David Atkins writes in Washington Monthly that there is only one way to reduce gun violence and that’s to reduce the number of guns.
He writes:
”I’m tired of this. Americans are tired of this. Mass shootings are now occurring with a depressing regularity, including well over a dozen school shootings 2018 alone.
“Each and every time we are subjected to the same arguments, a circular merry-go-round of desperate anger from families and mainstream Americans, shocking bad faith and callousness by those who want to preserve the status quo, and callous opportunism by those trying to shoehorn their own separate issue advocacy into the discussion. The cycle of violence and reaction is a mandala of pain and futility.
“And every time the bottom line is and remains the same: if you want to end gun violence, reduce the number of guns. It’s that simple. There is no other answer. The simple reason is that the only difference between America and other industrialized nations on the issues so often blamed for gun violence is access to guns.
“It’s not mental health. While American underfunded treatment of mental health issues is terrible, mental illness is also often stigmatized and underfunded in other countries. Nor is there any reason to believe that Americans are, per capita, suffering from greater mental illness than Japanese or Swedes or Peruvians.
“It’s not violent movies or video games. Every industrialized culture across the world consumes these entertainments. The French, the Kenyans and the South Koreans watch The Matrix and play Halo, but they don’t have a school shooting every week…
”There is only one common denominator: the guns. There is no cultural solution to this problem. There is no funding solution to this problem. There is no other, easy way out.
“Either we reduce access to guns (and particularly to semi-automatic rifles), or we are going to see this again. And again. And again. And again.
“But if we must continue to endure the killings, at least let’s stop going through the cycle of the same garbage arguments. Let’s just concede that we are choosing to place the right of people to own weapons of death, over the lives of thousands–including schoolchildren.”

According to Giffords.org, California has the strictest firearm laws in the country, and I live in California where I was born. I have a weapon safe where I keep my firearms. To buy a firearm I have to fill out an application and wait until it comes back to make sure I’m not on a list that says I can’t own one.
Then I have to take a test and pass it with a high score that shows I know how to use and safeguard my firearms.
And every time I leave the house, I make sure all of my firearms, all six of them that were all bought legally in California under the strictest laws in the U.S., are locked in that safe that’s bolted to the floor and wall inside the master bedroom’s closet. In addition, the master bedroom has a steel-clad solid core door with a bolt lock — a door that doesn’t open into the room but outward into the hall so it closes against the door jamb and can’t be kicked in.
The strictest firearm laws in the country did not stop me from buying firearms but hopefully, those laws will make it impossible for someone from buying firearms and ammo legally that is the kind of mentally ill person full of hate that would shoot up a school from ever buying firearms legally. Firearms and ammo will always be available through the illegal black market, but buying these weapons this way runs a high risk of attempting to buy them from an undercover cop that arrests them and keeps them off the street as long as possible.
LikeLike
Advocacy without solutions is just so much noise. Such is this article. Provide a means, preferably legal and achievable, of how the goals being advocated for can be achieved. Atkins fails mightily in that regards.
He also fails in his knowledge of history. Firearms just like the ones he is caterwauling about have been in our society for over a century. The AK and AR functionality are nothing new. The mass shootings are. What has changed? The firearms and their capability have actually declined while shooting are fairly new.
We as a society are producing some seriously damaged young people. A root cause analysis may take us places and ask questions we don’t like, but it needs to be done. Atkins’ knee jerk and poorly thought out screed is not part of the solution. Instead it serves to pollute the discussion with useless noise in a poor attempt to find a sound bite answer and ignore the facts.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, the evidence suggests things are more complicated than “fewer guns means fewer shootings.” Data shows that gun ownership has increased steadily over the last 20 years while violent crime of all kinds (including shooting deaths) has decreased quite dramatically. This definitely does NOT mean that increased gun ownership caused the reduction in crime and shootings, but it makes it hard to stand by the claim that the number of guns is the most relevant factor in the rate of gun violence.
LikeLike
Jason: From The New York Times:
More Guns = More Killing
Despite the ubiquitous presence of “good guys” with guns, some Latin American countries have among the highest homicide rates in the world.
…Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”
After a gruesome mass murder in 1996 provoked public outrage, Australia enacted stricter gun laws, including a 28-day waiting period before purchase and a ban on semiautomatic weapons. Before then, Australia had averaged one mass shooting a year. Since, rates of both homicide and suicide have dropped 50 percent, and there have been no mass killings, said Ms. Peters, who lobbied for the legislation.
LikeLike
So what accounts for data like that found at the following link? I know what the AEI is, but the numbers are from a legit source.
http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/
LikeLike
By limiting the type of guns, ammo,and attachments; controlling who can own a gun; and implementing strict procedures for licensing, we can reduce gun violence. I don’t have to understand why there are more guns and fewer gun homicides (don’t accidents and suicides count?). I already know from examining the stats from other countries that robust restrictions reduce deaths.
LikeLike
The problem with the research is that there are large amount statistics missing. No accounting is made for defensive gun use. It is mostly uncollectible and the current DOJ scheme does not account for those that are reported. The current stats do not add up, though it would be certainly be helpful if they did.
LikeLike
Desert Ratt:
CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage
“The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s, but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC’s budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347
LikeLike
H-m-m-m. And what possible reason could the NRA have for wanting that research limited?
LikeLike
Personally leaving the legislators of the nation to decide on what to do about the gun violence is a conflict of interest issue. After all if the information about how much the NRA contributes to them is true, then they are not impartial and have a vested interested. I’d like the majority of American people to decide what to do in a way that special interests, politics, and money aren’t the issues. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness used to mean something and notice that life is first.
Maybe because I’m a parent and a teacher my ideas are not exactly impartial but the issue needs to be addressed with more than a band aid. Those of us who don’t say or do anything to solve the problem are part of the problem in our democracy.
LikeLike
This article should be of interest for all the gun-toting enthusiasts who believe that the NRA is doing a tremendous amount of good by training children on how to use guns responsibly. This training obviously did a lot of good. Maybe it should be in all the schools so every kid who is miserable can ‘take out’ a few classmates and teachers. [Just a very sarcastic thought.] END THE NUMBER OF GUNS! We have too many guns in this country and that equates into deaths that will continue until something serious is done.
………………………….
The NRA donated $10,000 to help train the Parkland shooting suspect to use a rifle
Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old who charged with murdering 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, honed his marksmanship skills in a school program supported by the NRA. Cruz was, according to the Associated Press, a member of the school’s four-person varsity marksmanship team, which received a $10,000 grant from the NRA in 2016.
https://thinkprogress.org/nra-cruz-donation-marksmanship-c7f68d54a25f/
LikeLike
Subject: Politicians: Stop Taking Money from the NRA
Hi,
I signed a petition to The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Donald Trump which says:
“Stop taking money from the NRA.”
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/politicians-stop-taking?source=s.em.cp&r_by=1432174
Thanks!
LikeLike
Let’s stop this “over a dozen school shootings in 2018” meme, though. The organization counts any time a gun is discharged at a school, including accidental shootings, suicides, at colleges and universities, and even a suicide at in the parking lot of a school that had closed: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2018/feb/16/18-school-shootings-already-18-not-really-stat-kee/
ALL school shootings are horrific, and assault rifles should absolutely be banned or limited, but muddying the waters by claiming far more shootings than there really are makes the argument weak.
LikeLike
I’m trying to figure out why “accidental shootings” shouldn’t count.
LikeLike
intention
LikeLike
That is an easy answer, what to do about all the guns already out ?
LikeLike
Helen:
From The New York Times:
How a Conservative-Led Australia Ended Mass Killings
Australia has had no killings of five or more since a 1996 rampage spurred a tightening of laws. Other forms of gun violence have fallen as well.
The oft-cited statistic in Australia is a simple one: There have been no mass killings — defined by experts there as a gunman killing five or more people besides himself — since the nation significantly tightened its gun control laws almost 20 years ago.
Mass shootings in Australia were rare anyway. But after a gunman massacred 35 people in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur in 1996, a public outcry spurred a national consensus to severely restrict firearms. The tightened laws, which were standardized across Australia, are more stringent than those of any state in the United States, including California…
LikeLike
This is part of the article since many can’t pull up the NYT:
..Pushed through by John Howard, the conservative prime minister at the time, the National Firearms Agreement prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles and pump shotguns in all but unusual cases. It tightened licensing rules, established a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases, created a national gun registry and instituted a temporary buyback program that removed more than 20 percent of firearms from public circulation.
Several of the measures, including waiting periods and background checks, have been adopted piecemeal by different states in America. But the United States has never tried a national gun buyback program; in Australia, that required raising taxes. And the United States has never been able to do what Mr. Howard did: forge a broad agreement on a sweeping set of gun control measures that applies to the entire nation…
LikeLike
Houston, we have a problem: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/43554-the-alt-right-has-killed-far-more-people-than-you-likely-are-aware-of
LikeLike
Are we supposed to be surprised by expansion of hatred and killings? The extremists love Trump because he is ‘one of their own’ who exposes the inferiority of anyone who isn’t white, preferably male.
……………..
Last June, the Trump administration rescinded funds previously earmarked to counter right-wing extremism and white supremacist violence…
The SPLC notes that the most conspicuous unifying background trait among these individuals is a “history of consuming and/or participating in the type of far-right ecosystem that defines the alt-right.”
A healthy number of those identified in the report are outspoken fans of Donald Trump, the report notes….
The alt-right’s visibility has grown alongside Trump’s political career, and the two appear inextricably linked. Nine of the attacks cataloged by the SPLC occurred in the shadow of the Trump presidency, leading the organization to cite 2017 as the most violent year of the alt-right’s existence thus far…
LikeLike
“Are we supposed to be surprised by expansion of hatred and killings?”
This country, at it’s very foundation is a death and destruction machine with the world’s largest expenditures on death and destruction with no accountability in the world. We glorify the US Department of War, the military so that it is considered glamorous and oh so effin patriotic to be a part of that death and destruction machine.
Many aphorisms warn against “blowback”-reaping what one sows.
LikeLike
While there are arguments as to why semi auto firearms should not be banned, since that function has been available out of necessity on some types of hunting weapons for decades, there is no good argument to be made for the availability to civilians of guns designed to have rapidly changeable magazines or indeed any removeable magazine. That is strictly a feature of military weapons and should be reserved for them alone. Civilian hunting weapons should only be allowed to have a small capacity internal magazine that can be loaded one cartridge at a time. While this would not stop mass casualty shootings, it would greatly reduce fatalities, even in a situation like LasVegas where the shooter had multiple guns.
LikeLike
In addition, we should all reject the bunkum, the outright insult to the law enforcement community and our military personnel that is contained in the argument of needing guns to defend against gov’t tyranny. Does anyone really believe that those folks do not know the constitution and will blindly follow illegal orders? That they will take any illegally or irrationally gov’t ordered action against their own communities and families? What greater tyranny is there than a terrorist organization like the NRA subverting the will of the people by using money and campaign contributions to influence the outcome of elections in a way that is massively disproportionate to the small numbers of gun nuts who believe such things, people who should themselves be on a domestic terrorism watch list. And no, not every memeber of the NRA is this kind of stupid. It only takes a few backed by enough money to magnify their voices. I do think the rest who are not should quit them and thereby stop supporting this particular part of the tyranny of the influence of money on our political system.
LikeLike