Health Sciences
Citation: Three million Americans carry loaded handguns daily, study finds (2017, October 19) retrieved 25 June 2019 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-10-million-americans-handguns-daily.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
829 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 19, 2017
Huh. No indication that they included gang bangers and drug dealers and miscellaneous assorted criminals in their survey. It would be a valuable data set.

It would perhaps indicate for instance why 'Three million Americans carry loaded handguns daily'

Oct 19, 2017
"Carrying firearms in public places can have significant implications for public health and public safety." -- Yes, it is somewhat like a vaccine against criminal violence, it only works if enough of the law-abiding population is participating.

Oct 19, 2017
Yeah, that'll be why the US is so crime free compared to other first-world countries.

Oct 19, 2017
Did you just send a message to miscreants that non-Southern parts of the country are low hanging fruit?

I was advised never to tell anyone what or where or when you're carrying. The mystery empowers those who don't (carry).

Oct 20, 2017
" ... Rowhani-Rahbar said more research is needed to comprehensively evaluate the impact of increasingly permissive firearm-carry laws."

In other words, he wants more taxpayer dollars.

Oct 20, 2017
'The only thing that can stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun'
In the USA the 'good man with a gun' is a self appointed, untrained, vigilante.
For the rest of the world, civilised people call the 'Good Man with a gun' The Police.

Remember the shootout at the OK Corral? It was illegal to carry a gun in town and that was one of the laws the Erp brothers were enforcing that led to the shootout.

That's right, gun laws are more liberal today in Tombstone than they were in the 1880s.

You want the wild west? Go to the USA **TODAY** : more guns, more shootouts (mainly gangs, as in the Wild West), more murders per 100,000 today than in the so called Wild West.

Oct 20, 2017
It's amazing how many people are comfortable in the role of a serf hoping that their lord will protect them. If someone is trying to kill you, take heart that the authorities will get there sooner or later. If you're dead by then, well take comfort that you were a good citizen delegating your safety to those who know best.

Oct 20, 2017
Yeah, that'll be why the US is so crime free compared to other first-world countries
Yeah we know. The US has a relatively high crime rate. Which is the reason why

"An estimated 3 million adult American handgun owners carry a firearm loaded and on their person on a daily basis, and 9 million do so on a monthly basis"

-See how twisted gunphobe thinking can be?

Oct 20, 2017
That's right, gun laws are more liberal today in Tombstone than they were in the 1880s
I think you have this backwards?
Guns banned in tombstone is not more 'liberal' although maybe you are using the term politically?

At any rate, more gunphobe twisted thinking...

Crime in the wild west:

"homicide rates in the West were extraordinarily high by today's standards and by the standards of the rest of the United States and the Western world in the nineteenth century, except for parts of the American South during the Civil War and Reconstruction."

Guns were outlawed in tombstone in an attempt to curb violence from drunken cattlemen and road gangs. Didnt seen to work very well did it?

But of course throughout the countryside, everybody had guns to protect themselves. Because obviously, they needed them.

Just like today.

KBK
Oct 20, 2017
In the USA ---where the guns are illegal - they have the highest level of violence via guns than any area in the USA.

In the areas where gun carrying is legal, they have the lowest level of gun violence in the USA.

That's right.

Every spot in the USA that is considered to be 'gun nut central', has gun violence rate so low, that they score as being not just the lowest gun violence in the USA...

.....but also score as the lowest gun violence in the world.

Historically, countries gunless via government decree -they are on record as having erupted into open oligarchical fascism- and then almost every single one had moved into totalitarianism. Butchered populations.

The places where it is most illegal to possess guns...most of them are on record as having the most severe levels of gun violence.

Know your stats.

The true stats are opposite to what the desires of oligarchy try to push into the public record as being the record.

BTW, I'm not a gun nut. Zero guns.

Oct 20, 2017
KBK
but also score as the lowest gun violence in the world
Could you support your assertion with data please.
http://www.npr.or...ountries

Oct 20, 2017
The genius of the Republican Party is convincing folks this is about ideology when it is about money and single issue voters, like everything else they are involved with. Republicans and their trolls lie constantly 'bout dem liberals goin take yur guns away, when in fact there is no evidence of that, unless you are the criminally insane. If you try using that lump between your ears you may realize that the right to NOT be shot is far more important than the right to shoot. Ask yourself if you really believe the right of Stephen Paddock to own dozens of guns, including bump stock machine guns, was more important than the rights of dozens of people he shot in Las Vegas, including the 59 shot dead. If that piece of crap Paddock had been required to register the 33 guns and bump stocks he bought in the last year maybe the shootings could have been prevented. Is it so hard to see having reasonable limits on gun ownership is reasonable?

Oct 20, 2017
I would say it's more like 30 million. One thing they are forgetting is concealed means concealed, why would you tell someone you are carrying. Now think of all those who Open Carry, I would put that number up around the 3 million number. Think of it this way. Why would anyone get a license to carry and not carry. Add up all the licenses and I can quarantine you that your numbers are skewed.

Oct 20, 2017
the right of Stephen Paddock to own... bump stock machine guns, was more important than the rights of dozens of people he shot
"On June 7, 2010 -- about a year and a half into the Barack Obama administration -- the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued an opinion letter, giving the go-ahead to an after-market accessory that allows the user to "bump fire" a semi-automatic rifle."

-So obama officials made the decision to approve parts on the exterior of a weapon which would enable full auto fire, while maintaining a ban on parts on the interior of a weapon which did the same thing.

How come?

Perhaps because dems have to rely on horrible acts of violence to enact laws that weaken americans by disarming and overtaxing them and restricting their freedom to do much of anything, because the majority would never approve otherwise. As they have amply proven in the past.

This is for instance exactly why hitler burned down the reichstag.

Oct 20, 2017
BTW
the right of Stephen Paddock to own dozens of guns
-and how many do you think he could have used at one time? What makes you gunphobes think that owning an ARSENAL makes someone more dangerous?

Mark Steyn offered a plausible motive for the piles of guns found in Paddocks possession...

"This man wished to telegraph to America in graphic form the hard irrefutable evidence that guns and gun ownership and the ease of gun purchase in America are an evil and must be controlled. On that hypothesis everything now makes sense. And it must be said his concept has a certain demented genius."
https://www.steyn...the-case

He targeted conservatives. He had an obscene number of guns. He offered no motive. Etc.

I true you would have to agree that this is a decidedly leftist motivation. And the only one that makes any sense in light of the evidence.

Sort of like hunting down republican congressmen on a ballfield.

Oct 20, 2017
"On June 7, 2010 -- about a year and a half into the Barack Obama administration -- the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued an opinion letter, giving the go-ahead to an after-market accessory that allows the user to "bump fire" a semi-automatic rifle."

First it was Obama would have done anything to take our guns away like Hitler, but somehow Obama is ok with everyone having bump stocks?! I don't suppose you see any inconsistency there? The real story is this is wrong on both counts. Obama was not trying to take everyone's guns away, nor was it his fault what the ATF did. I read the scumbags who got the ATF to permit bump stocks stated they were made for veterans who had lost motion in their hands and needed a special stock to fire a gun.

https://thinkprog...b4bb081/


Oct 20, 2017
Spouting off a bunch of pro-gun propaganda solves NOTHING. More guns have only brought us a constant stream of mass shootings, murders and suicides unlike anywhere else in the advanced world. It is only getting worse, and the big Republican plan to fix it? Why more guns, of course! So tell me how more guns would have made Las Vegas better?

Oct 20, 2017
Life can be complicated, so let me give you a rule of thumb to help you cut through the crap. Listen to what people say, watch what they do, and always consider if those actions benefit their own interests or not. Is it really so surprising that the gun lobby fights to sell more guns, the AMA fights for doctors' freedom to massively overcharge, the oil lobby attacks global warming science to keep selling oil, the ISPs bribe Republicans to sell a record of your internet activity, the pharma companies work to keep selling opioids, etc. All these are big Republican donors because they get what they pay for. It is that simple.

Oct 20, 2017
This is a science website, or at least it is supposed to be. So why not advocate using science to determine the best path forward? Instead of spouting off useless propaganda and half-baked ideas about self-protection, let's use science to determine what system of laws and rules around the world best protects its citizens and then see if we can adjust it to reach maximum effectiveness. One thing is for certain, judging by the large numbers of mass shootings, murders and suicides, the U.S. gun ownership system is one of the worst, if not the worst.

Republicans react to this by attacking science itself and blocking federal funding of gun research because they want to try to hide the damage they are causing. This has nothing to do with liberal versus conservative, it is all about the money, baby.

Oct 21, 2017
The debate is not rational. "There are more public mass shootings in the United States than in any other country in the world" "the United States has 5% of the world's population, it had 31% of all public mass shootings" "The United States has more guns than any other country in the world" But then KBK says it is "the lowest gun violence in the world" - but fails to provide any support. And Otto says it is about the government trying to take away our freedoms - just like burning down the Reichstag. Quotes from - http://www.cnn.co...dex.html

Oct 21, 2017
cut through the crap. Listen to what people say, watch what they do, and always consider if those actions benefit their own interests or not
That's right marky mark but you have to do a little research to find out who is who and what is what.

Ask yourself who will benefit from a populace that is unable to defend itself.

"It is much more difficult for corrupt politicians or organized crime to exist in the midst of an armed citizenry. Need an expert opinion on that? How about Sammy "The Bull" Gravano:

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."
Gun control in New York was driven by corrupt politicians desire to protect their criminal gangs. Big Tim Sullivan, who pushed through the Sullivan law, didn't want his gangsters to face armed resistance."
Cont>

Oct 21, 2017
And the NRA, what you call the 'gun lobby', is 5 million gun owners, US citizens, who have joined together to defend their rights.

"Planned Parenthood, the top abortion business in the nation, spent about 10 times more buying political influence in the 2016 election than the NRA... According to the report, the NRA has donated $3,555,194 to current members of Congress. In contrast, Planned Parenthood spent $38 million on the 2016 elections alone. Almost all of the abortion chain's money went to pro-abortion Democrats, despite Planned Parenthood's claims of being "non-partisan."

Gun owners influence Congress by electing politicians they like and voting the ones they don't like out of office.
Instead of spouting off useless propaganda and half-baked ideas about self-protection
But marky mark your arguments are all useless propaganda and brainless sloganeering.

It's troubling that you cant tell the difference and can't be bothered to find out.

Oct 21, 2017
And to demonstrate just how careful one has to be when researching this subject, my above quote is inaccurate.

"The NRA has donated a paltry $3,533,294 to all current members of Congress since 1998, according to The Washington Post, equivalent to about three months of Kimmel's salary. The NRA doesn't need to buy influence: It's powerful because it's popular."

SINCE 1998. While

"Planned Parenthood spent $38 million on the 2016 elections alone..."

The first source obviously left that out.

Oct 21, 2017
Republicans react to this by attacking science itself and blocking federal funding of gun research because they want to try to hide the damage they are causing
THATS_A_LIE. Govt-funded 'Gun research' has been proven to be hopelessly politicized, biased, and thus wrong. It's conducted and promoted by the same people who told that lie you just mindlesdly repeated.

Oct 21, 2017
Ask yourself who will benefit from a populace that is unable to defend itself
That's a pretty interesting question. Who are you thinking we need to defend ourselves from? The U.S. government, and it's military? If so - they have a fully armed modern military - with all of it's tanks, jets, bombers, missiles, etc. Surely hand guns and semi-automatic rifles are not much match for the biggest military in the universe. Since Australia passed strict gun control legislation in 1996 - they have not had one mass shooting - http://www.slate....e_a.html The U.S. has about 7 per week - http://www.cnn.co...dex.html So maybe a more complex debate would ask different questions - like which is the bigger danger - gun violence, or our government attacking us?

Oct 21, 2017
Here's a more interesting question for you. What makes you think that the purpose of owning guns is mass shootings or armed insurrection?

Here's an odd little study

"The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies," the CDC study, entitled "Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence," states."

-conducted by dems no less.

Guns are indispensable for personal protection.

Oct 21, 2017
What makes you think that the purpose of owning guns is mass shootings or armed insurrection?
I asked a question - and you do not answer it. You asked "who will benefit from a populace that is unable to defend itself" And I asked a direct question " Who are you thinking we need to defend ourselves from?" Which you of course evade.
One really interesting point - is that you consistently talk about 'tribalism' as a problem in our world. Then you are the one who immediately starts throwing around the tribal labels of dems, libs, etc.
Another interesting point on your defensive gun issue - is that home invasions did not increase in Australia, and homicides and suicides by fire arms decreased dramatically. So the questions surely look at the bigger picture - 'which society is safer - one with, or one without guns?'

Oct 21, 2017
"But marky mark your arguments are all useless propaganda and brainless sloganeering."

Otto, I must be getting pretty close to the mark since you have no actual analysis and simply fall back on Standard Republican Dirty Debate Tactics:
1. Accuse others of what your are doing.
2. Mislabel and condemn.
3. Mischaracterize at every turn.

I argued that gun registration is a good idea that might have prevented the disaster in Las Vegas and you have no real answer. Prove me wrong.

"Ask yourself who will benefit from a populace that is unable to defend itself."

What a load of crap. First, you have a false premise. Nobody said take all the guns away, only have REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS on gun ownership to try to keep them out of the hands of morons, psychopaths and mental defectives. Second, you are naive in the extreme if you think you are going to wage some kind of war on the U.S. government with your 'ol shotgun or the like.

Oct 21, 2017
"Guns are indispensable for personal protection."

Yet somehow the rest of the advance world gets by much better than we do without guns. You also ignore the fact that most shootings are suicides, not homicides. Guns decrease personal protection when the shooter is yourself. You will not be able to properly address this point and at best will fall back on SRDDTs.

As unbelievable as it seems to me, I must be leading a charmed life because I can honestly say I have never been in a situation with another person where my having a loaded gun would have made that situation a whole lot better.

Oct 21, 2017
"The NRA has donated a paltry $3,533,294 to all current members of Congress since 1998"

Otto, they are playing you my friend. I keep trying to tell you this is about money and you keep missing the obvious. Republicans would ignore the NRA unless they brought money and/or votes.

"The NRA has its own super PAC and 501c4 political organization which can run its own political campaign. The two groups combined spent more than $27 million in the 2014 midterm elections on Senate and Congressional candidates"

https://www.nbcne...-n593051

Oct 21, 2017
"Here's a more interesting question for you. What makes you think that the purpose of owning guns is mass shootings or armed insurrection?"

Otto you really need to start thinking your points through better. Pat lines and propaganda are not going to work with me. You need sound logic supported by clear facts if you want to make headway with me. The problem here is some people like Paddock think the purpose of owning guns is for mass shootings. Maybe you need to watch the videos from Las Vegas a few more times until you understand this, but for most of us it is crystal clear.

Regarding armed insurrection against the U.S. govt., that is your false argument, not mine. You justified gun ownership because it leaves the door open to armed insurrection.

Oct 21, 2017
Regarding using science to find a better path on guns, I would begin by looking at similarly situated countries that have achieved better results. Australia comes to mind because they are an advanced, multi-cultural country that restricted gun ownership and are doing far better than we here in the U.S. are. For every person murdered with a gun in Australia, more than 21 are murdered with a gun in the U.S. on a per 100,000 basis. Another advanced, multi-cultural country is England and they are doing so much better than we are it is shocking. For every person murdered with a gun in England and Wales, more than 42 are murdered with a gun in the U.S. on a per 100,000 basis.

https://www.thegu...rld-list

With all the shootings, we should at least consider why nearly all other countries are doing so much better than we are instead of falling back on NRA bought-and-paid-for Republican gun propaganda.

Oct 21, 2017
Otto, look at these charts and convince me something is not very wrong with U.S. gun laws. Your arguments are simply false and fundamentally flawed.

https://www.nytim...rld.html

Oct 21, 2017
I asked a question - and you do not answer it. You asked "who will benefit from a populace that is unable to defend itself" And I asked a direct question " Who are you thinking we need to defend ourselves from?"
But I answered that one already...

"The US has a relatively high crime rate. Which is the reason why

"An estimated 3 million adult American handgun owners carry a firearm loaded and on their person on a daily basis, and 9 million do so on a monthly basis"

Republican Dirty Debate Tactics:
1. Accuse others of what your are doing.
2. Mislabel and condemn.
3. Mischaracterize at every turn
Yeah instead of brainless sloganeering why don't you stick to debating facts?
With all the shootings, we should at least consider why nearly all other countries are doing so much better than we are
But they're not... they can only claim they are by manipulating the data.
https://mises.org...d-canada

Oct 21, 2017
For every person murdered with a gun in Australia, more than 21 are murdered with a gun in the U.S. on a per 100,000 basis
And again, like I said, your deceptive US figures do not distinguish between criminals shot by cops, criminals shot by criminals, and not insignificantly, criminals shot by armed citizens defending themselves and their families.

Which means they're lies.

And the article I linked above shows that euro and UK figures are if nothing, more deceptive.

But you're not going to bother reading it so meh.
NRA bought-and-paid-for Republican gun propaganda.
I gave you the fucking figures marky mark. The NRA hasn't spent enough to influence anybody.

Oct 21, 2017
Here's some nice figures for you

"study undertaken by a group led by criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University found that there are approximately 2.1 to 2.5 million instances annually in which individual Americans use a gun to defend themselves. Considered as households, the figure is 1.3 to 1.5 million annual DGUs (Kleck 1995, Table 2). If this figure is correct, defensive uses of firearms are much more common than crimes committed with guns."

- And per your NYT link, they have printed so_many_outrageous_lies about Trump recently in a desperate attempt to remain solvent that nothing they print can be considered reliable.

I was listening to one of the conservative radio hosts earlier and he pointed out that these and similar efforts have cost dems the presidency, the house, the Senate, and over 1000 political seats throughout the country.

People like you and the euros who post here would conclude this is because US citizens are all low life morons.

Oct 21, 2017
This is especially revealing
I read the scumbags who got the ATF to permit bump stocks stated they were made for veterans who had lost motion in their hands and needed a special stock to fire a gun
So you think the BATF, who employs 100s of scientists and gun experts, who spend 100s of hours testing gadgets like this in the lab and out on the range, would not know that this wasn't actually a way of turning a semi-auto into a full auto just because the makers claimed it was only for wounded vets???

Just who might we conclude fits into the US moron category?

I've seen these for sale in cabelas and gander mountain. They were all over the place and readily available to any idiot with an AR15 who wanted one.

And the BATF knew full well what this meant.

Oct 21, 2017
Otto
But I answered that one already..
No you did not. If you think you did - then my asking the question directly - should trigger your realization that perhaps I did not understand what it is you were saying. So I will ask again - when you say "Ask yourself who will benefit from a populace that is unable to defend itself" - who are you asserting that the population needs to defend itself from? You could be meaning - from the government (many second amendment advocates take this position). You could be meaning from criminal elements who have guns. You could be meaning from a foreign invader. I don't think you were at all clear in clarifying who you were talking about. The question is simple - but the answer is important in terms of a follow up response. You really have difficulty with direct communication don't you? You much prefer to play games - and twist conversations in crazy making knots.

Oct 21, 2017
Otto -
The NRA hasn't spent enough to influence anybody.
And Mark rebutted your assertion - with data that disproved your lie. Here is another article that shows that the NRA does spend a lot of money - in direct contradiction to your lie.

http://fortune.co...iolence/

Oct 21, 2017
No you did not
CRIMINALS you nitwit.
You really have difficulty with direct communication don't you?
CRIMINALS you nitwit.

Oct 21, 2017
CRIMINALS you nitwit.
Thanks. The reason that is an important clarification - is the response from anti gun individuals such as myself - is of course very different - depending on who you see as the threat. Many second amendment advocates - see the government as the threat.. So - I would agree that if I have a gun - I have a better chance of defending myself against someone trying to do me harm - than if I do not. The bigger question is - am I overall safer in a society in which guns are easily accessible, or one in which guns are tightly regulated. I choose the latter. My experience growing up in England, and now living in the U.S. - definitely comes down with the latter. The data - as shown in numerous links today - shows the latter. Australia elected to tightly regulate guns in 1996 - and they have not had one mass shooting since. They are a much safer society than the u.s. We deal with carnage - and they do not.

Oct 22, 2017
am I overall safer in a society in which guns are easily accessible
Yes. Because they are always easily accessuble to a criminal. And even if he doesn't have a gun you are no match for him if he has a club, or a knife, or even his fists... unless you have a gun.

"God made man, Sam Colt made them equal."
Australia elected to tightly regulate guns in 1996 - and they have not had one mass shooting since
So what? And when they do, what will be your argument then?

Oct 22, 2017
Yes. Because they are always easily accessuble to a criminal
And that is where you are wrong. They are easily accessible to criminals in the U.S. - which is by choice - but not in Australia, Britain, and many other countries.
So what?
Which is your exact point isn't it? So what Sandy Hook, Miami, Columbine, Las Vegas - etc. etc. etc? You don't give a shit that 50 people died, and 500 were injured in one incident. You don't give a shit about all the other incidents. As long as you get to keep your precious toys.

Oct 22, 2017
but not in Australia, Britain, and many other countries
But I provided links that say they are. And these weapons tend to be full-auto because that is what is most readily available in post-soviet warehouses and war-torn third world countries. And plus they are easier to manufacture.
Which is your exact point isn't it? So what Sandy Hook, Miami, Columbine, Las Vegas - etc. etc. etc? You don't give a shit
Well I dont think you much give a shit. This is just another selfish, sensationalist gunphobe argument to disarm lawful gun owners.

Oct 22, 2017
"The gun control crowd is currently stomping their feet and screaming "No, it reduces violence! I've seen the statistics." What you probably saw were studies that point to reduced instances of "gun murders," not murder. The pro-gun crowd is screaming that gun bans cause crime. At least this is grounded in reality. Typically, there is a spike in murders immediately after a ban"

-and a prolonged increase in assaults resulting in injury, rape, and property loss. This is true in australia, britain, and canada.

And like I said London is now regarded as the assault capital of europe. Or Blackpool or scotland, depending on where you look.

"There were more than 450 acid attacks in London last year
By AJ Willingham and Muhammad Darwish, CNN
Updated 11:46 AM ET, Fri July 14, 2017"

-Gosh I bet at least some of those victims wish they would have had a gun-

Oct 23, 2017
But I provided links that say they are
No you didn't. You did not provide any links to show that Britain, or Australia - have to deal with gun violence, any where close to the mayhem we deal with here.
you probably saw were studies that point to reduced instances of "gun murders," not murder
Except you don't know what you are talking about - http://www.busine...-2014-11
This is just another selfish, sensationalist gunphobe argument to disarm lawful gun owners.
No - it's an appeal to reason - that we could have a better world - if we would only be more thoughtful. It is unfair of you say I don't much give a shit. I am the one arguing for less violence - not the one saying "So what?"

Oct 23, 2017
Except you don't know what you are talking about
That's a source quote you dimwit. If you're not going to read what I write then this is rather pointless no?
No - it's an appeal to reason - that we could have a better world - if we would only be more thoughtful
... more kind, more pleasant, more good, more rosier, more etc. If only the whole world were designed by Walt Disney and all the animals could talk...

Grow up.

Oct 23, 2017
Hey I hear your anti-feh buddies are planning an armed uprising on nov 4. Better put your ninja suit on.

I was at a gun show awhile back and I did notice a lot of tall, pencil-necked, effeminate-sounding chaps dressed in black buying up assssault weapons. Also obvious gang bangers and swarthy bearded levantinians. Portends darkness.

Oct 23, 2017
If you're not going to read what I write then this is rather pointless no?
Sure it is pointless. You seem to think that by throwing around thought stopping terms "source quote" - you have suddenly ended the debate. News flash - my 'source quote' trumps your 'source quote.' But you are right - it is pointless.
Hey I hear your anti-feh buddies are planning an armed uprising on nov 4.
Which of course has nothing to do with today's discussion. I don't know much about Antifa - and certainly am not involved with them. I am kind of busy here - trying to keep my garden growing.
Grow up.
What a childish thing to say. Believing that maybe we could some day have a world in which 600 people were not shot by one dick - for what ever reason that dick decided it would be fun to kill 60 people - and wound 500 more. We don't know the future - I hope it involves less of your kind - and more compassion. Time will tell.

Oct 24, 2017
thought stopping terms "source quote"
Oh my god. Source quote means quote from a source.
some day have a world in which 600 people were not shot by one dick - 60 people - and wound 500 more
"Date of attack 07-14-16... 84 people were killed and more than 200 wounded... Authorities said Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel used a 20-ton truck to strike hundreds of people in Nice, France"

"The Happy Land fire was an act of arson that killed 87 people trapped in the unlicensed Happy Land social club"

"Rodney Alcala, dating game murderer... estimated that the serial killer may be responsible for up to 130 murders"

"During the September 11 attacks, 2,996 people were killed"

'My kind' knows that giving in to irrational fears of things like spiders and guns is no way to make the world a better place. We'll be focussing on the people who will always find ways of killing for fun and profit. And we will be using guns as protection against them.

What are you going to use?

Oct 24, 2017
Oh my god. Source quote means quote from a source.
Oh my god - I understood what you meant. So just saying "I quoted from a source" - does not immediately bestow the winners crown on you. I quoted from a source too. The facts show that you don't know the topic. The data shows that the U.S. deals with carnage - and other countries do not deal with that level of carnage. Removing guns from the society would be a great way to reduce that carnage. Go ask Australia - they did it. And just because someone used a truck to kill people with - does not invalidate the argument that the U.S. deals with staggering levels of carnage - and removing guns from the society - would be a good step to reducing that carnage. Real point is that you don't care about that carnage - as long as you get to play with your toys. And you will lie to defend that right - as in saying the NRA does not spend enough money to influence any one.

Oct 25, 2017
I remember when the issue of hollowpoint ammo came up in California. Some woman was against it because 'it's ok to shoot bad guys but you dont have to blow them away.'

Her issue was not with the ammo itself but with the WORD.

Greenonions doesnt much care about the fact that psychopaths will use any meanbs they can find to do their work. He's afraid of evil WORDS like assault rifles and arsenals and 'play with your toys.'

The people who concoct the bullshit that wordphobes like greenonions eagerly fall for, rely on this irrational fear to do their dirty work.

And according to mark Steyn in the source quote above, the Las Vegas shooter was counting on it as well.
Cont>

Oct 25, 2017
The gunphobe fantasies of a peaceful world without guns will never happen. But the sick laws that result, which prevent good people from protecting themselves, always result in more assaults, more maimings, more rapes, more abductions, more extortion, more fear, less freedom.

But it's ok because to a gunphobe like greenonions it's much better to get stabbed or bludgeoned or raped than it is to get shot. And it's much better for a victim to get shot than a criminal.

Oct 25, 2017
Oh my god - I understood what you meant
NO You didn't. You're lying.

Self-deception is the only way people like you can maintain their fantasies.

Oct 25, 2017
greenonions1, I bet it feels like you are beating your head against the wall trying to explain the obvious to Otto, but rest assured that some of us get it. Maybe if Otto saw all the dead bodies in Las Vegas, or had been injured himself (not mortally of course) he might see that it is SOOOOOO much easier to attack someone with a gun than defend yourself with a gun.


Oct 25, 2017
NO You didn't. You're lying.
Well I think I did.

Self-deception is the only way people like you can maintain their fantasies
Well - there was plenty of evidence presented to support the understanding that societies that have tight gun controls - are in general - safer places than societies like the U.S. - that are awash in guns.
The gunphobe fantasies of a peaceful world without guns will never happen
Nice conjecture there - of course without any support. The Australia experiment - shows quiet clearly that it is possible to reduce the number of guns in a society - and make things safer overall. I have lived in a rural society - in which the only guns were owned by farmers and the like for hunting. We left our doors open all the time - incidence of violence were very low - and gun violence non existent. You prefer - Sandy Hook, Columbine, Las Vegas - etc. 2017 https://en.wikipe...d_States cont.

Oct 25, 2017
NO You didn't. You're lying.
Well I think I did.

Self-deception is the only way people like you can maintain their fantasies
Well - there was plenty of evidence presented to support the understanding that societies that have tight gun controls - are in general - safer places than societies like the U.S. - that are awash in guns.
The gunphobe fantasies of a peaceful world without guns will never happen
Nice conjecture there - of course without any support. The Australia experiment - shows quiet clearly that it is possible to reduce the number of guns in a society - and make things safer overall. I have lived in a rural society - in which the only guns were owned by farmers and the like for hunting. We left our doors open all the time - incidence of violence were very low - and gun violence non existent. You prefer - Sandy Hook, Columbine, Las Vegas - etc. 2017 https://en.wikipe...d_States cont.

Oct 25, 2017
NO You didn't. You're lying.
Well I think I did.

Self-deception is the only way people like you can maintain their fantasies
Well - there was plenty of evidence presented to support the understanding that societies that have tight gun controls - are in general - safer places than societies like the U.S. - that are awash in guns.
The gunphobe fantasies of a peaceful world without guns will never happen
Nice conjecture there - of course without any support. The Australia experiment - shows quiet clearly that it is possible to reduce the number of guns in a society - and make things safer overall. I have lived in a rural society - in which the only guns were owned by farmers and the like for hunting. We left our doors open all the time - incidence of violence were very low - and gun violence non existent. You prefer - Sandy Hook, Columbine, Las Vegas - etc. 2017 https://en.wikipe...d_States cont.

Oct 25, 2017
cont http://www.bbc.co...10216955
https://www.commo...annually

Maybe it is delusional to hope for the human race to evolve. Time will tell Otto - but this thread has certainly shown that you are not interested in facts - only pushing a pre - established narrative - that is clearly counter factual.

Oct 26, 2017
Maybe if Otto saw all the dead bodies in Las Vegas
Well maybe if marky mark has seen the dead bodies from the truck carnage in Nice and elsewhere, the night club arsons, the abductions, the rapes, the acid attacks, etc he might begin to wonder why he thinks that gun violence is so special in his mind.

He might wonder why the focus on the tools of crime is preventing us from addressing the real problem which is the psychopath who will use anything he can find to do his work.

And he might feel ashamed that he would want to take away the one thing that can protect the ordinary person from the psychopath... a gun.

He might reflect on how many more could have been killed if paddock had driven a semi through the crowd in Las Vegas.

Paddock was intent on playing on your particular phobia.

Oct 26, 2017
We left our doors open all the time
"According to a new study (PDF) published today in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, large cities in the U.S. are significantly safer than rural areas. The risk of injury death — which counts both violent crime and accidents — is more than 20% higher in the countryside than it is in large urban areas."

-Your naivete is frankly revolting. How much easier is home invasion in the countryside?

"An Oklahoma prosecutor said Monday no charges will be filed against a 23-year-old man who fatally shot three teenage intruders in his home, but that the woman who drove them there is being charged with first-degree murder."

Oct 26, 2017
And again, the Aussie gun confiscation success is a myth.
http://www.theage...ay1.html

"Despite Australia's strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five years [in Melbourne alone].

-please note the accompanying dogleg chart supplied by Australia's own Crime Statistics Agency.

"Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns..."

-Like I told you. Full auto.

Oct 26, 2017
Australia experiment - shows quiet clearly
-how gullible you are.

Oct 26, 2017
Otto, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, let's say for a moment guns are a necessity. Fine, then start to act like it and use some commonsense rules! Everyone who wants a gun must be trained and their shooting performance and mental stability must be evaluated annually. Every gun must be registered and inspected annually. Everyone must pay an annual fee per gun, say $100. If having a gun is so goddamn important, then the people who need them that desperately should be more than willing to work for them.

We simply need rules to cut down on accidental shootings, suicidal shootings, crime-initiated shootings, criminally insane shootings like Paddock, etc., etc. Otto, for a guy who loves guns you keep missing the target here. The Democrats keep telling you there are no plans to take all the guns away, but you keep listening to college-dropout talk show hosts like Sean Hannity for all your info. EARN THE RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN.

Oct 26, 2017
Otto, me and few million of my closest friends are sick and tired of all these goddamn shootings! You rationalize all the death and never question whether we could do even a little bit better. How about compulsory registration, annual training, annual shooting evaluation, annual mental evaluation, annual fee? How about a limit on how many guns a person can own or buy in a period of time. How about using technology to characterize bullets fired from a particular gun?

We need some kind of reasonable plan not more NRA horseshit!

Oct 27, 2017
despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary
You can't tell the difference between evidence and propaganda because of your emotional predisposition ie phobia.
Otto, me and few million of my closest friends are sick and tired of all these goddamn shootings
Yah And me and millions more are tired of you gunphobes lying about the evidence. That's why your politicians are consistently voted out of office whenever they try to enact your feel-good idiot laws which protect no one and endanger lives and freedoms.

You dont care about solutions. You only care about posturing and play-acting and pretending. For instance
How about a limit on how many guns a person can own or buy in a period of time
Yeah because arsenals are baaaaad and people can naturally use several guns at the same time.

Right there is the reason why you always lose.

Whatever happened to Handgun Control I wonder? All that good money could have been spent on smoothies and pedicures. Sad.

Oct 27, 2017
Everyone who wants a gun must be trained and their shooting performance and mental stability must be evaluated annually. Every gun must be registered and inspected annually. Everyone must pay an annual fee per gun, say $100
Nope sorry not gonna happen. For obvious reasons you phobes are blind to. Oh and of course the 2nd amendment.
If having a gun is so goddamn important, then the people who need them that desperately should be more than willing to work for them
You want poor people, who live in dangerous neighborhoods with poor police response time, to have to pay $100 a year to protect themselves when they are the ones who need self-protection more than anybody.

What an ass you are.

Oct 27, 2017
The Democrats keep telling you there are no plans to take all the guns away
-but right away we know you want to take guns away from poor people. So right away we know you're a liar.

Oct 27, 2017
Otto, on this topic your brain has completely locked up. You rationalize all the death and never question whether we could do even a little bit better.

You cite the second amendment, but the second amendment says "a well-regulated militia." So where are your regulations? What regulations are reasonable under the second amendment?

Oct 27, 2017
You cite the second amendment, but the second amendment says "a well-regulated militia." So where are your regulations? What regulations are reasonable under the second amendment?
Phobes are still trying to bend the constitution to their will The supreme court knows what it means.

"Decision. The Supreme Court held: (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

-What, you werent aware of this? Or you were but it just sort of faded from your version of heaven on earth?

Yet another example of the distance between you all and reality.

"But its the constitution!!! It should mean what we want it to, you know, flowers everywhere, lions laying with lambs and conjugating..."

Oct 27, 2017
Lions will always eat lambs. Bad guys will always have guns. If you want to defend yourself you will always need one. These are things you need to reconcile yourself with.

Oh and you WILL die some day, absolutely. See, this heaven thing is where all the trouble actually started.

The meme that ruined the world.

Oct 27, 2017
Otto -
-how gullible you are
Well - I like to base my understanding of the world - on facts. The facts are clear. America deals with a level of carnage - that other countries in the world do not have to. Australia's experiment is very clear - and your article - that points to " more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five years" Oh let's compare that to say Chicago shall we - (population 2.7 million - vs Melbourne population 3.8 million). 762 murders - 4,331 shooting victims - In one year.....http://www.cnn.co...dex.html
Yeah - there is no evidence that restricting guns makes for a safer world.

Oct 28, 2017
Otto, all or nearly all laws have limits and thus are not absolute. For example, you have the right to free speech, but not to incite riots or yell fire in a crowded theater.

The second amendment talked about a well-regulated militia, only dishonest Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices interpret that to mean it has nothing to do with a well-regulated militia when the words are clearly there. If the constitution can be interpreted to mean whatever you want, then it is a dead document. Next thing you know the dishonest Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices will interpret freedom of speech to only be in your mind, not actual spoken language. If you want the absolute right for everyone to have a gun, including the criminally insane like Paddock, then you need a different amendment. Sorry that is too inconvenient for you.

Oct 28, 2017
Otto, yet another critical point you are missing is the enormous difference between a black powder musket which was the state of the art in 1791 when the second amendment was adopted and the bump stock machine guns Paddock was using. I understand a very proficient militiaman could fire his musket three times a minute with very limited accuracy in 1791. Paddock was firing many times a second with much better accuracy and range.

By your fundamentally flawed logic, we should all have an weapons we want, including rocket propelled grenades, cruise missiles and nukes. You need to start thinking like a scientist or an engineer, not the wind-up puppet of the NRA.

Oct 28, 2017
Melbourne population 3.8 million). 762 murders - 4,331 shooting victims - In one year.....http://www.cnn.co...dex.html
Yeah - there is no evidence that restricting guns makes for a safer world
- And if you knew the facts you would know rhmmthat most are gang and drug-related. Compare gang and drug stats between cities.

Those people will always have guns. And experience shows that banning guns leads to more dangerous full-auto on the streets.
Otto, yet another critical point you are missing is the enormous difference between a black powder musket which was the state of the art in 1791 when the second amendment was adopted
Thats right - Everyone had them. Criminals in your garage and looting your store now have semi-auto. Youre welcome to use a muzzleloader if you want.

AGAIN. 2nd amendment. PERSONAL PROTECTION.
and the bump stock machine guns
They weren't machine guns.

Oct 28, 2017
better accuracy and range
No he was firing in the dark at 400 yards and had no idea where his bullets were actually landing.

A semi would have been much more effective.
we should all have an weapons we want, including
Only morons think like this.
not the wind-up puppet of the NRA
The NRA doesnt advocate for rocket propelled grenades, cruise missiles or nukes you moron. I think you are thinking of anti-farts
start thinking like a scientist or an engineer
Bernhard Goetz was an engr. Are you saying I should be thinking like him??

Oct 28, 2017
Chicago... Yeah - there is no evidence that restricting guns makes for a safer world
You know so little about so much. Chicago gun laws are as strict as melbourne.

"Melbourne's soaring gun crime, the city's experience was compared to Chicago, where gun control experiment after gun control experiment has simply correlated with guns being consolidated in the hands of criminals. That comparison is even more apropos now that The Age reports one of the problems in Melbourne — and Victoria overall — is that penalties for gun crimes are not being enforced."

-And enforcing them in either city would mean disarming the criminals which is next to impossible.

Are you really this ignorant or are you just playing me?

Oct 28, 2017
Are you really this ignorant or are you just playing me?
I am not ignorant. You tried using Melbourne as your example of how the gun laws in Australia have failed. Yet your own source showed that there were 125 people hurt in Melbourne in a 5 year period - compared with 4,331 injuries in a one year period on Chicago. So while I fully accept that violence is a complex subject - and cannot be explained one dimensionally - the example of Australia certainly gives us reason to believe that a society that is not awash in guns (like Chicago) is a much more dangerous place to be - than one that is not awash in guns. Stating that Chigago gun laws are as strict as Melbourne - of course does not address the actual numbers of guns floating around the city. Statistics show that U.S. gun ownership is way higher than that in Australia. Perhaps you could explain the staggering difference between the two countries in terms of the carnage you live with.

Oct 28, 2017
violence is a complex subject - and cannot be explained one dimensionally - the example of Australia certainly gives us reason to believe that a society that is not awash in guns
Chicago is awash in gangs and drugs which is why their gun violence is so high despite their laws being as strict as Melbourne.

You can't disarm criminals or prevent them from using their guns against you. You can only seek to protect yourself, one way or another.

But because of Chicago and Melbourne gun laws, which are essentially EQUIVALENT, it is extremely difficult for people to get guns legally.

How else can this be said? In Chicago and Melbourne, virtually nobody has guns BUT criminals.
the carnage you live with
I don't live in Chicago or any US city where bans have disarmed the law abiding and armed the criminal.
the staggering difference between the two
I did. Gangs and drugs. No complexity there. I know you want there to be but there isnt.

Oct 28, 2017
You tried using Melbourne as your example of how the gun laws in Australia have failed
Not me. Australian govt officials, per the ref I used, including the dogleg chart showing the spike AFTER the ban.

Apparently Aussie officials have a lower tolerance for violence. But per the ref they consider the ban a FAILURE.

And if they had the illegal refugee problem that we and the euros do, and the associated imports of MS13 and cartel drug gangs, their 'carnage' would be the same DESPITE their laws.

Oct 28, 2017
Chicago gun violence

"This year's shooting toll is hundreds more than in the first six months of 2013, 2014 and 2015, the department's own numbers show."

"police Superintendent Eddie Johnson blamed gangs "at war" for the increased violence in South Chicago, but he offered no explanation for Calumet.

"Parts of the South Chicago District have long been beset by violence, much of it stemming from conflicts between factions of the Black P Stones and Gangster Disciples. Gang woes have long been an issue in the Calumet District as well, according to veteran cops.

"Chicago police highlighted the link between drugs and violence earlier this year with maps displaying how the locations of shootings and drug overdoses overlapped. The maps showed a high concentration of shootings and overdoses happening on the West Side near the Eisenhower Expressway, dubbed the "Heroin Highway" because of the easy access it provides for drug-buying suburbanites."

-Simple enough for you?

Oct 29, 2017
Here's something interesting. A mass shooting stopped by a gun.

"deadly church shooting in Antioch, Tennessee 09-22-17... One person was killed and seven others injured Sunday as services were wrapping up at the Burnette Chapel Church of Christ near Nashville.

"Police initially said Samson was African-American, but later identified him as Sudanese with legal US residency.

"Church usher Robert Caleb Engle, 22, saw the shooting and confronted the gunman. During a struggle, Engle was pistol-whipped and the gunman mistakenly shot himself.
"The wound sent Samson to the floor. Engle, despite his head injuries, ran out to his car in the parking lot and retrieved a pistol. He held Samson at gunpoint until police arrived," a police statement said."

-So we have yet another instance of an armed citizen stopping a mass shooting. This was the REASON for the recent 'white lives matter' rally in nearby Shelbyville TN.

3 items of critical import downplayed by mainstream media.

Oct 29, 2017
Simple enough for you?
The facts are simple enough Otto. Chicago is an example of the carnage that the U.S. has to deal with on a daily basis. We wake up every morning - turn on the t.v. - and find out if anyone was shot and killed last night. We had 78 homicides last year. You can deny all want. Fact is that the U.S. has a staggering level of carnage. European countries, Australia, New Zealand, etc. etc. do not have to put so many young people in graves. Those countries also have drug, and crime problems. The big difference is their countries are not awash in guns. They are smarter than you are Otto. They know that if you can waltz down to Wally World - and buy yourself a gun - that is a sign of a really stupid, violent, cruel society. Aliens looking at our world would scratch their heads - and wonder what level of stupid - thinks it is OK to make machines - for tearing each other's bodies to shreds. We have a long way to go Otto. Australia showed us the way.

Oct 29, 2017
"Aliens looking at our world would scratch their heads"

Similarly, our descendants may view us as knuckle-dragging morons they have thankfully surpassed. We miss the completely obvious, such as setting REASONABLE limitations on what is by definition a deadly weapon. We waste so much time and energy on the trivial, like who takes a knee during the pledge of allegiance in a football game. We fail to do anything about the obvious-as-the-nose-on-your-face corrupting influence of money in every aspect of politics.

At the same time, only a few "visionaries" like Elon Musk realize there billions, if not trillions of planets out there waiting for us to explore. Essentially UNLIMITED energy sources, raw material sources and real estate if we can develop the technology to make use of it. Right now we should be focusing on exploring the inner solar system and pushing the final frontier as hard as we can. Instead, we can't even orbit the moon like NASA did in 1967.

Oct 29, 2017
I had to dangle the unlimited resources argument in my last comment because that is easiest to understand. However, let me suggest that there is actually a whole lot more than simple resource exploitation going on here, even if that is what leads us into space early on. Ultimately, we may find that the additional resources are some of the smallest benefits of exploring space.

Oct 30, 2017
The facts are simple enough Otto. Chicago is an example of the carnage that the U.S. has to deal with on a daily basis. We wake up every morning - turn on the t.v. - and find out if anyone was shot and killed last night. We had 78 homicides last year
So answer me this. How are your laws about compulsory registration, annual training, annual shooting evaluation, annual mental evaluation, annual fee, a limit on how many guns a person can own or buy in a period of time, or using technology to characterize bullets fired from a particular gun, have any effect on Chicago gun violence whatsoever?

Oct 30, 2017
staggering level of carnage
You phobes do love your buzzwords dont you? Like this
knuckle-dragging morons
-which demonstrates the real antigun mindset... its the fear and loathing and resentment of the overeducated liberal for everybody who doesnt share their fantasies.

How about the assaults, the maimings, the rapes, the abductions, that result when good people are disarmed? Those are real words about real things.

Oct 30, 2017
How about this in peaceful gun-free Europe?

"New York-based conservative think tank Gatestone Institute has compiled a shocking list of sexual assaults and rapes by migrants in Germany in just the first two months of the year.

"Drawing only from German media reports, the list documents more than 160 instances of rape and sexual assault committed by migrants in train stations, swimming pools and other public places against victims as young as seven."
http://www.news.c...e65e141d

-How's that for carnage?

Oct 30, 2017
And just in case you forgot the original question, let me repeat it for you;

How are your laws about compulsory registration, annual training, annual shooting evaluation, annual mental evaluation, annual fee, a limit on how many guns a person can own or buy in a period of time, or using technology to characterize bullets fired from a particular gun, have any effect on Chicago gun violence whatsoever?

You need to answer this before you address anything else.

Oct 30, 2017
"How are your laws about compulsory registration, annual training, annual shooting evaluation, annual mental evaluation, annual fee, a limit on how many guns a person can own or buy in a period of time, or using technology to characterize bullets fired from a particular gun, have any effect on Chicago gun violence whatsoever?"

Ask yourself how any law works. Answer: The penalties for violating that law raise the cost to the individual of performing the illegal act. Laws don't directly prevent crime, they simply make it cost-prohibitive for most.

ILLEGAL possession of a firearm should be a very serious charge, not a goddamn joke. If necessary, have the military sweep Chicago of guns on a daily basis to enforce REASONABLE laws. If the U.S. government wants it bad enough, they can escalate to whatever level is necessary to prevail. This has not happened because too many people don't care because it is viewed as gang on gang violence not worth our efforts.

Oct 30, 2017
REASONABLE gun restrictions mean honest and sane people can have their guns if they willing to work a little for them. People who violate those rules are punished through incarceration, fines or whatever punishment fits.

If you look at the actual numbers, the biggest gun problem is not people like Otto trying to make their way through the gang-infested parts of Chicago to walk to work, it is the mentally unbalance who shoot themselves and the people who kill others they know.

Think of an engineer tuning a performance engine. It still burns dirty gasoline, but if we tweak it just right, we can get a lot of performance while holding down on pollution. Our gun laws need to be engineered to maximize performance. Honest and sane people can have their guns while we minimize the number of guns possessed by the morons, psychopaths and mental defectives.

Oct 30, 2017
Otto, regarding REASONABLE limitations on the number of guns one person can possess, there is a reason that Paddock had so many guns. The heat produced by continuous firing limits how long they can be used. Criminally insane psychopaths like Paddock would not have been satisfied with killing 5 or 10 innocent people, he wanted to kill as many as he could. I think if you understood the depths of evil in people like Paddock and Lanza, you would agree we need to work hard to avoid arming the criminally insane.

Oct 30, 2017
New York-based conservative think tank Gatestone Institute has compiled a shocking list of sexual assaults and rapes by migrants in Germany in just the first two months of the year
But we are not talking about rapes Otto - we are talking about gun violence. But if you are interested in comparing the two societies - here is a quick look for you - http://www.nation...es/Crime Did you notice that our murder rate is 5 times their's, and the rape rate is 3 times. And we have a lot more guns than they do. So THAT is the only question I need to answer Otto. And I did not have to run off to another echo chamber propaganda site to demonstrate the facts - which is of course where you always end up.

Oct 30, 2017
Otto, regarding REASONABLE limitations on the number of guns one person can possess, there is a reason that Paddock had so many guns. The heat produced by continuous firing limits how long they can be used
Ahahaaaaa you have any actual refs for this bullshit? How about this?

"...we get a total of 390 bullets which could be fired in around 47 seconds, although news reports say it lasted 11 minutes which means he was meticulously aiming instead of blindly firing from the hip."

-Plus the fact that you have no idea if he in fact used more than one gun.

How long can an M16A1 be fired before it stops? Lets find out...
https://www.youtu...m4pYhIyY

-I count 20 mags @30 rds/mag = 600 rounds. A very rough estimation.

I know you wont watch because then you wouldnt be able to sleep all night.

Oct 30, 2017
But we are not talking about rapes Otto - we are talking about gun violence
We are talking about the ability of good people to protect themselves and their families from criminals. What is 'gun violence' specifically? In chicago it is largely gang warfare.
ILLEGAL possession of a firearm should be a very serious charge, not a goddamn joke. If necessary, have the military sweep Chicago of guns on a daily basis to enforce REASONABLE laws
Holy shit. Youre a fucking NAZI arent you?

Notice you dont want the military to target gangs and drug dealers, which in chicago account for 90% of gun crimes; you want them to target gun owners.

Youre a stinking fucking NAZI.
This has not happened because too many people don't care
BECAUSE this is not a police state.

You dont realize how sick this is do you??

Oct 30, 2017
So THAT is the only question I need to answer Otto
No you need to answer

"How are your laws about compulsory registration, annual training, annual shooting evaluation, annual mental evaluation, annual fee, a limit on how many guns a person can own or buy in a period of time, or using technology to characterize bullets fired from a particular gun, have any effect on Chicago gun violence whatsoever?"

YOU think these laws will keep gangs and drug dealers from having guns.

WHAT makes you think that?

Oct 30, 2017
YOU think these laws will keep gangs and drug dealers from having guns.
These laws will reduce the number of guns in the society - as they continue to do in many other societies. A society awash in guns such as the U.S. - is a sick society that is devouring itself. You cannot see the cancer in your own society. Not all gun violence is done by gangs and drug dealers. Other societies have gangs, drugs, crime etc. Notice you completely side step the fact that is pointed out to you - that the U.S. has 5 times the murder rate of Germany, and 3 times the rape rate. Yet that is the comparison that you chose to make. Over and over - when you make a comparison - and the facts show that you are the one who does not understand - you change the subject.

Oct 30, 2017
"Holy shit. Youre a fucking NAZI arent you?"

If you think taking ILLEGAL guns away from gang members makes a person a Nazi your brain has clearly ceased to function. If a police officer or authorized member of the military can't take an illegal gun away from a gang member, well then who can? Apparently you are exactly the kind of person we have to guns away from, because you have zero common sense.

Oct 31, 2017
First mark will make most guns illegal. Then sturmtruppen will arrive to take them from the formerly law-abiding, and now criminal, citizens (because they're already registered you see).

Meanwhile, gang members bury their illegal and thus untraceable guns in the backyard, and avail themselves of post-arab spring AKMs flowing across the border, made cheap by economies of scale.

MS13 and cartel members giggle as mark's shock troops rip through zombie houses and vacant lots with dozers and backhoes, in vain.

Sieg heil you NAZI.

Oct 31, 2017
These laws will reduce the number of guns in the society
No they wont. This is a lie.
as they continue to do in many other societies
NO they dont. I showed you the statistics.
A society awash in guns such as the U.S. - is a sick society that is devouring itself
NO it's not. And anyone who thinks it is is a sick and self-devouring individual.

Oct 31, 2017
No they wont. This is a lie
It is not a lie at all - Australia passed strict gun control legislation - and the number of guns in there society went down - and they have not had one mass shooting in 20 years. That is not a lie.
NO they dont. I showed you the statistics
No you didn't. I showed you the statistics about the level of gun violence in the U.S. - compared with other countries. You brought up a comparison with Melbourne, and also Germany. The data showed that both of your comparisons - actually proved exactly the opposite point to the one you make.
[q/NO it's not. And anyone who thinks it is is a sick and self-devouring individual I think that - as evidenced by having said it. I can show you mountains of evidence - to support the notion that the U.S. is a malignantly pathological society. Here is one weekend - in one city - of your sick country - http://time.com/4...-fourth/ You endorse that carnage. I oppose it.

Oct 31, 2017
Otto
Holy shit. Youre a fucking NAZI arent you?

One side comment. It seems to me that Mark has been attempting a pretty reasoned argument. You lash out with this kind of bullying thuggery. You are a great representative of the malignancy I see in the culture of the U.S.

Oct 31, 2017
Otto
Holy shit. Youre a fucking NAZI arent you?

One side comment. It seems to me that Mark has been attempting a pretty reasoned argument. You lash out with this kind of bullying thuggery. You are a great representative of the malignancy I see in the culture of the U.S.
So you also peacefully and with great reason and logic would also want martial law in america.

You want the military to forcefully disarm citizens who were turned criminals by passage of a law. This is exactly what happened after the reichstag was burned. NAZIS burned the reichstag. The las vegas shooter was doing essentially the same thing.

Good people cant stop NAZIS when ignorant idiots like yourself enjoy what they are doing.
See? More ignorance, more lies. What good is the truth when weak, morally corrupt people like yourself are willing to let fellow citizens be turned into criminals and then arrested by sturmtruppen?

Oct 31, 2017
Youre much more willing to trust criminals with guns than your neighbors. Youre perfectly willing to let them be victimized by criminals rather than be able to defend themselves and their families in the only reliable way possible.

This shows how morally corrupt you are.

Oct 31, 2017
So you also peacefully and with great reason and logic would also want martial law in america
No I would not. Does Britain have martial law? I would actually say that the U.S. has a far more militarized police type state than other countries such as European countries, or Australia, or New Zealand etc. I personally would like to see a total ban on the manufacture, and distribution of arms. I know that would never happen. I hope some day we will move to a more reasonable position - such as is evident in most European countries. Such a position does not make one a Nazi. It is bullies like you who are morally corrupt. You seem to have a very exaggerated level of narcissism, and a great lack of empathy. Seems to be a hallmark of the right. Calling people 'fucking nazi's' is the hallmark of a thug.

Nov 01, 2017
Calling people 'fucking nazi's' is the hallmark of a thug
??? NAZIS are thugs. Your buddy marcus wants them marching through the streets, search and seisure in our homes, mass arrest and detention.

You apparently agree with him. Which means you're as full of shit as he is.

Nov 01, 2017
You apparently agree with him. Which means you're as full of shit as he is
Ahhh - that settles it - well thought out argument there by Otto. When you disagree with someone in an exchange - call them a 'Fucking Nazi.' When it is pointed out that you are a bully - just tell the other party they are 'full of shit.' At least it is clear the emotional level of your thinking.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more