

Gun violence in America

Newtown’s horror


See article

Readers' comments



It is really tough to regulate anything when people live under very different circumstances. Because it is difficult does not mean it isn't neccessary. It is very depressing to know that we live in a country where half the population seems to look at all of these innocent victims demises as inevitable or unavoidable. No other rich country in the world deals with this as frequently. The truth is like most terrorist acts there is no reasonable way to predict mass murders before they occur. If you believe otherwise you are delusional. When living in uncertainty we can only protect ourselves against potential threats at a general level. To do this we have to walk the fine line between liberty and security. We could do this with heavy invasive monitoring of our lives and behavior or more invasive security measures. Personally I would rather take a different approach. In the US, because of our lax weapons policy, we have made it much easier for indiviuals to carry out dispicable acts against others efficiently and effectively regardless of skill. There are basically 3 choices here, assume these crimes are inevitable events that cannot be altered, dramatically reduce our other rights to protect the second ammendment at all costs or dramatically diminish our second ammendent right to avoid the previous two scenarios. Security and Liberty are always at odds and each are neccessary to an extent. The question is which liberties are more important to you and personally I believe most people would place their second ammendment right toward the bottom of that list if they had to weaken any of the others.


This is the irony of stupid right wingers and their guns. The Supreme Court has no problem undermining your rights in its allowed enforcement of drug laws because of the associated violence and safety issues, but not the guns, which are the actual cause of actual violence. The right has become so paranoid and deluded that they are worthless as useful citizens. We should outlaw guns so that only outlaws own guns and then throw them in jail until they are dead.

Jeffro X in reply to Medicine4theDead

Medicine4theDead stop acting like an animal. The 2nd Amendment spans both left and right wings of the political spectrum. The former Gov. Jesse Ventura (a Libertarian) crushed Piers Morgan in a TV interview where he recounted his time in the Philippines when Ferdinand Marcos took over; Marcos gave everyone a week to turn in their guns or face the death penalty. And the Philippines is such a safe, non-corrupt country isn't it? NOT! I've been there pal - it's a country where a corrupt gun-wielding elite preside over an oppressed mass of malnourished, undereducated and suppressed SLAVE class (Thanks to the gun-weilding Spanish and American GOVERNMENTS, by the way)

And I supposed you'd like to go into Switzerland, one of the safest, freest countries on earth where responsible gun ownership is ENCOURAGED and take all their guns wouldn't you? You'd make it so much safer for everyone. Jeez guy you're not even in the right league to be posting comments here.

kiwisimmo in reply to Jeffro X

By all means aspire to Switzerland's gun laws. First, get rid of your army, and conscript all males between 20 and 30 to form a militia (just like the good old days). Then issue them all with a firearm, but do not allow them to keep any ammunition at home.
When their period of military service is over, make them return any firearm that has automatic capacity to have that disabled so that they have a self loading weapon.
This seems the way forward for the US. Imagine how much money you could save. You could keep your guns, and be educated in their use.

Opey Radio in reply to Medicine4theDead

....according to a recent Eurostat report, the violent crime rate in the UK had risen to 2000 crimes per 100,000 people per year. The US on the other hand had only 466 crimes per 100,000 people per year -- less than 25% of the UK's rate. Brits are simply murdering, raping, maiming and robbing their mates with bare hands and machetes and blunt instruments instead of guns.

Medicine4theDead in reply to Opey Radio

Your being deceptive in that at first you specifically said "crime" but didn't define it until the definitions fit conveniently into your dogma. Please try to stick to gun crimes in order to get a reasonable comparison.

Jeffro X in reply to kiwisimmo

I'm afraid you've 'stepped in it' with this one, kiwisimmo: first of all - I'm all for having a militia be the primary means of defense for a free republic - why not? And your comment about ammunition doesn't fly; it was only since 2007 that the Swiss govt. disallowed the storage of ammo in homes - so OBVIOUSLY I don't agree with that NEW change to their laws; you never heard of any school massacres in Switzerland prior to 2007 did you? And yes I support the govt. educating people in gun use rather than paying the media to demagogue and frighten people about guns

Jeffro X in reply to Medicine4theDead

He's not being deceptive; he's right on point Medicine4theDead, and furthermore: I don't know what kind of glass bubble you live in, but I've lived in big cities with gun control laws as well as smaller cities that are pro-gun, and I guarantee you that you are MUCH safer from home invasions or robberies at night in Austin, Texas, than you are in Chicago, New York or Washington D.C. where you can't own guns. C'MON MAN WAKE UP! DO YOU EVEN LIVE IN REALITY?!!


In all the posts I've read, the strongest argument from pro-gunners is that the 2nd ammendment guarantees that a civilian militia necessary to prevent government tyranny shall not have its right to bear arms infringed upon. Even though the US government, should it decide to become tyannical, has the power to totally destroy any civilian militia 10 times over, this has been and remains the most compelling argument and the most strongly held belief.
Therefore, we need to ask what constitutes government tyranny. Could the actions of the US government to ban assault rifles and then after an amnesty buyback period to criminalize people who still own them, could that in the mind of those strong 2nd ammendment believers constitute a sufficient infringement on the "constitutionally guaranteed freedom" to make them form up into (possibly NRA section led) citizens' militias and take up arms against the US government? Could an assault weapons ban start the second American civil war?

Jeffro X in reply to Duckdawdger

Well since Medicine4theDead doesn't study history, let's just recount what started the American Revolutionary War as an example so that we're all not doomed to repeat history: the British gave their troops secret orders to go and capture Colonial Militia supplies (which included guns as well as cannons), and that's what started the battles of Lexington and Concord. The result of that bravery is free America, as opposed to what you see in Australia today: a disarmed slave class, cowed into submission after the Port Arthur massacre in'96 (yet another false-flag: just search YouTube on 'port arthur massacre martin bryant setup')

Medicine4theDead in reply to Jeffro X

We aren't Britain of the 1700s. Washington had no problems crushing the armed Scotts in the Whiskey Rebellion because he was local, which Britain was not. Arming people who have no desire to fight nor training will only create the pretext for the massacre you claim will be prevented. If you think violence creates less violence, you are deluded. Funny, you failed to mention that Gandhi got the British out without an armed rebellion and Dr King changed the Jim Crow South without guns.

Duckdawdger in reply to Medicine4theDead

The goings on in the 24th and a half century are zany, comical and one might even say looney toonish, completely arising from America's self destruction and it's take over by Canada who imposed an obligation to participate in comedic exercises in the 23rd century. By the 24th and a half century, the NCA (National Comic Association) was the most important lobby group in Toronto, now the capital of Canmerica.


There is no proof, that gun control can make a difference. Just take a look at some data boards. Where, in the US, are comitted most of the crimes with guns, where are most injuries coused by firearms happening? Yes, most of us know about Washington, District of Columbia. Also in Mexico, it's pretty hard to get a weapon legally (I am not 100% sure whether whether it's only 1 shop in Mexico city where u can do so?). Meanwhile in the Switzerland, Israel, nordic countries and Czech Republic lots of people got one. But there are only few injuries caused by firearms.

As it happens, it's considerably harder to assail person equipped with gun. Those who want will always get weapons, they care not whether it'll be legally or illegally.

Also weapons kept at home are useful when it comes to defense of the country. It's maybe not the case of the US, but Switzerland during WW2 was glad for that. And what would happen in 1938,45 and 68 in Czech. Rep. if everyone had guns?

No, gun control is not a solution.

Since individual states don't stop people at the border, it doesn't matter what individual state laws are, your comment ignores reality and as such is stupid. If everyone had guns they would be using them just like they do here in the states: to kill each other. Try to stick to reality, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

I know the reality in all the countries I wrote about. True, I am not an expert when it comes to USA, but know something about the situation in Mexico, Israel and all the European states I used as examples. I simply said what statistics were showing. Try not to ignore statistics. They can be useful. Thanks.

Do you even realize that citizen gun homicide is so low that it's the last thing you should even be focusing your attention on?

You stupid mentally ill twirp. Go buy a gun and put a bullet in your face. If you wanted to do the world some good, you would do exactly that.

I mean, really. You need to understand just how stupid you are. You aren't doing humanity any good by being alive. Kill yourself, please.


What keeps the shiesters in check is a very well armed people in the USA.The shiesters that control the media met puppets know that they cannot steal from Amerika to any greater degree without the Police State wannabees disarming the people.Unlike the peasant states we have arms comparable to what any army can carry so we can't be forced to lick banker and socialist jack boot,yet.The parasites have stolen all they can of fake digits and "bailout" accounts with the rackets in place.To thieve what is let in the hands of the people they must disarm the people. We all know who the culprits are and their "fellow travelers" so come on down and try to do the dirty deed.War is coming.It is not an if,it is only a when.Time for a good kick em in the arse and beat em down hard kind of fight. Liberty and 1775 is the answer to the problem. Mark Gregory,, Koernke


Over 100 million people were killed by governments during the last century mostly due to war and genocide. Governments are killers as well as kidnappers, thieves, liars, extortionists or just plain parasites. This is true whether they are democratic as Nazi Germany was, or dictatorships such as were the Soviet Union and Mao's China. Governments, by their very nature have a monopoly on the legal initiation of force within their sovereign jurisdictions. To 'ban' anything, including guns involves the use of government force. Giving any government, including the US government, the power to kill, kidnap and steal from citizens with no deterrent such as the citizens' right to bear arms ensures the deaths of those citizens on a massive scale. And please don't anyone tell me that the US government would never kill (lots of) innocent people.

cannedheat in reply to wootendw

The government is YOUR government - 'of the people by the people and for the people' - if you don't like the government change your vote. That's democracy. Citizens rising up with guns hasn't ended well recently. Pick a 20th century revolution that ended well...

MarkGregoryKoernke in reply to Hibro

Good, if my guns are SO USELESS then we can all just keep them right where they are in the hands of the PEOPLE, right? After all "It's futile to resist...we are th borg ...blah,blah,blah,LOL! Pick a direction.Look at it this way, since my guns are so useless and ineffectual then the Guber-mint,the shiester parasites and the rest can go sit in the corner wearing their Kimono,drinking a vegie shake and singing"I wish I were an Oscar Meyer Wiener" and think "Joy,Joy,Happy,Happy" thoughts. We'll feel much better with none of the drivel and continue on Liberty's path. Mark Gregory,,Koernke

wootendw in reply to cannedheat

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch" - Benjamin Franklin.

No one in reason believes that two persons, by majority vote, should be able to take the life of a third person. Furthermore, the government in power has plenty of ways to influence the way people vote as they have obviously done with you and most others. No one I voted for, except the 'lesser of two evils', has ever been elected so it is NOT my government.

wootendw in reply to cannedheat

"Citizens rising up with guns hasn't ended well recently."

I never said citizens should rise up with guns. But the mere fact of citizens having guns dissuades government authorities to do things that cause people to rise up with guns. The real purpose of self defense is NOT to kill but to prevent killing.

wootendw in reply to Hibro

"If your government wants to "kill" you, guns alone isn't a deterrent."

I disagree with that statement. Guns in the hands of citizens causes governments (including an invading foreign army) to think twice before doing what they like to do (use force). Disarming citizens only makes the job of 'governing' easier. And I am not 'demanding' rights. Rights are not something you get from government. Rights are (or ought to be) established first (before government). Governments ought only be created to protect those rights.

falsifypopperism in reply to wootendw

You seem to live in fear daily. Some boogie man is standing around the corner planning to invade your home and the black helicopters are tracing your every move. The point is when you look at policy from a societal perspective rather than an individual perspective gun controls are logical. 99% of legal gun owners are good people trying to protect themselves, but most public massacres and murders by family members are committed by people who were "good people" until an unfortunate series of events lead them to lash out. The article is stating that no other civilized country in the world makes it easier for a person who has snapped to commit mass murder than the US.

Claudg1950 in reply to wootendw

I am pro gun because people should not take freedoms from other people and because statistics from reliable sources (including the UN) show that gun control does not work; there is no correlation between percentage of guns per population and crimes with guns among that population.
But with regret I am considering changing my position if, to stay, I must be in the company of people who would state "as democratic as Nazi Germany was".

wootendw in reply to falsifypopperism

No, I do not live in fear daily but I am in fear of what governments are likely to do when they start going bankrupt in the near future. They will be unable to defend anyone so you are going to have to defend yourself unless you live in a rural area and have a good supply of food and basic necessities. The USG, (like many other governments), is not going to able to pay its debts so they are going to try to take it away from you and the rest of us. There will be plenty of bloodshed, especially in places where people cannot defend themselves.

Medicine4theDead in reply to wootendw

Really, when did the National Guard think twice about taking guns away after Katrina. No one's gun was pried from their cold dead hand because you are full of crap. It is a delusion you keep telling yourself so that when 20 unarmed children are murdered with the assistance of a gun that is completely unnecessary, you can clear your stupid conscience of their deaths.

powermeerkat in reply to wootendw

"Rights are not something you get from government."

Confer rights enslaved citizens of dozens of Communist countries (from Albania, Bulgaria, Cambodia, China, Cuba and Czechoslovakia, to (former) Yugoslavia, USSR and Vietnam ever got from their regimes.

Jeffro X in reply to cannedheat

Uhh . . . sure I'll pick one - how about the Israeli's revolting against the British and the Palestinians? Ben Gurion armed and trained a bunch of farmers and turned them into the 'Haganah' . . and now Israel is an independent state. Nice try cannedheat, but futile. Back to the history books for you!


War is coming.Worked as a USAICS trained 94B Intelligence Analyst with the US Army.Most fools who think or say that"we can just go pull apart the Bill of Rights or just go get the guns in AmeriKa" always expect to hire someone like me to go do their POLICE STATE dirty work for them.These panty waists don't really understand how much disgust American soldiers have for such limp wrists.We are finished with the thievery and LIES of the shiesters and their controled media meat puppets. The militia and an armed America is not going to give up anything.I and my fellow warriors stand with my people.Time to have good old kick em in the head fight in the USA and clean out the Fabian Socialist and Soviet Socialist Banker trash and all of their buddies.War is upon us. Liberty and 1775 is the answer.Mark Gregory,, Koernke


I'm always worried about factic powers in my country (I'm from a South American country). I'm worried about this kind of powers you don't vote, you can't see, but they are so strong that in some places they manage countries.

In my opinion the US has got a lot of these powers, which don't allow to people (even polititians) change things. Guns in the US is an example of it, and NRA is only what we can see.

la.výritý in reply to Unasur

Exactly, civilized democracy is about elected power and an elected government which consists of three branches, the executive, the legislative and the judicial branch . . . not about armed groups defining the law, claiming being the only ones to know what the "Founding Father's" intentions were.

powermeerkat in reply to Unasur

"I'm from a South American country".

Wanna talk then about horrible crimes committed with firearms in Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Salvador?

[with democratic Brazil having v. strict gun control laws]


Re: British publication, The Economist, calls for "drastic changes or repealing of 2nd Amd."

When ever there's a mass shooting, predictability we'll get the occasional IGNORANUS suggesting "revision" or repeal of the 2nd Amd. But when an otherwise reputable publication like The Economist makes such a suggestion, it comes as a shock & begs the question; doesn't such a prestigious publication retain people trained in Law & Political Demographics? Apparently not; as such employees would have read the US Constitution, be familiar with article 5 & therefore understand that getting 2/3 of the legislators of 38 States to vote for a Constitutional Convention required to "modify" or repeal the 2nd Amd. is a Gun Phobic Liberals Wet Dream Delusional Fantasy. This failure of The Economist to do proper research has caused it obvious international embarrassment. I suggest readers consult often overlooked Article 5 to understand its significance. As to why I've understood this for most of my adult life: I've traveled extensively in all 50 States, lived in 20 & studied the political demographics of all 50 states. And before I found Honest work, I was an attorney. If anyone, after reading Article 5, finds fault with my argument, I'd love to hear from you, especially if trained in political science & law.

Note to Editors of Economist: Before publishing such uninformed suggestions, it would be wise to do better research & consult those well versed in Constitutional law & the US political process. Having been trained in both disciplines, I would be happy to offer my services should you venture into the murky waters of subjects you're apparently unequipped to handle. Failure to consult with those having better knowledge of these subjects will save you further embarrassment.

cc: Editor - The Economist - London

kiwisimmo in reply to guest-ljljowe

I don't think that TE was focusing on the practical difficulties of getting the US to change its constitution, merely its use as a smokescreen for gun lovers and salesmen to hide behind. You may well have travelled extensively inside your beloved country, but if you had paused for a moment to ask anyone outside it what they thought of your gun culture you would have received an almost universal answer. I don't know where in your constitution it gives you the right to tell everyone else how to run their affairs and then invade them if you don't approve. Now that you are getting some criticism and constructive comments for change in your society you don't appear to be able to handle it very well. The only "international embarrassment" is your own.
For an attorney, your Latin isn't up to much.

guest-ljljowe in reply to kiwisimmo

If The Economist failed to refer to "practical difficulties" of affecting change in our Constitution, then it would have been wiser to couch their comments in terms of "hopes, wishes & nice ideas" rather than its intent, which was meant as a "Realistic suggestion". It was not; nor is it the business of a foreign publication to suggest changes in the framework of our political system. Their suggestion is pure Fantasy & as previously stated, the delusional wet dream of gun phobic Liberals: (no surprise coming from a Liberal biased publication). As for being "embarrassed" for the US… Not in the slightest; nor do I give a Rats Bum what the rest of the world thinks of us. We're still the ALPHA Dog on the block & the rest of you are welcome to suck hind teat.
Re: My "Latin". Don’t recall using any, nor do I require it in my present profession. Perhaps you've had an excess of Christmas "cheer". Suggest you need a little lie-down. LOL
Note: I no longer practice law. I've since found "honest" work. Bye Bye. And don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.

Jeffro X

The Economist readers truly bring informed opinion to the fore when it comes to the debate over Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment, but given the glaring and unforgivable LACK of actual evidence brought forth by the mainstream media and the 'authorities' about the Sandy Hook incident it is FAR too early to have this debate until the FACTS have come out. Here's just a few simple questions I think should be answered before we go any further:

1) Are we really to believe there's no cell phone calls or video from the cell phone of a single teacher or adult from this school?
2) Now that the killer is dead is there REALLY a good reason not to show the security camera videos from the school?
3) Are we ACTUALLY going to believe the state coroner who said on camera that the families weren't able to see the bodies of there children but were shown pictures of their faces?
4) What happened to the second shooter that was taken into custody that FOX News and local affiliates reported on?
5) What about this Kaitlin Roig - what were the names of the 14 students she saved? How is it this Connecticut school teacher sounds like a total valley girl from California in her interview with Dian Sawyer. And how exactly did she fit 14 kids into a bathroom?
6) Where are the pictures of shot out windows and bodies and blood?
7) Where is any ACTUAL evidence that anybody died or was wounded? I did a Google Image search for an hour and came up with nothing - how do we know any of this actually happened?
8) As far as I can tell not a single eyewitness actually saw this Lanza kid at all . . witnesses saw a man in battle clothing, bullett-proof vest and ski mask

GH1618 in reply to Jeffro X

1) Yes. The adults who saw the shooter were either trying to stop him or escape, and they were killed. Taking snapshots is not a priority for someone being attacked by gunfire

2) It has been reported that there was a security camera at the entrance, but there is no need to release the video. The authorities know who the gunman was. There is no obligation to release it and it serves no law enforcement purpose to release it to the public.

3) Yes.

4) Don't believe everything yoy hear on Fox News and nothing of what you read on conspiracy web sites.

5) The names are not your business. These people are entitled to privacy.

6) Have you no sense of decency at all?

7) and 8) You need professional help.

Jeffro X in reply to GH1618

1) The adults who saw the shooter didn't positively identify the Lanza kid. NO ONE DID. My point still stands.
2) You said "there is no need to release the video"? Yes there is a reason: so we can see it and make sure we know the truth. My point still stands
3) If your kids were shot dead and the state police said you couldn't see the bodies - you'd simply take that at face value? That doesn't say much for you as a parent.
4) The second shooter was identified by eyewitness and reported on multiple news broadcasts including CBS news and several local affiliates - look it up. Are you really that lazy?
5) The names of LIVING students? It certainly is my business; whats going to happen to our laws as a result of this event is EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS!
6) Irrelevant and childish comment
7) and 8) You are naive and need to wake up

Jeffro X in reply to GH1618

6) Irrelevant and childish comment


People kill people, guns do not kill people. Socialogists and psychologist will tell you that violent acts are the result of aggressive behavior and depression . We live in one of the most vIolent society in the World. We need a cultural change of epic proportion to eradicate the problem. Our attitude and ideology has been molded by every generation since the Civil War been trained to kill and fight in Wars. Inequality, a well known culprit of acts of aggression against yourself, others and against regimes is an essential component of how our country works. Our neighborhoods in big cities are polarized by ethnic immigrants clinging to the Old country ways and willing to commit acts of violence to defend it. Healthcare is not available to everyone that needs it. This is one of the reasons we have so many walking time bombs among us. Dysfunctional homes and single parent homes makes the job of raising children that can enjoy a healthy environment to grow into solid adults difficult. Schools in poor neighborhoods resemble detention centers with security in every hallway and thugs standing by outside the school grounds to sale drugs to young people. Our Media constantly bring to our homes stories of suicide, people on people violent acts and terrorism at home and from around the World. Guns used in violent acts simply magnify the results of our violence and are not the reason for the acts of violence. We need a national cultural lavatomy to correct the problem

la.výritý in reply to TheTrue2

How many elected governments have promised to change these deficiencies?

How many elected governments had to trim the funds that were intended for this?

Thus, your plans would require an inter-generational contract established by the Constitution through a constitutional amendment. Otherwise these "good intentions" turn into thin air with every new government . . . like your New Year’s Resolutions.

TheTrue2 in reply to la.výritý

Violence control is as old as man. Kennedy started programs for youth violence and Johnson launched "the War on Crime" during the 60's which was a period of rising crimes until the 70's...additional peaks in violence through the 90's followed by a steady decline (for us-we still are a leading nation in this category). One in 300 of us is prone to commit a violent act ...as far as "deficiencies" in contributing factors to acts of violence, inequality has increased dramatically and we have experienced cuts in social programs created to deal with the problem. We spend a great deal of resources in the control of violence by deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation instead of prevention. In other words we fight violence with more violence...is not working very well. I am curious to see what new plan the administration comes up with

TheTrue2 in reply to Medicine4theDead

People like you are a clear example of why there is so much violence in our society...it is your right to disagree with me, but, you have no right to provoke me with your aggressive comment...people kill people...guns only magnify the result of violence


Wow! It truly looks like all the people from around the world who had any spirit and self-dignity have already come to America. The overwhelming defeatist, sheep-like, sycophantic attitudes of those outside the US critiquing our rights is disturbing. It is a sad sad day for humanity...and to those of you everywhere who are not interested in laying down in the face of globalist control freaks who don't hesitate to murder others but then tell you you must be disarmed if a nut does it on a much smaller scale...we freedom lovers in the US (and there are plenty of us who remain) are still the Beacon on the Hill apparently...come join the cause for liberty! The mental shackles of your neighbors will bind you too if you don't.


The US government will be happy to put an m-16 in your hands, teach you how to shoot it, show you who to kill with it, give you rewards if you kill enough people with it.
if you dare keep that same weapon to defend yourself and your family, that same government will call you a threat to those around you and try and take that gun away.


The 2nd Ammendment has nothing to do with the TYPE of gun a person owns. The sole purpose of the provision was to provide the people with the ability to protect themselves against the government should it turn on it's people by infringing on their rights. It is what separates us from every other country in the world. It is what has made us citizens as opposed to subjects. We did not wish to remain under the headship of kings and their tyranical ideals and so our founding fathers provided us with the ability to prevent that. We will protect that right. We will fight and perhaps die for that right. If you are not a citizen of United States you may keep and voice your opinion about those rights, but you are not protected by our Constitutions provisions, and you shall not be allowed the ability to change them. It makes no sense whatsoever to put the 'gun' on trial when it is clear that it is the person behind the gun who commits horific crimes. If you ban guns, will people not find other ways to kill?

la.výritý in reply to Lazydaisy67

















These right wing gun nuts are pathetic. They shout big words like freedom and defending of democracy but in reality they are nothing but ignorant bullies.

Where were you when they enacted the Patriot Act, established Homeland Security, tortured prisoners in Gitmo, established the no-fly list and even gave the President licence to issue kill orders. All the signs of fascist government taking over...no, you did not lift a finger!

To the contrary, these bullies wrapped themselves to the American flag and called all this BS the price of being a patriot! To hell with "innocent until proven guilty" and all that librul crap, right?

VeritasVosLiberates in reply to tim73

Just out of curiousity...has Obama/the Liberals done anything about the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, Gitmo, or anything else on your list?

Also, if you look at the numbers, Obama has killed more people on presidential orders than any recent president.


I guess Newtown doesn't have the 400+ GANG RELATED KILLING like Chicago has. Too bad. OBAMA could have addressed it when he stole the spotlight over there.

Chicago's people elected OBAMA but OBAMA rejected Chicago's people.


If you look at the charts, homicide and suicide rates by gun is proportional to gun ownership rates. The more guns, the more they are used.

Claudg1950 in reply to SuperGeek

Which charts, please? Let me know which charts are you referring at; I'm not aware of them. According to a recent UNODC (UN Office for Drugs and Crime) statistics, the US leads the world in number of guns per person (about 88 per 100 inhabitants) but it is NOT -by a long stretch- the country where most crimes are committed with guns.
According to the same chart, there is no correlation between number of guns in the hands of people and number of crimes committed with those guns.

Michael Watson

The situation in the United States concerning guns is extraordinary insofar as there are approx 300 million registered guns and a further estimated 300 million unregistered guns. These figures imply two guns for every man, woman and child in the United States - a situation that is unique in the entire world. Additionally, the AK15 Bushmaster assault-style, semi-automatic with 100-rounds-magazine-clips weapon used in the horrific slaughter of the 20 innocent young children and 6 of the children's teachers in Newtown is virtually the same as the US military standard-issue M16 rifle. Amazingly, there are virtually no Federal restrictions on the purchase by a private individual of this murderous weapon. Instead, sales regulations are made by individual States and municipalities. Why would a normal person have any need of such a terrifying killing-machine? Answer: selling guns is big business in the United States. I was not able to find published figures concerning the value of this business, which I found rather sinister, but if one assumes an annual turnover of 10% on the existing 300 million registered weapons and an average price of $1000 per weapon, I make the annual value of the business $30 billion. That seems like quite a lot of money and certainly enough to encourage the promoters of the business, i.e. the NRA, to resort to any and every measure to protect their business interests, including the disgustingly hypocritical suggestion that the Federal government should deal with the 'problem' by providing armed guards in every school in the country (sic) - a suggestion that the federal government does not even have the legislative authority to follow! If the suggestion were not so disgusting it would be ludicrous. Also, if the US Congress were to enact the necessary legislation the cost to the nation would be approx $10 billion per year. (This is based on the fact that there are 100,000 public schools in the United States and an effective armed guard arrangement would require at least two armed guards per school and I estimate the annual salary of a trained armed guard to be $50,000.) All this ridiculous nonsense will not happen: I have worked professionally with American colleagues for 10 years and I have lived in the United States for three years. I know the American people: they are decent, hard-working and unstinting in their willingness to engage responsibly in attempting to resolve many of the world's problems, e.g. WW I, WW II, Korea, the Cuban Missile Crisis, SE Asia, the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan and the general War on Terrorism. The fact that the American people have been duped, misled and misinformed by an unscrupulous outfit at home - an enemy within - does not mean that they are foolish and naive. Far from it! We owe them our deepest sympathy for the heart-breaking tragedy that their entire nation has suffered by the tragic and horrific loss of these innocent children and their brave and selfless guardians and for the unbearable thought of the life-long agony that the poor parents have to endure. I must stop for it is simply too painful.

powermeerkat in reply to Michael Watson


If metal detectors (which are v. cheap), already in effective use at all US airports, federal buildings and a growing numer of public ones were installed in American schools - all those above mentioned costs would be unnecessary.

Nick F G in reply to Michael Watson

Yes, take away the registered guns so only criminals and crazies have guns. It's not about guns. In 1934 Hitler disarmed the Jews.
The Jews were slaughtered because they could not fight back.
History will continue to repeat itself!

We Americans are lucky enough to have the one constitution in the world that allows us to defend against a tyrannical government.

Don't feel bad for us - feel bad for the Russians, Cubans, Romanians, Jews, Germans, Polish, Czechs, Chinese, etc - all those people that "lived", and were exterminated, by their own governments, governments that had nothing to fear from their own, unarmed citizens.

Whom, exactly, has been duped?

Michael Watson in reply to powermeerkat

Well, I pass through US airports fairly frequently and without any problems whatsoever. I can't imagine this would so if I were carrying an M16. I'm equally sure the same would apply if I attempted to enter a federal building. The existence of a metal detector in the Newtown scool would not have prevented the slaughter of the innocents there.

There is no doubt that the American Constitution of 1787 was the world's first truly democratic constitution and as such became a model for the entire world. This model was largely and quickly adopted by the French government in 1791, principally through the influence of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom served as US Minister/Ambassador to France for a number of years. Many other countries adopted similar models in the following years. It is evident that you would benefit from reading some simple, fundamental history texts, including those concerning your own country. This should help you to avoid making ill-founded and precipitous remarks such as in your recent posting.

powermeerkat in reply to Michael Watson


You've mentioned you wouldn't be able to sneak in your M-16 through a US airports' metal detectors.

What makes you think any student of any school would be able to sneak in even a NOIF through it?

Michael Watson in reply to powermeerkat

Well, powermeerkat, I had first thought to ignore your stupid and ignorant reply. Then I took account of the fact that most readers of TE are not at all as stupid and ignorant as you obviously are. With this thought in mind I have forced myself to respond to your patent stupidity. First of all, I don't have an M-16 and I don't know why anyone other than a member of the US armed forces should have one. Secondly, I don't know what NOIF means, although I imagine it is some sort of low-class jargon employed by idiots such as yourself.

...And how many of those nations that adopted democratic constitutions now allow their citizens to own guns, Michael Watson?

My point wasn't that other nations didn't have democratic constitutions - my point was that there aren't a whole lot of other nations that give their citizens rights on par with those of the US. But hey, go ahead and keep slinging insults. Although insulting someone when you don't even understand their argument seems doubly foolish, does it not?


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange March 14th, 16:43
Democracy in America March 14th, 15:55
Gay rights in Lebanon: Laws of nature
Pomegranate March 14th, 15:43
Airlines and hotels: Room at the top
Gulliver March 14th, 15:42


Products & events