"The rate of gun ownership in the United States is 89 per every 100 people."

[Chorophyll]

Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post:

Meanwhile, look at the numbers. In the United States, there are 3.2 gun homicides per 100,000 residents every year. Switzerland has the next highest rate of any advanced Western democracy, at 0.7 per 100,000. After Switzerland, the rate drops to 0.5 in Ireland and Canada; 0.4 in Sweden and Finland; 0.2 in New Zealand, Spain and Germany; 0.1 in France, Britain and Australia; and a flat 0 in Japan.

Want to argue that we have 32 times the rate of dangerous mental illness that they have in Australia? That Americans are characterologically 16 times more murderous than Spaniards or Germans? I thought not.

But in America, people who snap are a hell of a lot more likely to have a gun close by. The rate of gun ownership in the United States is 89 per every 100 people. No other advanced society has a rate even close to that. In Austria, France, Germany, Norway and Sweden, the rate clusters between 30 and 32 guns per 100 people. In Britain, the rate is six guns for every 100 Brits.

The idea that guns make a place more dangerous rather than safer is borne out within the United States. The states with the highest level of gun homicides — Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama — are among those with the highest levels of gun ownership.

89 guns per every 100 people. Is this liberty? Because it sounds like a war zone to me. More at link.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-why-does-america-have-way-more-guns/2012/12/19/0c3038e8-494d-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. This is actually the reason

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022033343

Or at least a very large part of it.

[zappaman]

10. No it's not.

Not at all.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Odd because the rest of those countries are watching the same movies and playing the

Same games, and not shooting children in the head.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. They got a safety net

And lack these problems of food insecurity we have.

So all those movies are just schlock. Did you read the full editorial? I m talking of structural violence, not movies and games. Those are your mirror.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. Both of our last two shooters were not lacking from food or care.

I think you are making stuff up. Where is the data that shows that lack of access to mental health care and/or food security is part of a mass murderer's profile?

I think all of this stuff is a huge diversion. Of course I am for mental health services for everyone. Of course I am for nobody suffering from "food insecurity". But neither of these have anything at all to do with our problem with mass murder by guns. Nobody can demonstrate an actual correlation, let alone causal effect from video games to mass murder, nor from violent movies to mass murder. The freaking bullets come out of the guns. The causal effect there is not even debatable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. I am making stuff up that we have a structural violence problem

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Okie dockie.

Am I making stuff up that the last two shooters had mental health issues.

Of course I am also making this up, on average 34 Americans die every day due to gun violence and 34000 a year.

You care to look at why we have that level of violence or go ma,an,an la,la,la I am not listening?

[Warren Stupidity]

65. No, that is not what I said.

You wrote:
"They got a safety net and lack these problems of food insecurity we have."

neither of these last two shooters lacked for access to mental health services nor did they suffer from "food insecurity". Nor do I think you can make the case that access to mental health services or "food insecurity" are causitive or correlative factors.

So I am stating that neither of these issues are clearly a factor in why we have gun massacres and our European cousins don't, at least don't at nearly the same rates we do. The one obvious difference that is clearly a factor is "access to guns capable of killing lots of people quickly".

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Yes.. Access to guns is one of the problems

Riddle me this though, Canada has just as many guns per percentage of population.

Are they swimming on daily gun violence?

There is much more to this than just the guns. Can you understand that problems can be far more than one dimensional?

If you cannot see it, I cannot help you. But there is actual research into the role of this structural violence in the gun violence, most of which, is not occurring in your front page.

Also I suspect you did not bother with the full editorial.

Oh and son, I am not in the guns are the solution crowd, or don't change nothing crowd, let me hug my precious now ok. So you are implying that, and I find it insulting. Hell, some of the gun nutters have called me an enemy of liberty for merely suggesting we need to get rid of high capacity magazines (doable). Imagine what they think when I suggest that all these combat infantry rifles need to be covered under the 1934 Gun Control Act? (Not doable in the current environment)

[yardwork]

71. Good post. This is all a bunch of diversion from the highly lucrative firearms industry.

The video and film industry doesn't have nearly the same clout as the NRA and its members. A lot of people seem to be in complete denial about who is actually part of the firearms industry. It's not the mom and pop gun store.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. I recommend you go read the full editorial.

Since I wrote it, hosts, I am posting the whole thing.

The Violence Behind the Violence
by STAFF on DECEMBER 19, 2012 · 21 COMMENTS
in CULTURE, ECONOMY


America cannot truly address gun violence unless it is prepared to address the root causes of gun violence.

by Nadin Abbott

Since the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Connecticut, we have had many discussions on the sources of gun violence in our country. We were all shocked. Many fingers are pointing at both Hollywood and the video game industry. If we are to believe them, all this would go away if we removed the glorification of violence from the media.

I will be the first to admit this: Call of Duty is violent. It simulates war. We would be surprised if it wasn’t. It is also rated M by the ESRB, that would be for seventeen year olds and older. It’s not meant for kids. Ratings work, only if we use them as a guide.

I will also admit that a James Bond movie is pure schlock with quite a bit of violence. There are many other titles out there that include explosions, gun play, and bloody gore. Need I mention the Die Hard series? Argue all you want about how video games and movies encourage violent acts. But that’s merely scratching the surface and doesn’t get to the root of the real problem.

Fingers, in other words, are being pointed at popular culture, as if pop culture is the root of all of our problems.

Yesterday the Unions gave Christmas fixings and toys to five hundred families at Qualcomm Stadium. These people are suffering from chronic food insecurity. They are unemployed, or under employed. You see them often. They drive our transit buses and cannot get enough hours to make ends meet. They are low paid workers, many making under $20,000 a year. Some are quite bluntly unemployed. They are suffering from great stress. Oftentimes they don’t know where their next meal will come from.

The other day I covered another story of great violence: People making $17,000 a year who are being asked to pay $2,000 in health insurance for the year. They are the heads of their families and work at a hospital. You might as well ask them to travel to the other side of the moon. The health insurance is just as reachable.

This is crushing poverty, and this too, is violence. This is the kind of violence that at times leads to suicide–sometimes murder-suicide–often via the use of a gun.

When an inner city school comes out of lockdown after a shooting just outside the school grounds and the body remains on the other side of the fence, that is a form of scarring violence. When a kid is shot in the arm, and the police have to fight EMS to get that kid taken to the ER because they don’t have insurance, that is violence.

When the kids have to know to drop when they hear popping sounds because it happens so often in their low income neighborhood, that is violence.

Here is more real violence: A young teen, runaway, taken to the other side of the country–rarely across international borders–where he is used for sex and forced to have sex upwards of fifty times a day. When the authorities finally rescued him, he was a shell. That is violence.

The younger man, begging for money on the corner, while still very much “in country” with no treatment for the PTSD caused from being sent over there, that is violence. The older woman standing on the corner begging for money, that is real violence.

When you cannot get mental health care and you are treated like a disposable entity that is somehow less than human–that is violence. When an adult is next to impossible to commit if need be, that is violence. The almost non-existent mental health system in this country is simply not acceptable.

So tell me, when are we doing something real to stop that violence? Perhaps a good first step would be the enactment of strong living wage laws. Notice I did not say minimum wage. I said living wage. People who are not on the edge are less likely to commit violence themselves, with or without guns.

Prattling about popular culture is a nice distraction coming from the comfortable middle class. And it happens after every mass shooting. Not merely every shooting, but every mass shooting. The reality is that 34 Americans die by gun fire every day, and 34 thousand every year. Those are the grim statistics. So we need to also deal with the culture of violence and fear that encourages despair and violence.

Do we need to talk of what to do about the guns? Yes, but we also need a more global approach to what ails us as a culture.

1

I thought people were capable of going to a link.

[Chorophyll]

54. True. So the problem might be the guns.

[onehandle]

2. But the number of individual gun owners is shrinking. nt

[Chorophyll]

3. Is it really?

Do you have a link?

And if it shrinks to 85 or 83 people per 100, is that any better? We are surrounded by guns.

[Hoyt]

6. Heck, 10 per 100 who carry, practice on targets resembling humans, are callous

enough, bigoted enough, etc., is too high a rate for me.

I don't care if someone has a few at home, but that's where they belong.

[former-republican]

14. Like the cops use?

[Hoyt]

17. If you feel you need guns to go up against police, you might be prohibited

from even having a few at home.

[former-republican]

19. I'm just showing that you should think just a little before posting........

Hit preview first and read your post ,that's all

[Hoyt]

62. I'll trust the police with guns before I will some paranoid, callous yahoo.

No, I'm not saying the police can't be callous, but your typical gun toter, and assault rifle worshiper, is more of a concern.

[spin]

76. You show a picture of what is probably a militia group ...

and insinuate that this is what the average gun owner in the United States looks like.

Few gun owners that I know have camo outfits and those who do are hunters.

[onehandle]

40. Yes.

Gun fucks have more guns. Normal people are giving them up.

See #7.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states

[Chorophyll]

52. Unfortunately, the gun fucks are stockpiling arsenals.

And taking them to the mall. So it's an issue.

[onehandle]

57. Well, yes. The concentration of danger is more concentrated.

But the good news is that as the years go by, fewer even have guns. Gunhadists are the minority. Strict gun control is inevitable.

[Chorophyll]

58. I seriously hope you're right.

I really do.

[Mojorabbit]

83. Their newer poll shows the opposite

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx
Title is Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993

[CreekDog]

70. no, only about 30% of Americans own guns, they tend to be white and male

minorities own guns at about an 18% rate.

women own guns at a 13% rate.

89 guns per 100 people doesn't mean each person owns one. a minority of people own the 89 guns. most have zero guns.

[spin]

79. Gun ownership is often determined by where you live. ...

Often there are large minority communities in urban areas that have extremely strict gun laws. For example Chicago, Washington DC and NYC have large minority communities and strong gun laws.

I lived in Tampa Florida for 37 years and I found that many Blacks and Hispanics legally owned firearms and a good number of them had concealed weapons permits as Florida has "shall issue" concealed carry which does not discriminate against skin color.

[CreekDog]

80. that's bullshit, no state is allowed to discriminate based on skin color

are you saying that the laws do?

[spin]

81. "May issue" concealed carry is often racist. ...

Gun laws in California

***snip***

Concealed carry

California[11][12] is a "may issue" state for concealed carry. A license to carry a concealed firearm may be issued or denied to qualified applicants at the discretion of the County Counsels or City Attorneys in their place of residence.[13][14] In practice, the attitudes of different sheriffs and police chiefs toward the issuance of permits vary widely and, consequentially, different jurisdictions in California can vary anywhere from de facto shall-issue to de facto no-issue.[15] A permit may be issued, by a county Sheriff or city Chief or head of municipal police, in one of two formats

1)A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
2)Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

***snip***

Some argue[22] that the California system for CCW issuance fosters systematic discrimination of applicants, as it has been publicized that numerous celebrities and government officials have been issued CCW licenses in cities and counties where the general public have been consistently denied. CCW issuance is also extremely low in areas where the population has a high concentration of minorities and minority applicants are more frequently denied, causing some to allege institutional racism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California

[d_r]

73. the link is in the OP

"According to the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey, the percentage of households that reported owning guns declined from 54 percent in 1977 to 32 percent in 2010. That shouldn’t be surprising: Fewer Americans live in rural areas, while the number of hunters has shrunk. At the same time, however, the number of guns abroad in the land has increased — because a minority of Americans are stocking up on handguns and rifles. "

[former-republican]

5. I don't think so

[Chorophyll]

8. Nor do I. nt

[onehandle]

39. Declining.

Gun fucks have more guns. Normal people are giving them up.

See #7.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states

[Robb]

21. True. More guns, owned by fewer people.

I wonder if anyone's ever studied the issue from an economist's stance? Gun ownership as an income inequality, and would the results be similarly disruptive?

[Mojorabbit]

82. I don't think it is shrinking.

October 26, 2011
Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993
Majority of men, Republicans, and Southerners report having a gun in their households
by Lydia Saad
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

also shows forty percent Dems are gun owners.

[Doctor_J]

4. See? that's the problem

we need to get everyone armed and then we'll be fine

[Chorophyll]

7. Yes, if only 100 of every 100 were armed! Newborns, toddlers... people in comas...

Heh.

[Hoyt]

9. Then, some of us would want grenades.

[Honeycombe8]

11. I don't think so. The # of guns is high because some have lots of guns. Not 89 people

out of every 100 has a gun. And they last forever, and include antique guns. So the count includes guns bought 50 years ago, and guns that people bought as an antique. My grandpa had several antique guns that were super old and were not even useable.

[Chorophyll]

13. Nevertheless, it's a jesus-lot of guns.

We seem to have a slight fascination with them here in the U.S.

[Honeycombe8]

30. No doubt about it. Although I have one...for protection. I live alone and have had attempted

break-ins. Pulling my gun on one of 'em at the window saved me.....he ran like a bat outta hell. It wasn't loaded, though. I felt I had no choice but to show the gun, BEFORE he got in.

[Chorophyll]

33. I'm glad you were okay, but every story like yours there are so many

that don't have good results.

And there's just no reason for civilians to be armed the way the Newtown shooter was.

[reformist2]

53. +1. The thread title, as stated, is incorrect.

It should say something like "There are 270 million guns in the US: That's 89 guns for every 100 people."

[zappaman]

12. Sure gonna be tough to get all those guns!

When is the confiscation gonna happen?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022000586

[Chorophyll]

15. Did anyone here call for a "confiscation?"

Because I don't see that on this thread.

But I'm certainly in favor of doing whatever is possible to get us down to a reasonable level of civilization. I don't like living in an armed camp.

[zappaman]

16. Yes, in the thread I linked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022000586

[Hoyt]

18. Would you shoot someone when they come to pick up your guns.?

[zappaman]

20. I guess it would depend who it was.

But I only own a revolver, so 6 shots probably won't do much to an official gun-confiscating team...

[Robb]

24. Note to Gun-Confiscating Team organizer:

"...Make all teams number at least seven people."

[zappaman]

27. Damn you and your math!!!! n/t

[dkf]

28. Lol.

[Chorophyll]

22. Yes, I understood that.

[zappaman]

23. And I agree with....

"But I'm certainly in favor of doing whatever is possible to get us down to a reasonable level of civilization. I don't like living in an armed camp."

But the cat seems like it is out of the bag here in the US, unfortunately...

[Chorophyll]

25. It is, but that doesn't mean we do nothing at all.

[zappaman]

26. Again, I agree.

An assault weapon ban would be a great start.

[doc03]

29. See there lies the problem. "The assault weapon ban would be a

great start." That is what the vast majority of gun owners are scared of. Most people who hunt have no use for an AR-15 but the anti-gun people get their foot in the door it will lead to more and more restrictions. I am with you on the assault weapon ban and a ban on magazine capacity. But if you view that as a start that's where you lose my support.

[Chorophyll]

34. Let me just state that I view it as a start, then. nt

[doc03]

44. I see from another post you are from NYC, that explains it. Like you said to the

person from Canada "You have no idea" why people are so protective of the 2nd Amendment. NYC is a little fly speck on the United States map, people in rest of the country
have a heritage of hunting, shooting and guns and most places have less crime than NYC. If the anti-gun people approach this with your attitude you will lose our support and the Democrats will also lose more seats in the House and the Senate in 2014. You actually prove what the NRA has been saying all along that if you get your foot in the door it will lead to gun confiscation.

[Chorophyll]

51. "Most places have less crime than NYC."

Actually, that's not true. We don't have more crime proportionally, but we have 10 million people in the area so obviously things happen. The majority of GUN crimes take place down south, where there are the most guns.

Thanks for calling us a little fly speck, though. The little fly speck that endured 9/11, when suddenly you were all New Yorkers. Save it next time.

[Chorophyll]

56. Take a gander at this.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

[doc03]

64. That's from 2002 and it is by state not nyc. You can have your congestion, high prices, high taxes,

I can walk outside without getting run over or gunned down. I don't have six dead bolts on my door, I don't have to pay a toll
every time I pull out of my driveway. I look out my front window and see cow across the road and not someone pissing on the sidewalk.

[Chorophyll]

67. "It is by state not nyc." You don't think NYC is part of NYS? And if the crime rate in the state is

low, that the city wasn't factored into that statistic? Lol.

I walk outside every day without getting run over and gunned down. I have one lock on my door. You've been watching too much TV, and you're incredibly insulting. Stay out of New York if you don't like it. I think that picture of Bush picking his nose suits you fine.

[doc03]

69. Don't worry I have no desire to go to NYC. Typical NYC attitude

I am better than you because I live in NYC, I don't like guns so nobody else can have one. What about Chicago the murder capitol of the world it has the strictest gun laws in the USA, Explain that. You have pushed me closer to the pro-gun side. I was in favor of making all semi-auto weapons illegal, now I will oppose it because of your "that's a start" comment.

[Chorophyll]

74. Dude, chill the hell out.

Seriously. You're arguing with someone you don't know on the internet. Don't oppose or support something because of me. Jesus.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

72. Where in the City do you live to have one lock on your door?...

If in a building with multiple floors, then you gotta include getting into your building.

I lived in Queens (Astoria) and Brooklyn (southernmost part of Williamsburg), and there were certainly times coming home when I wouldn't have minded being armed; everyone around me most certainly was.

[Chorophyll]

75. I don't live in New York City anymore. I live in White Plains, 30 miles north.

It's a small, diverse city with different kinds of neighborhoods and different kinds of housing. I have one lock on my door. Oh yeah, and a fraidy-cat dog.

I've lived in Flushing Queens and Park Slope Brooklyn (waayyyy back before the chain-store and stroller brigade, when there were still bikers and druggies around.) I'm a woman. I walked home at night with friends if possible. Took the subway at all hours. Never, ever, carried a weapon of any kind. Will never have a gun.

My niece lives in Astoria now. She's not armed either.

[onehandle]

41. Nothing in there about confiscation. This is about halting assault gun sales in the future.

It will happen. Guns are a passing fad.

Suck it up.

[doc03]

46. In number 34 the author of the op states that she views the assault

weapon ban as a "start"

[Chorophyll]

55. And she still does. nt

[kestrel91316]

31. 3 percent of the population are gun nuts with 30 guns each.

The rest of us are not lunatics.

That's my assessment.

[Chorophyll]

35. Your assessment may or may not be accurate, however. nt

[Toronto]

32. Why do US citizens feel the need to bear arms?

Of all of the constitutional rights in the US, the right to bear arms seems to be the most cherished. Freedom of speech doesn`t even come close. During 911 certain media personalities made critical comments about the US government and were ultimately taken off the air. There was nary a squeak from the public. Suppression of the media doesn`t matter. Violation of people`s civil rights rarely causes a nationwide disturbance. The right to equal representation tends to fall on deaf ears. But threaten to deprive citizens of their weapons and all hell breaks loose. Why are Americans so frightened for their safety?

[Chorophyll]

36. I have no idea, because I have no guns, no desire to have guns, and I'm

not particularly afraid of anything. I'm a 5'2" woman and I've lived in or near New York City my whole life.

I have a kid and I don't want to have to be afraid for him every time he goes to school or to the movies. As I said upthread, I don't want to live in an armed camp. That's not my idea of liberty.

Welcome to DU, by the way!

ETA: I think you're wrong about our love of freedom of speech. Edited AGAIN because I'm goddamn tired and not typing properly. What I meant was, just because our protests after 9/11 were either squelched or ignored by the media doesn't mean they weren't happening.

[Toronto]

45. Thanks. I`m sure there are millions of well adjusted people in the US, however

there are clearly many frightened people out there. All scared that someone wants to take away what they have. The fear factor is increasing exponentially as every year passes. Who is responsible for fanning the flames of fear? I`m an outsider so forgive me if I comment based on what I`ve observed in the news. It would seem that the NRA certainly encourages everyone to arm themselves - I believe that they have a monetary agenda, else why bother? It would also appear to the world that past Republican governments did their best to terrify the public. Again, I think there were personal agendas at work. There would also appear to be a disinclination on the part of elected officials to tax the wealthiest citizens in the same proportion that they tax the middle class and the poor. Might there be a pandering to particular lobbiests such as wealthy individuals and corporations? The middle class of America is declining, the ranks of the poor are swelling due to poor public policy and the exportation of jobs off shore. The middle class of America traditionally paid the majority of the taxes. Ipso facto without an adequate tax base, the social safety net of the US will begin to disintegrate. So is the solution to arm yourself to the teeth or should it be to address the inequities that will lead to future chaos?

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. The NRA lobbies for loser gun laws

Allowing gun manufacturers to increase sales. This is actually an industry on the ropes.

There is a limit to how many guns you can sell for home defense. (One, two maybe) so they rely on repeat customers.

Same goes for hunting. Used to be people had a .22 or shotgun for small game, and one larger caliber for deer, and the occasional bear. Some simply had one. Hell a Winchester lever riffle used to be enough for most...it's still made believe it or not.

They are sold on having multiple guns.

With decreasing total ownership you can surely see how repeat customers are needed right?

Large collections used to be, not too long ago...a generation, those of competitive shooters. They need three to five due to the circuit, for the record, even Canadian Olympic shooters, who do well, also have more than one, but they are highly regulated.

These days at times police find small armories of 20+ weapons after raids in the US. Hell, there was an ERT this afternoon up the road due to, you guessed it, weapons violations.

[Chorophyll]

50. Um, yes to everything you've said?

Most of us on DU are aware of all of this. And most of us have no inclination to arm ourselves to the teeth or anywhere else, but we have some vocal gun enthusiasts (as you can see even on this thread.)

[spin]

77. I own a good number of firearms, mostly handguns , a couple of rifles and a shotgun. ...

I enjoy target shooting handguns and have accumulated my collection over 45 years of shooting.

I have no fear that the government will confiscate my firearms in my lifetime. Anyone who thinks that our government would ever try to disarm 80,000,000 people is living in a fantasy world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. First it is not all Americans

Not even half. Gun ownership is actually down. It's just the size of collections that is increasingly breath taking.

The ones going "come and take 'em from my cold dead hands are a loud minority."

It's also an urban-rural divide. You call 911 in a large metropolis (with a well funded pd) and your average response will be ten minutes. They might be the longest ten minutes in your life, but.

In rural areas, like my back country, you call 911, and it might take an hour...averages of half an hour are not unheard off. So, if you live in the back country having a riffle for self defense is not that nuts. It simply it's not. There is a better chance you will have to use it with your local coyote (and I am not even talking the human kind even living by the border) than a human. But in that sense it makes sense.

I take it you live in Toronto? Ask people living in the back country in Alberta where people also have rifles in ranches for the same problem, varmints, I am not talking of the two legged kind. Of course, the RCMP has licenses in place...

What has happened though is that this small minority, Pratt, and the head of the NRA, have convinced a small minority to be afraid of their shadows using a series of divorced from reality talking points. They are so divorced from reality that they even don't know actual US history. In that history gun control has been a constant.

[Toronto]

48. Surprisingly Canadians do not require registration for long guns

There was a registration requirement in the recent past, but the current government abolished the program. Of course the rifles here are the non semi-automatic variety. Semi-autos are not easily acquired here, but not completely banned. There doesn`t however seem to be a huge demand. I personally have no issue with rural folk keeping hunting rifles for game or self defense, though in general I`m not a big fan of hunting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. I think that has to do with the long gun

Is that a gun or are you happy to see me?

Americans have gone through the insanity of military grade weapons before. Tommy guns were the weapon of choice in the 1920s for gangsters. Then came the Valentine Day massacre. That, and a few shootouts in down town Chicago... That led to the 1934 laws that make machine guns that much difficult to legally obtain.

I will not say we will see something like that, but this has definitely changed the environment.

[smirkymonkey]

68. Because we are MAJORLY fu***ed up.

I'm sorry, I have no other excuse for us. I don't own guns and never will. I hate them.

I can't understand it either. The whole thing is completely bizzare to me. I will never get it.

[BeyondGeography]

42. Gun manufacturers have become dependent on compulsive shoppers

These non-hunting stockpilers are just like little old ladies who buy too many trinkets on HSN. They are addicted consumers, unable to stop themselves. Surely, the thought that government would restrict their choices as shoppers is what really gets to many of them.

Look at Nancy Lanza. Six guns. And Adam was along for the ride, getting related gear like the bullet-proof vest. Spoiled little fuck that he was. In typical overstuffed American consumer fashion, he had too much gear. Only used two of the four guns he brought to the school, one of which never made it out of the car.

Once he heard the sirens and it was time to kill himself, it was, "should I use the Glock or the Sig Sauer?" decisions, decisions...

Sad, silly people.

[Chorophyll]

59. IMHO if you have a troubled child, the last thing you want to do is stockpile weaponry.

Even if your only concern is the child's well-being, and no one else's.

Idiocy breeds idiocy.

[Marrah_G]

63. But 89 out of 100 people are NOT gun owners

[cliffordu]

84. I do believe that should read :

"The RATIO of gun ownership is 89 per 100 people.

I dunno anyone who I consider a friend who owns a gun right now.**

That includes about 12 people.

** Except NYC_SKP and his fucking stainless steel shotgun.

[quaker bill]

85. As interesting is the fact that only 30 out of 100 own any at all

Which would indicate the average person who owns any guns has 3.