This is an interesting story that compares our nation’s gun ownership with other nations.
We pay a huge price for our gun obsession.
“Americans own the most guns per person in the world, about four in 10 saying they either own a gun or live in a home with guns, according to a recent Pew Center study. Forty-eight percent of Americans said they grew up in a house with guns.
“According to the survey, a majority (66%) of US gun owners own multiple firearms, with nearly three-quarters of gun owners saying they couldn’t imagine not owning one.
“Yemen, home to the world’s second-largest gun-owning population per capita (and a country in the throes of a two-and-a-half-year civil conflict) trails significantly behind the US in terms of ownership.
“When it comes to gun massacres, the US is an anomaly.
“There are more public mass shootings in America than in any other country in the world….
“Globally, restrictive gun laws have proven to make a difference in curbing massacres.
“In Australia, for example, four mass shootings occurred between 1987 and 1996. After those incidents, public opinion turned against gun ownership and Parliament passed stricter gun laws. Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Here is what happened in Australia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GcD0fRewaA
LikeLike
Charles
Is that the best you can do . First a mass murder is considered over 4 victims . Quite a collection your idiot put together . I am going to guess there were a dozen incidents . Three or four on the list had less than four . You had several family violence episodes and a couple of arson’s, mass stabbings, a pair of serial killers. . The total of which over the course of 20 years was around 50 . That’s a bad week in Chicago . Your source was and\ idiot . You do embarrass yourself. (FREQUENTLY)
A more reasonable description of his moronic charge.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/10/03/did_gun_control_stop_mass_shootings_in_australia_probably.html
And now what tortures your right-wing brain, facts .
“What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.”
Mass shooting as defined 5 or more fatalities or would you prefer we say that there were 600 rather than 59 in Vegas .
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
LikeLike
Charles, how about you take notice of what most Australians know, rather than the opinions of outliers:
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/how-australia-beat-the-gun-lobby-and-passed-gun-control-20171003-gytvn4.html
LikeLike
Those other countries aren’t overdrugged, overworked, and governed by by facists and their treasonous media.
LikeLike
Thanks Diane – I obviously don’t need to respond to your previous question about what happened in Australia after 1996.
You may be interested to know that the prime minister who enacted the historic gun control laws at that time, John Howard, is a very strong conservative who changed the Marriage Act here in 2004. He made it obligatory for ALL marriage celebrants to state in the middle of a marriage ceremony “marriage is uniquely between a man and a woman”.
We’re in the middle of a horrible postal survey, conducted by our Bureau of Statistics, to ask all Australians whether we believe that marriage law should be extended to same-sex couples. The same Mr Howard has chimed in to urge everyone to vote “no”. It looks possible that the outcome will be “yes” – thankfully – but it has been very stressful and nasty from certain quarters.
I say this to illustrate that even a right-winger like John Howard can stand up to the gun lobbies here and implement sensible gun laws. It doesn’t need to be a progressive political leader.
LikeLike
Stephen Colbert urged Trump to stand up to the gun lobby and demand gun control. A Nixon to China deal.
Interesting, but I doubt he has it in him.
LikeLike
John Howard was also Dubya’s “deputy sherriff” during the Iraq War. A complete lickspittle. Glad he was able to protect Australian lives with the gun laws but shameful that he endangered Iraqi ones by joining the invasion.
LikeLike
“A complete lickspittle.”: I love it when I learn new words and phrases. Can’t wait to use that one to impress my friends. Thanks for the intercultural exchange!
LikeLike
Diane,
What i find interesting is that on this blog there are many who have called Trump the Hitler the naxt Mussolini and have described him as the most dangerous man ever to be in the office as well as an authoritarian out to damage this country, add that reference to the many armchair psycho/paychiatrists who threw their ethics code in the trash bin described him as dangerous is IMHO the best reason not to give up ones guns.
And i believe the historians here referencing the Constitution 2nd amendment noted the reason for the militia included we had no standing army and they feared the govt
LikeLike
to quote Buffalo Springfield “paranoia runs deep…” and Paul Simon “Paranoia runs deep in the heartland… exaggerating this and exaggerating that…”
The NRA has brainwashed it’s way into millions to be afraid of, well, everything that doesn’t sound and look like them and they have bought republicans across the country.
How do they sleep?
I scream when I hear “thoughts and prayers” from these hypocrites.
Call them on it. Literally. Write. Call. Email. March.
And, the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is as stupid as it sounds. The GOP and NRA have created a gun culture and every time one of these shootings occurs – and NOTHING is done – it reinforces their culture. Imagine if Congress had put their foot down decades ago
Teach your children well
LikeLike
The 2d amendment was adopted in 1791. The NRA was founded in 1871. The NRA has less than 4 million members. About 180 million Americans own at least one firearm.
Guns do not jump up off the ground, and start shooting people. Guns must have a person to pull the trigger. Blaming guns for killing, is like blaming pencils for misspelled words.
Get real.
LikeLike
Seriously?
I guess you’ve never gone out when the fire alarm goes off and the first thing you do is check the roof and bushes.
Never watched a gurney rolled out of a school building.
Or seen people with long guns openly displayed as you walk out of a baseball game or walking behind peaceful protesters.
Or known cops who brace for the worst, necessarily, every time they pull over anyone for a traffic light wondering if the driver is carrying (in rural, suburban, and urban areas)
Yes – there were incidents for decades – but not with this frequency – not with this fervor of politician rants -not with this “it’s my right to carry this machine gun” and nothing like the spike of hate, anger, and baiting from the highest office in the country.
Can you imagine if guns were this accessible in the ’60s?
Can you imagine if sarah palin’s cross-hairs website had been followed by “go for it” against those she chastised – and that was little league compared to a presidential candidate telling his base to beat up someone in the crowd who with one statement could turn loose a mob.
It’s the CULTURE of guns and now the entitlement by a president who gets accolades from the kkk
LikeLike
Guns can shoot off themselves if owners learn how to manipulate them with auto-switchs or kicks(like a shooter in Vegas). Guns are getting much more powerful and sophisticated than those in thirty years ago when the NRA made a drastic political shift.
75% of NRA members actually support background check–while Wayne LaPierre and GOP politicians want to de-regulate(and even scrap) it at the risk of compromising public interest of safety(virtually applicable to citizens–regardless of their position). NRA has lost some memberships from gun owners because of their political position and propagandistic advertisement.
There is a clear difference from discussing gun mechanism to people who are trying to mess with gun legislation through distortion.
It’s just lubricous to assume people criticizing mass shooting and NRA are “blaming guns.” Many of us are calling out those who spread propaganda through gross mis-conceptualizationof the second Amendment for the promotion of armed-up-citizen-fantasy.
Snap out of the Wild Wild West Bubble.
LikeLike
And if the Las Vegas assassin had used a bow and arrows instead, would we be talking about nearly 60 dead? Get real. Australia has proven opinions like yours wrong time and time again for the last twenty years.
LikeLike
Did you read my reply to the ridiculous theory that, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people “. I’ll post it again because I think it accurately describes how stupid this is.
…………………….
I am fully aware of the NRA’s philosophy. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. I disagree with that because guns do kill.
I want to expand upon the NRA’s way of thinking.
I went to the American War Museum in S. Korea. The outdoor museum was filled with tanks and military hardware that was used by America in the Korean war. None of those killing machines have killed since they were put in a museum.
Land mines don’t kill unless some unfortunate adult (or child) steps on it.
The MOAB, which made Trump more presidential, doesn’t kill unless some human puts it into a plane and drops it.
Drones don’t kill unless someone in a remote tower, a human, decides the drone is in perfect position to be dropped.
AK-47’s don’t kill because if they lay in a pile in someone’s bedroom. They never have killed anyone.
Grenades don’t kill unless some human pulls the plug and throws them.
If fact, nothing that the military has ever invented to kill actually kills. The millions of people now dead are only in that position because some military person was ordered to kill.
I’m sure this reasoning will resound around the world and all those who have relatives or friends who have been shot down prematurely do to some type of conflict will be comforted. Military equipment doesn’t kill. Guns don’t kill.
LikeLike
You’re absolutely right, Charles. I mean, if Stephen Pollock had just had a bunch of knives or billy clubs, he could just as easily have killed and injured hundreds of people.
Oh, wait….
LikeLike
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people, frequently and more numerously, with guns.
LikeLike
Q I am fully aware of the NRA’s philosophy. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. I disagree with that because guns do kill. END Q
Why do you disagree with this statement? How can a gun kill all by itself. Some kind of human intervention is necessary. A gun does not have a mind of its own.
Even if a gun is operated by remote control, still a person has to operate the remote control.
I repeat, How can a gun kill all by itself, without an operator? That is like a camera taking a picture, without someone pressing the shutter.
LikeLike
I guess I get it. If you love guns, you’ll probably want more than one. I can’t imagine owning just one guitar.
LikeLike
No national healthcare and automatic weapons with soon-to-be silencers galore. What next? An Argentinian style dirty war where “subversives” and undesirables will be killed and the source of the gunshot will be virtually untraceable?
This is the American exceptionalism I have come to recognize and acknowledge. I have no choice.
There is still great hope where there is relentless solidarity and collectivism.
LikeLike
Technology, mass production, free market, money, privatization, deregulations.
No doubt “guns” had been walking hand in hand with these terms for a century and a quarter for creation, proliferation and preservation of national narrative.
LikeLike
Here is the summary of this article: “The United States has… determined, after each mass shooting — including the 2012 attack in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 children in their elementary school — that relatively unregulated gun ownership is still worth the costs.
That choice, more than any statistic or regulation, is what most sets the United States apart.”
………………….
Three Important Ways America Is Unique When it Comes to Guns
. Steve Ruark for The New York Times
By the time this arrives in your inbox, there will have been several sadly familiar rounds of the national soul-searching that tends to follow mass shootings.
Our modest, belated contribution is this set of three points in how American firearm laws and norms differ from those in other countries. They confirm that the United States is unique when it comes to guns, and in ways that go beyond just numbers.
1) Gun ownership correlates closely with gun violence.
Across developed countries, as gun ownerships rate rise, so do the rates of gun violence, suicide, accidental firearm death and police shooting. If you live in a society with more guns, you are more likely to die by a gun.
The United States has about 89 guns per 100 people, more than any other country. The rate in Canada, though one of the highest, is only 30 per 100 people. In the United Kingdom, it is 6 per 100 people.
Social scientists tend to isolate this comparison across developed societies because it’s the best way to control for individual factors like the presence of guns. For example, the homicide rate is far higher in Guatemala than in the United States, despite Guatemala’s lower gun ownership rate, because of police corruption, political instability and gang warfare.
The scale of American exceptionalism is worth dwelling on. Americans make up about 4.4 percent of global population but own 42 percent of the world’s private firearms. America’s gun homicide rate is 30 per one million people; in Canada and the United Kingdom, it is 5 and 0.7, respectively.
In 2013, American gun-related deaths included 21,175 suicides, 11,208 homicides and 505 due to accidental discharge. That same year in Japan, a country with one-third America’s population, guns were involved in only 13 deaths.
This means an American is about 300 times likelier to die by gun homicide or accident than a Japanese person. America’s gun ownership rate is 150 times Japan’s, which is 0.6 per 100 people.
That gap between 150 and 300 shows that gun ownership statistics alone do not explain what makes America different.
2) American gun ownership is different in quality as well as quantity.
The United States also has some of the world’s weakest controls on gun ownership, both in regards to the requirements for ownership and the sorts of guns that can be owned.
Contrast the United States with Switzerland, which has the second-highest gun ownership rate of any developed country, with 46 guns per 100 people.
Switzerland has 7.7 gun homicides per million people – unusually high, in keeping with the relationship between gun ownership and murders — but still far less than in the United States. But Swiss gun laws are more stringent, setting a higher bar for securing and keeping a license, for selling guns and for the types of guns that can be owned.
Canada, which also has an unusually high gun ownership rate, nonetheless tightly restricts the types of firearms most associated with violent crimes, like handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Its background checks are more stringent and a buyer can be disqualified from owning a gun on a wider range of criteria, like domestic abuse, which is often associated with mass shootings.
Less-regulated firearm ownership, by placing more guns in the hands of people who might be violent or mentally ill, tends to make otherwise non-lethal interactions like being pulled over by the police or getting mugged much likelier to escalate to someone’s death. It also correlates with an increase in mass shootings, though these make up only a tiny fraction of gun deaths.
3) American political culture toward guns is unlike any other in the world.
Laws like Canada’s or Switzerland’s are more than just tighter restrictions. They imply a different way of thinking about guns, which are treated as something that can and should be tightly regulated by the state. Citizens are expected to affirmatively prove their fitness to own a gun.
American law begins, perhaps uniquely, with the opposite assumption: that all Americans have an inherent right to own guns, and that it is the state that must be regulated.
For instance, under federal law, states cannot monitor certain gun statistics, which makes it far harder to write safety requirements, much less improve background checks or restrict gun ownership.
The main reason American regulation of gun ownership is so weak may be the fact that the tradeoffs are simply given a different weight in the United States than they are anywhere else.
Consider what tends to happen after mass shootings in other developed countries. After the United Kingdom had a mass shooting in 1987, the country instituted strict gun control laws, for example, partially banning handguns. Australia’s own mass shooting, in 1996, prompted a sweeping gun buyback program, which removed over half a million firearms.
Mass shootings prompted British and Australian societies to re-evaluate the tradeoffs of loose gun laws and conclude that the downsides exceeded the upsides.
The United States has repeatedly faced the same calculus and determined, after each mass shooting — including the 2012 attack in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 children in their elementary school — that relatively unregulated gun ownership is still worth the costs.
That choice, more than any statistic or regulation, is what most sets the United States apart.
LikeLike
I support background checks for prospective weapons ownership. It is a legitimate and reasonable function of government, to ensure that mentally-deficient persons, and felons are not permitted access to deadly weapons.
Nothwithstanding, the perpetrator of the Las Vegas shooting, had no criminal record, and no record of mental instability(as yet disclosed). He was just an “ordinary” guy, with none of the disqualifications listed.
How would have background checks, have stopped him?
LikeLike
Background checks would not have stopped this mass murderer.
No one should own the guns he had, whose sole purpose was Murder, not hunting.
They should be banned.
LikeLike
Are you really suggesting banning semi-automatic weapons? Does this include pistols, and revolvers, which are also semi-automatic?
The “purpose” of weapons is debatable. A target pistol, can be purchased, with the intent of the owner to use it solely for competitive target shooting. But the same weapon can be used to commit homicide, regardless.
A person can purchase an antique muzzle-loading rifle. It takes 5 minutes to load the powder, and ram the bullet down the muzzle. A weapon like this, is obviously useless for a mass shooting, but it can be used commit homicide, notwithstanding.
Why don’t you just come clean, and admit that you wish to ban all firearms that are capable of being used in a homicide?
LikeLike
Yes, I suggest banning murder weapons. Guns belong in the hands of a well regulated militia. Not crazy people.
LikeLike
OK, what is a “murder weapon”? A pistol? a shotgun? a rifle? Be specific as to which type of weapon should be banned.
And, should only a “well-regulated militia” have weapons? In Switzerland, militia members keep weapons in their homes. In colonial Massachusetts, the Minutemen, kept their weapons at home.
Individual citizens are part of the “unorganized militia”. see the Militia Act of 1903:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
LikeLike
Charles, I referred to the exact language of the Second Amendment to the Constitution about a “well-regulated militia.” The Amendment doesn’t say that every crackpot should own an assault weapon. Read the second Amendment. All of it.
“AMENDMENT II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The amendment most certainly is about “a well-regulated militia,” not about the right of every individual to own weapons of war.
LikeLike
AMENDMENT II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
See the capitalized letters.
Q The amendment most certainly is about “a well-regulated militia,” not about the right of every individual to own weapons of war. END Q
You are mistaken. The 2d amendment is most specifically about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court ruled that the amendment protects the right to own weapons, collectively and individually.
see Heller V. District of Columbia (2008)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
Q The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment. END Q
LikeLike
Charles,
Although I didn’t know any of the Founding Fathers, I feel certain that they would not have approved of mass murder perpetrated by citizens on one another. If Jefferson and Hamilton and Adams were here, they would agree with me that this was not their intention. Both parts of the Second Amendment go together. The first part modifies the second part. The purpose was to maintain a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, not to arm criminal crackpots and psychopaths.
LikeLike
Q Both parts of the Second Amendment go together. The first part modifies the second part. END Q
Fortunately, the Supreme Court does not agree with you.
The majority opinion held: Q the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service END Q
The first clause is “prefatory”, and does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Could not be more clearer.
Q , I feel certain that they would not have approved of mass murder perpetrated by citizens on one another. If Jefferson and Hamilton and Adams were here, they would agree with me that this was not their intention. END Q
I stipulate, that your assertion is correct. I also do not believe that Jefferson/Hamilton, etc would not approve of mass murder. Nevertheless, I strongly feel that the framers supported the right of self-defense, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for legitimate purposes.
LikeLike
I also believe that mentally deranged people, should be kept from owning lethal weapons. Individuals who have a propensity to harm themselves, or others, should be kept away from firearms. Of course!
I support background checks on prospective firearms purchases.
The alleged perpetrator in the Vegas shooting, had no record of mental illness (as yet disclosed). He had no criminal record (as yet disclosed).
Why are more gun-grabbers calling for background checks? You yourself admitted that a background check would not have stopped this person.
LikeLike
Your statement doesn’t add up each other. Keep groping in the dark.
LikeLike
I disagree, it adds up perfectly. Charles just argued that he should be kept from owning lethal weapons!
LikeLike
@Greg B: You are more correct than you realize. Like 1 in 6 American men, I have had problems with depression. I am under psychiatric care now, and I take anti-depressant medication. I should not be permitted access to lethal weapons. I do not want one in my home.
As I have stated many times, mentally ill persons should not be permitted access to lethal weapons. I support background checks to keep weapons out of the hands of mentally ill people.
LikeLike
All gun debates aside, here’s the comparison among OECD nations on gun-related death.
The survey does neither support nor disprove particular points in current gun debates(i.e., regulation on background check, ban/no-ban on assault weapons).
Regardless of your position on guns, the data shows you one important point crystal clear. The availability/presence of fire arms(and the scope of gun laws) a clear reflection of the stats. This is true–especially for the first two countries(US and Mexico) in the list. I would be surprised if people would suggest otherwise.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/13/national/crime-legal/what-are-the-chances-of-a-mass-shooting-in-japan/#.WdWDJkyB18c
LikeLike
Brennan Center For Justice • How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.
LikeLike
Charles – and others –
you are all missing the point(s)
The NRA owns Congress. Need I say more? (of course I do).
Mention the word “gun” and Congress votes no. The only thing that usurps (can’t use the t word) their passion for guns is their effort to dismantle anything President Obama did.
They are lackey’s to the presidents twitter account (that’s scary that grown white men (oh, and a couple of women) are so scared of being flamed by a presidential tweet they vote against their constituents, conscience (well, some do have one), and maybe even their beliefs.
Between the NRA and the 1%ers who bankroll these pawns, we get we we get. The only good news is they are the keystone cops and can’t manage or legislate anything.
BUT – beware – in the dark of night they will come up with asinine EDUCATION policy and pass it. (This is an education blog). Tax credits – – vouchers – – prayer – – sex education – – breakfast – – Perkins $ (oh, that’s already gone) – –
Kill public education, you kill democracy. It’s not the guns – – it’s the blood, er, gun money.
LikeLike
Congress also comes up with asinine healthcare bills and tax bills which give big tax breaks to the wealthy. My Republican Senator Todd Young (IN) came up with the following lie to entice people into believing this new tax reform bill would actually help the middle class. It is a case of deceit and cover up to get something destructive passed. It also would increase the deficit. Whatever happened to the GOP caring about the deficit?
……….
Tax Reform
On Thursday, I joined President Donald Trump as he visited Indianapolis to outline the details of his tax reform plan. It’s been three decades since our tax code was reformed, and Hoosiers want America to have a fairer and simpler tax policy.
The President made a convincing case that this tax reform package will boost the economy and increase the take-home pay of every Hoosier. For the first time in 30 years, the prospects for a simpler tax code that lowers taxes for the working class and provides relief for small business owners looks good.
On Friday, I spoke with Neil Cavuto on Fox Business about the need for tax reform. The framework proposed this week will help those of modest means get a leg up and will help Hoosier manufacturers be more competitive in a global economy.
LikeLike
The NRA has around 4 million or so members. These members are scattered throughout the land. The political muscle of the NRA , is not as powerful as most people would believe.
Nevertheless, about 180 million Americans own at least one firearm. The political clout of these voters is immense. Congress pays close attention to the desires of law-abiding firearms owners.
And, Congress is under oath, to protect the Constitution, including the 2d amendment.
LikeLike
You don’t understand the Second Amendment. It is not a license to allow anyone to own a private arsenal.
LikeLike
Q You don’t understand the Second Amendment. It is not a license to allow anyone to own a private arsenal. END Q
The 2d amendment is self-explanatory. The amendment says nothing about the number of weapons that each person is permitted to own.
Many people are collectors, and own more than one weapon.
The fact is , that about 3% of the American population, own about 50% of the weapons. See
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/19/just-three-percent-of-adults-own-half-of-americas-guns/?utm_term=.66b9c0c156cc
If I accept your argument, that people are not permitted to own a private arsenal, then pray tell, how many weapons should a person be permitted to own? 3? 75?
LikeLike
If they are not part of a well regulated militia, as the Founding Father’s wrote explicitly, they should have zero weapons.
LikeLike
Diane, what a wonderful thought. Imagine how many lives would have been saved if there were no guns. My motto is, “Stop the killing!” That also goes for the military. We have wasted a lot of money in investing in killing people. How much better our world would be if that money had be put into helping people…hospitals, roads, houses, medical care, schools, food, clean drinking water, etc. 40% of the people in the world don’t have a decent home and many don’t have clean drinking water.
We could make a difference in a positive direction. We don’t.
LikeLike
You have no idea about the power of NRA. It’s not the actual number of memberships. It is their ability to high jack the congress, influence the legislations, and spread a false belief in gun safety while walking away from the consequence of shootings. They and Congress even disallow studies on guns in relation to mental health. What’s more troubling is that your flip-flopping on gun rights. You said you have a mental health issue yourself and still you are claiming gun rights– which you suggest no based on conscience, but say yes by conveniently ignoring the fact that loose legislation allowed a sickened Vegas gunman to obtain guns.
LikeLike
Q If they are not part of a well regulated militia, as the Founding Father’s wrote explicitly, they should have zero weapons. END Q
You need to read the militia act of 1903. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
We keep going around and around. The Second Amendment has two(2) sections. The first clause (prefatory) is for the militia. The second clause, states quite clearly that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. How could it not be more clear?
The Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia, stated it clearly. The right to own firearms, is BOTH an individual and a collective right.
Individuals can own firearms. The amendment states it, and the SCOTUS confirmed it.
LikeLike
Q What’s more troubling is that your flip-flopping on gun rights. You said you have a mental health issue yourself and still you are claiming gun rights– which you suggest no based on conscience, but say yes by conveniently ignoring the fact that loose legislation allowed a sickened Vegas gunman to obtain guns. END Q
I am not flip-flopping. I support gun rights, as stated in the constitution. People who have serious mental issues, and felons should be kept away from firearms. No contradiction. I support background checks on gun purchases.
The alleged perpetrator of the Vegas shooting, has had no mental health record disclosed (so far). It is fair to deduce that the shooter was mentally ill, but there is record of previous mental illness.
LikeLike
Contrary to your perception, closing out legal loopholes doesn’t keep ones from obtaining guns. The fact that Vegas gunman wasn’t diagnosed with mental illness makes it very clear that current system about lawful obtainment of firearms is seriously flawed. The man was totally insane, but it didn’t come out until he pulled a trigger for killing sprees.He was capable of outsmarting the legislation by faking his mental health, making himself look like he was normal.
So, the gunman was not insane until he chose to shoot randomly at people in the scene? And we have to wait until the SWAT teams stormed into his room so that he took his own life or would get shot??
That’s far cry from the condition of 2nd Amendment. Never cease to amaze me about your excuse(with some sympathy) for gunman’s rights despite his delusional mindset and recklessness.
LikeLike
And that the Wa-Po article showing 3% of Americans own guns? BS.
Pew Research suggests otherwise.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key-takeaways-on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/
LikeLike
“About four-in-ten gun owners (38%) say there is a gun that is both loaded and easily accessible to them all of the time when they are at home.”
……….
No wonder there are stories of young kids killing their brothers or sisters. I say our society is sick.
LikeLike
It sometimes pays to see what else is being promoted. Quote: “Gun control is a failed policy. And it’s safe to say that it doesn’t keep people safe.”
………….
The NRA Responds to Leftist Hypocrisy
As the investigation into Las Vegas mass murderer Stephen Paddock continues, authorities have yet to determine his motivation. This fact hasn’t stopped Democrats, leftist celebrities and the anti-gun lobby from laying the blame on America’s “gun culture” and specifically the National Rifle Association. Thursday evening, NRA executive director Chris Cox responded in an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, calling for Americans to have an honest conversation about what problems motivate murderous actions like those seen in Las Vegas.
Cox noted that Paddock was not a NRA member, but that NRA members were murdered and wounded in his shooting rampage. He emphasized that the NRA exists “so that good honest people aren’t left defenseless.” He also pointed to a simple fact: “Gun control is a failed policy. And it’s safe to say that it doesn’t keep people safe.”
In what was his most poignant defense of the NRA, Cox said, “The NRA spends millions of dollars each year teaching safe and responsible gun ownership, and Hollywood makes billions promoting and glorifying gun violence. And then the same hypocrites come in and say that we’re to blame for this.”
Carlson then asked him specifically about “bump stocks” and whether the NRA was calling for them to be banned. Cox responded, “Barack Obama’s administration approved the sale of bump stocks and these other devices. What we have said is that the ATF needs to do their job. ATF needs to look and if there is technology that has come to the market that allows a semi-automatic rifle to function as a fully automatic rifle they need to be regulated differently. We didn’t talk about banning anything, we talked about ATF going back and reviewing whether or not these are in compliance with federal law. And if not let’s look at working together and figuring out a way to address this moving forward.”
Cox closed by once again emphasizing the need for honesty. “We need to have a broader conversation about a violent culture and what’s happened with gratuitous violence out of Hollywood; what’s happened with prescription drugs. Being honest with one another that if we’ve tried something and it’s failed it’s time to move on.”
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) yesterday hinted at exactly why the NRA exists — to defend our first civil right. In calling for Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) to schedule a vote on a Democrat bill that would ban bump stocks, Pelosi was asked if she viewed this bill as a potential slippery slope toward further gun restrictions. She replied, “I certainly hope so.”
LikeLike