Gun violence in America

Newtown’s horror


See article

Readers' comments



Why is driving a "privilege" while owning a gun is a "right"? Does every American have a "right" to own a home rather than a "privilege"? We constantly confuse "right" for "privilege" in America.

Per Slate, in 2009 alone, there were 31,000+ gun-related deaths in the US, in 10 states, gun deaths exceeded traffic accident deaths. If your "right" infringes on the safety of the majority, then that right should be taken away. It's time to repeal the 2nd amendment, a completely outdated law that was drafted at a time when the most sophisticated weapon was a musket. As one poster so accurately put in another thread, this is no longer a rights issue, this is now a public safety issue. It's time for America to come to its senses about guns:

Repeal the 2nd amendment and ban all guns! Institute a buyback program, after a 1 to 3 month grace period, anyone found with a gun is arrested and put in jail, period.

Kyler Burrough in reply to iThinker

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." That is a quote by the Imperial Japanese Navy during WWII. I see the loss at Newtown and cordially pay my respects to everyone who has passed because of violence. I also want to respect the fact that there are so many, often unreported, lives saved by conceal-carry guns and other firearms in households that ordinary citizens have been able to defend themselves with. I do not know where you are from, but here in Texas we know how to manage our own lives and have done just fine with our looser gun laws that allow for MORE protection for ordinary Americans. Last I checked, criminals do not abide by the law and especially do not respect the "gun-free zone" laws. You would see violence go up as the criminals would obtain their weapons, one way or another according to demand, and ordinary citizens would be subject to their terror as we had all been disarmed.

barbama in reply to Kyler Burrough

The weapons of modern warfare are unlikely to be turned aside by hunting rifles in the grass.

I very much doubt the number of lives saved by conceal-carry guns comes anywhere close to offsetting the death count from even accidental discharge.

iThinker in reply to Kyler Burrough

This is a true story of how concealed weapon carrying Rambos saved a mass shooting:

In the 2005 shooting at Tacoma Mall, WA state, at least 2 people in the mall carried concealed handguns. One was an ex-marine who pointed his gun at the gunman and told him to lay down his weapon. The gunman turned and fired at him, shot him in the legs and torso, Rambo is now paralyzed for life. The 2nd Rambo was too afraid to shoot as there were so many people running around he was afraid to shoot the wrong person. The gunman was a 20 year old meth user juvenille deliquent who had specific court order not to be sold any weapons, yet he managed to procure a semi-automatic rifle and pistol. So much for background checks.

The reality is no one has a chance against a mass shooter carrying high capacity semi-automatic files spraying bullets like a lunatic. That is why there has NEVER, check that, NEVER been a case, not once, where a mass shooting was thwarted by a concealed weapon carrying Rambo.

There are only 3 kinds of people who own guns: criminals, hicks and paranoid-delusional lunatics. Our society will be infinitely safer when guns are taken away from all 3 groups.

Kroneborge in reply to iThinker


Actually that's not true

for example


Damn those facts

of course the millions of times each year when guns prevent or stop violence never make the news, you might want to check out

french girl in reply to Kyler Burrough

I'm French so I'm sure I do not understand what goes on in your country. (Really??? A country where there are more guns than adults does exist??? This is just surreal to me. I don't know one only person with a gun or even one who knows someone with a gun!!)
But, to answer your last sentence (and I'm probably naive), if there are no guns, where do you want you criminals to find them? I mean, in my country, except for criminal organisations, and maybe one or two individuals, our criminals do not have guns either. At the most, in my entire life, the risk is that I'm attaqued once with a knife. And as a consequence I do not live in this terror you all American seem to live in.

Wrecked in reply to iThinker

Gun ownership is a "right" because it was enshrined as such by the 2nd amendment. Not too hard to understand, and not a confusion of terms.
Whether or not you personally agree with it (and I don't), you have to accept it, because to call for repeal is to continue to polarize the debate, virtually ensuring that nothing meaningful will happen.
Leftists demand that the right tolerate things they find personally abhorrent (say, same-sex marriage*); surely there is room for openmindedness toward a moderate pro-gun position. No government measure, no matter how extreme, could eliminate guns in America. Why not find a way to mitigate their worst effects?
*I know, I know, same-sex marriage doesn't kill many thousands of Americans a year, but it doesn't take too much of an imaginative leap to put yourself in the shoes of someone for whom the homosexual act is so morally repugnant that he wishes it were recriminalized.


The point regarding a constitutional amendment is well made. That is probably the only way of bringing about lasting change. Regulations and bans on certain types of weapons will make some difference but are always likely to get circumvented, reversed or watered down later. A constitutional amendment to limit the ownership of guns is what would be needed to bring the USA in line with other civilized countries.


The Bill of Rights are to protect people's freedom, even if some citizens choose to abuse these rights.
ACLU paid for the legal fees to protect the right for some persons to make racist hate speeches.
NRA does the same but focuses only on one of the first 10 amendments.
In Europe most nations ban racially hateful speeches.
I am an ethnic minority here in America.
And I am glad that everybody here, including people who hate me solely for my race, is free to speak.
And I am glad that we still have all other Bill of rights, even though a few crazy people abuse them.
When you try to trade freedom for safety, you end up with neither.
Democracy and liberal societies are by their nature messy. Sometimes even distasteful. But in the long run these challenges are the true tests for our belief in the democratic principle.


It's disappointing that this article fails to address the costs of implementing far-reaching gun control measures.

Regardless of cost, renewing the assault weapons ban is an impossible mess. There's just no way to ban guns like the AR-15 without either allowing equivalently deadly weapons that differ only in looks, or banning a huge number of guns that are completely legitimate for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense.

Finally, background checks are a great idea, but will have to be implemented very carefully so as not to provide the Federal government with access to the details of individuals' mental health records.


As a physician working in Emergency Rooms here in the U.S., it is obvious to me that America has neglected funding for treatment for and public education about mental illnesses.
It is clear from the mass killers' profiles that most were schizophrenic young men without proper treatments in their lives.
Mass murders still occur even in countries with martial laws and total ban on civilian gun ownership.
I like to see America becoming a place with more compassion and resources for the mentally ill, instead of a place where the government makes criminals out of its citizens.


I do believe that a tipping point has been reached in terms of average Americans' demand for further gun control. However, I do not believe that any such point has been reached with regard to efforts to ban certain types of weapons (as these efforts get badly caught up in weeds) or to seriously restrict the 2d Amendment's protection for the right to "keep and bear arms".

Since there is no constitutional restriction on the making or distributing of arms, there may exist an opportunity for Congress to force all distributors (makers, owners, shooting ranges, stores, etc.) to impose immediate restrictions on how one secures a gun via a voluntary industry-wide set of standards limiting how weapons may be made available (i.e., never) to another party, and for implementing reasonable methods to ensure compliance. By requiring those standards, Congress would essentially hold all weapons-purveyors responsible for damages resulting from misuse of any weapon.

Newtown parents have no right currently to collect damages from the manufacturer of their childrens' murder weapon ... but this idea would create such a right, which arises from the 7th Amendment.

adistantview in reply to Anakha82

I seem to remember an idiotic case where a women successfully sued McDs for selling her a hot coffee without warning her that it might burn her, then driving off with it between her legs and having a spillage. So now we all get served either cool drinks or ones with stupid obvious warnings on the outside.
If you can sue the seller for what is clearly the own person's utter imbecility, then surely a gun manufacture maybe a target for someone suing for being shot by one of their guns - or is that legally okay if the product is used as intended ?


Sometimes I wonder whether the root of the problem is being addressed by gun control.
When faced by problems, a common, even typical, liberal response is "lack of education". But what are we teaching?
According to prevalent modern philosophical schools (atheism, post-modernism, modernism, and their cousins) the actions in Newtown are perfectly moral and reasonable.
It seems to me that we are cherry-picking ideals and standards from Judeo-Christian morality (and expecting our generation to live up to them) while simultaneously teaching them a completely opposite paradigm in the classroom.
Perhaps if we were to really live consistently with our beliefs this event would not seem so tragic after all.


How are you supposed to end "the gun show exemption" when no such thing exists? Now you could argue that there is a "private sale exemption", but the laws at a gun show are no different from the laws on any other day.

I am extremely disappointed at the sensationalist tabloid tone the Economist has taken on this issue. Granted this was a tragedy. Granted we should investigate solutions, but I expected a more thoughtful examination of the issue than “BAN ALL THE GUNS NOW!” from The Economist.

John Stuart Mill would not be impressed.

rog3r in reply to OGERS

Why? After the last school shooting in the UK all hand guns were banded, and we are better off for it, there is no need to ask to see a license, anyone with a hand gun is a criminal who has obtained it illegally.


The reason this is different is that it happened 60 miles from the media capital of the world. I expect many of the people working in the NYC media have only 2 or 3 degrees of separation from the families of these victims. If we support the media, this can continue as a story and not be displaced by some philandering Washington fool. Change can come but it takes extraordinary public pressure to force politicians to do what is right. Have you sent a message to your representatives? Do so.


Incidents like Sandy Hook always ignite the fiercest of emotional fires. Decisions derived from emotionally charged debates usually have enough flaws in them to make them as bad as, if not worse, than the initial problem.
The key element here is the death of 26 human beings, under law, "persons." If we are going to be serious about resolving the problem of unwarranted human deaths, then we have to look at all the various categories of unwarranted human deaths and try to come up with the common factors among them. Treatment can then begin and can be effective.
Those who dislike guns will always lean to the "elimination" answer. Survivalist nuts, and the like, will always scream the loudest about their "gun rights." Responsible gun owners, who are the vast bulk of the gun owners in this country, are as horrified by this, and similar, events as the anti-gun people.
Unless all viewpoints are examined dispassionately in the current examination of this subject, we will wind up with "solutions" that treat the symptoms, not the problems.

la.výritý in reply to JustObserving46

Don't try to water down the issue, JustObserving46.

NOBODY wants the eliminate the rights of responsible gun owners to own weapons for the purpose of hunting and/or for justified self defense.

This debate is ONLY about regulating the ownership of weapons used by gone-mad gun freaks in Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek and Newtown; high-powered semiautomatic assault weapons that exist for one purpose - and one purpose only . . . and that is to kill people.

Hunters don't use automatic M-16 rifles, 12-gauge pump-action shotguns or .40-caliber semiautomatic pistols with extended magazines to hunt turkey or deer.

Anakha82 in reply to la.výritý


That sounds like eliminating a class of weapons many own for the purpose of justified self-defense to me.

la.výritý in reply to Anakha82

I didn't mention handguns. We would need know what kind of handguns were "those that operated in Chicago and Washington".

Maybe you're talking about high-powered semiautomatic Glock19 handguns with extended 33-ammo clips.

Anakha82 in reply to la.výritý

What I quoted was a line from the article, which I was pointing to in response to your claim that nobody wants to eliminate the rights of responsible gun owners to own weapons for self-defense.

The laws in DC and Chicago, which the Supreme Court overturned in Heller and McDonald, were blanket bans on ownership of any handgun.

la.výritý in reply to Anakha82

I wasn't unaware that such blanket ban existed. However, to limit the ownership of guns and set provisions is daily practice all over the United States already today.

It supports rather my standpoint when the Supreme Court ruled that (normal) handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment. However, the rule was about a requirement in D.C. that all firearms, including rifles and shotguns, must be kept "unloaded and disassembled". Yet, I do not understand why the compulsory use of a trigger lock is considered "unconstitutional".

The problem was rather, it seems, that in the same breath the D.C. law also required weapons to be kept "disassembled". I can follow the Supreme Court that this is considered an 'undue requirement'.

Anakha82 in reply to la.výritý

You're still missing my point. The Economist in this article is calling for handguns to be banned in the US. Thus it's incorrect to claim that no one is calling for bans on weapons that are reasonable to own for self-defense.

la.výritý in reply to Anakha82

Such call would be unrealistic in the US. The Economist correctly assesses that “ordinary” handguns (are) not the sort that would be covered by any remotely likely ban.

It's thus rather the Economist's 'personal' opinion when it concludes that "handgun bans, such as those that operated in Chicago and Washington, DC, before the Supreme Court struck them down, would be needed on a national scale".

However, this was stated in a different context; the article's author wrote: "The great bulk of America’s murders are committed with 'ordinary' handguns . . . handgun bans, such as those that operated in Chicago and Washington . . . would be needed on a national scale (to alter the homicide rates).

We can all agree to the fact that it's harder to murder with a kitchen knife than with a handgun. It is doubtful that this would actually lower the overall homicide rate, since a vast majority of these murders take place in a criminal milieu, not even touching innocent middle class kindergarten children. They aren't the ghetto gangs' targets.

This article talks mainly about random shooting-rampages targeted against innocent middle class men, women and children, committed mainly by young middle class men that are temporarily emotionally derailed for whatsoever reasons.

Here applies another assessment from the Economist:


This is exactly what is needed to prevent, in our society, that "lunatics" or simply "emotionally derailed people" can easily
obtain the high power semiautomatic pistols (with extended ammo-clips and 9mm Luger full metal jacket cartridges) that are needed to spray 30 high power rounds in less than a minute which is necessary to slay 25 people before the assaulter can be unarmed.

Anakha82 in reply to la.výritý

"Such call would be unrealistic in the US."

The fact that it's unlikely to happen doesn't change that it's what the Economist is calling for.

I'm not disputing claims of which gun control measures would be required to stop certain crimes, nor whether those measures should be implemented. What I'm disputing is the accuracy of your statement that nobody wants to eliminate the rights of responsible gun owners to own weapons for self-defense.

la.výritý in reply to Anakha82

'Nobody' is a rhetorical term, as wrong and 'absolute' as 'All'.

In a world of uncensored opinion, such unmitigated consonance doesn't exist. It's rather the typical 'vote tally' in communist or fascist dominions, which "nobody" aspires.

JustObserving46 in reply to la.výritý

Water down the issue? You might want to get a grip on what the issue really is before you go spouting off.
--Fully automatic M-16's are not available to the civilian population.
--12-gauge pump-action shotguns are used for turkey hunting in all jurisdictions.
--Semi-automatic handguns are used for deer hunting in some jurisdictions.
You got the "gone mad" part right and that is about all. Emotional diatribes like yours serve only to muddy the waters with grossly inaccurate "facts" that then get spread around by the uninformed and unwary. If you don't like guns, fine for you. But other people do. History shows quite clearly that, over time, most governments have gone down the slippery slope into some version of totalitarianism which is why our Founders put the Second Amendment into the Constitution.
I abhor the 26 deaths in Newtown, and the violence that caused them, just as much as anyone else. I just am more aware than some that emotional, knee-jerk reactions to this and similar events will do more harm than good. I do not want the issue watered down either! I want it resolved for the long term benefit of all of us.
If I might digress a bit. About 50 years ago Tylenol capsules were tampered with causing some deaths. There was a great hue and cry, packaging was changed and the issue has gone dormant in the meantime. But consider: With the significant improvements in technology, would it not be possible for someone to again tamper with some consumable thereby causing the indiscriminate deaths of, not just 26, but many scores of people? We do not live in a "rubber room" world. There will, from time to time, be very messy and after-the-fact-preventable massacres. I am not saying, "Blow this off." Just have a realistic view of our world and do what is possible to mitigate the future.
I will guess that you are anti-gun and have never held, much less fired one. Fine. You are welcome to your opinion. Just don't think that you have a corner on the whole truth. I know I don't. But mature adults, dialoging with reason will come up with a suitable answer to this problem. I just don't see our current crop of elected officials in DC as being in that group of "mature adults."

la.výritý in reply to JustObserving46

Don't try to deflect readers' attention from the issue discussed here - As if it matters to the parents of the murdered children in Newtown that "fully automatic M-16's are not available to the civilian population". It’s “perfectly good” that America’s nutcases can freely obtain the ‘demilitarized’ version of the M-16, the super-fast .223 caliber Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, an extremely lightweight, small-caliber semi-automatic deadly killing machine.

Besides, by definition of the 1994 Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, possessing the operational features of military assault weapons (such as 'full-auto') is not required for the legal classification as an “assault weapon” within the meaning of the law; merely the possession of 'cosmetic features' is enough to warrant such legal classification as an assault weapon.

Thus, by legal federal definition (AWB, title XI, subtitle A) the legal term “assault weapon” refers to all semi-automatic firearms that possess the “cosmetic features” (primarily but not exclusively) of a classical military assault weapon (such as the capability to fire more than 10 rounds in less than 5 seconds).

Therefore, the key issue leading to the murder of so many innocent lives, not only in Newtown, but also in Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, is that single gun-freaks used weapons that had enough firepower to enable them to spray more bullets in a fraction of a minute, than it would have taken 'seconds' for possible rescuers to take action against the assaulter.



On a side note: You are only correct in one thing: I am not a wacky gun-freak. I hunt deer and turkey on my 450 acre property and do this without a semi-automatic weapon; so do all my hunting friends. As myself, the vast majority of my turkey hunters hunt with a normal 12 gauge or, those who opt for a little more firepower move up to a 10 gauge.

A Pump Action Shotgun isn’t needed for turkey hunting, but I concede that a more ‘survival-orientated’ hunter would probably go for something like the Mossberg 500 Pump Action (its chamber holds 7 + 1). There is nothing wrong with this choice as long as this gun isn’t misused.

JustObserving46 in reply to la.výritý

Your last sentence is the only one that contains any sense. The common element in all of these shootings is that a mentally deranged person misused a firearm. My "normal" 12-gauge is the Remington 870, a pump; my brother-in-law prefers the 1100, a semi. I suppose that the pheasants would consider us to be "mentally deranged persons"; we consider the birds tasty. I have had a rifle for many years that is capable of spitting out about 20 rounds in less than 5 seconds. It is a little .22 plinker. It is also capable of a large amount of damage in a short span of time. Where does your paranoia end??

As to the cosmetics making a particular firearm an assault weapon, that definition was crafted solely for political purposes. A military person would reject any and all of the weapons that fit under that umbrella as being unfit for military service, because--in function, which is the ONLY thing that counts--those weapons are not "full auto" capable. The manufacturers are able to quickly change those "offensive cosmetics" to produce a weapon that does not qualify under that definition, but still has the same functions as the weapons covered by the law.

As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, those who wish to suppress political opposition first confiscate the civilian weapons. Our Founders knew full well that over time most governments in history slid down the slippery slope to some form of totalitarianism. Having just defeated the "Super Power of the Day" (Brittain) they wanted to make sure the populace would be able to "fend for themselves" in the future if necessary. Yes, these weapons are killing machines! They are in the hands of the people for a very predictable and necessary purpose, which I hope never materializes.

Do I abhor all of your referenced shooting incidents? But I also abhor the deaths of people killed by drug and alcohol abusers who get behind the wheel under the influence. In many places these killers get only a slap on the wrist for their misdeed. I consider that abhorrent also, but I hear no wild screams of protest when a particularly egregious event of this type occurs.

la.výritý in reply to Carbon Copy

Some hunters might 'need' a pump action shotgun to hunt turkey. However, in most situations you have only one good shot anyway since turkey is taken while on ground. This is different with flying bird hunting.

Good hunters try to hunt with a minimal amount of gear, for natural reasons and for weight reasons. A single-shot gun is sufficient under normal circumstances for turkey hunt; two calls, a homemade cushions, a plastic bucket, decoys and the few needed tools get the job done (this is for turkey (and quail), for geese and ducks the story is different).

Inexperienced hunters or hunters who feel 'uneasy' often don’t mind the extra weight and use for turkey hunt pump action shotguns also. I concede that pump action shotguns are very versatile firearms which can be used for both, home defense and hunting, and they are relatively inexpensive compared to good double shotguns. I guess these are the decisive reasons, especially for beginners who buy their 'first' gun.

And last but not least, the pump gives a 'shaky' hunter that extra third ‘trial shot’ . . . when two have already failed (LOL).

la.výritý in reply to JustObserving46

Fact is that our society has the duty to prevent the willful (not accidental) murder of children by insane or just trigger-happy gun-owners, especially when these mass killings take place in locations that these murdered children are required to attend by law: a school.

One considered alternative would be that this country steps up security in all public facilities to an airport-like level. The yearly costs for this are estimated around $128 billion. This amount must then be gathered through a special gun-taxation, graded yearly by past 'risk potential'. Given that Americans own roughly 300 million guns, this would amount to an average gun-tax per gun of approx $426.60.

Guns that were 'favored' in the past by these mass-shooters will, of course, carry a higher risk tax rate than guns that are seldom or never abused in such ways.

E.g.: an unaltered Winchester .30-30 rifle would be taxed at around $15 per year while a .223 caliber Bushmaster AR-15 rifle would, i.e., carry a yearly gun tax of 100 times that amount, or $1,500 per year. A Glock 19 with a standard 10 round magazine would still be taxed at around $750 per year, while each extended magazine will carry an additional tax of $33 per extended round. Each additional magazine will also carry a tax of $33 per round capacity.

This would have the advantage that violation could be avenged twofold: as a possible violation of the gun possession law plus as violation of the tax law. Our money-strapped government should consider such gun taxation in earnest ASAP.

Concerning your argument that: "Our founders knew full well that over time most governments in history slid down the slippery slope to some form of totalitarianism" . . .

Our founders were rather worried that Britain would try to re-conquer the lost New England colonies. This was the reason the founding government supported a 'militia' rather than a huge (and expensive) standing army. As the ruling government, they never considered “themselves” a possible political 'threat' to the American people.

Today, in a time when the government has tanks, flying fortresses, armed drones, cruise missiles, fighter jets and even nukes at its disposal, it sounds rather quixotic that some here claim, in earnest, to want to defend 'democracy' against governmental totalitarianism with, in comparison, “stone-age” AR-15 rifles or Glock handguns.

JustObserving46 in reply to la.výritý

Thank you for my laugh for the year, or what is left of it. I appreciate your concerns, but we have fire departments to put out fires, not prevent them. We have police departments to catch law breakers, not actually prevent those miscreants from committing their evil deeds. Our legal system does not include preemptive detention; the ACLU frequently steps into court to challenge laws that appear to be preemptive in nature. That is why it currently is so difficult to “institutionalize” those people who heretofore were routinely committed “for their own good” and the safety of society.
Your taxation solution is DOA, to say nothing of unworkable and childishly simplistic. Here on earth, we need to deal with realities, not pipe dreams.
Two of the most recent evil dictators (Stalin & Hitler) both acted upon the principle that to maintain control of the population, they first had to disarm the civilians. If you don't think that is possible here, you don't know history. If there are enough people with your level of ignorance, and unfortunately I think there are, we may well experience the same type of activity here within a short period of time. The saving grace may well be that if our “leaders” do make a try at some type of takeover, it is likely that the military would not actively support that.
There are kooks in this world and no amount of legislation will eliminate them. Is it appropriate to review our firearms laws from time to time? Of course, just like we have to review other policies and programs, or should anyway. But we do not throw out valid principles just because unfavorable results sometimes occur. Valid principles do not, never have and never will, guarantee “warm and fuzzy” results 100% of the time.

“Our money-strapped government should consider such gun taxation in earnest ASAP.”

Our money-strapped government should consider reducing spending first and foremost until our national fiscal house is in order. We do not need more laws and regulations; we need to enforce what is already on the books. We also need to prioritize our spending so the our "needs" are met first, not all the whiners "wants".

la.výritý in reply to JustObserving46

JustObserving: "Thank you for my laugh for the year, or what is left of it".

Don't mind the little time left, "he who laughs last laughs longest" . . . and that will not be you anyway.

Listening to the NRA spokesman last night on ABC, their 'brass' seems rather surprised and cornered by the outrage of the American public.

Desperately they suggest now to 'arm the nation' even more. "NRA calls for armed police officer in every school" the headlines read.

Since guns that can kill dozens within seconds would require several police officers in every classroom – not just one or two in every school - and since school budgets can’t effort this - the taxpayers’ justified question toward NRA will be: “Who is going to pay for all this?”

Yes, dear laughing JustObserving, then your laughing fit won’t last very long anyway, so don't worry now about the short time left for your 'laughing fit'.

LOL! He who laughs last laughs longest!

Jai Prakash Sharma

It's time the US comes out of the dark shadow of violent gun culture, and bring the gun industry and gun ownership under stricter regulatory control, while simultaneously addressing the multiple aspects of the malaise like psychological, economic, political, and social peace also. Finally, if possible, the second amendment that empowers citizens to bear arms as an individual right too could be taken up for review.


The gun supporters, under heat these days, have all of a sudden become big supporters of mental health. The internet is full of their comments these days. Not that treating mental diseases is a bad idea, but, obviously, they are trying to divert attention from the real mental disease: "GUN INSANITY". They think they are so smart...
There is a big chance that a law banning automatic and military weapons will pass and soon. It'll be a good start.
In the mean time there are some things the rest of us can do. These are my own conclusions:
- Hiring people who own these types of weapons - legally or illegally, it doesn't matter - is a risk for your employees. Do a "check background", and don't hire them. Who needs them anyway? They tend to have poor logic and low intellect.
- Don't shop at Walmart or other "outfits" that sell weapons. There are plenty of places where you can shop. Why support companies that sell products that could hurt you or your family?
- Don't try to use logic with gun-supporters. Their emotions are still rooted on the civil war they lost. It's not coincidence that guns and the NRA enjoy much bigger support on the South. It's not time for "open discussion" but for action.

cbhall13 in reply to Galaicus2010

1) Automatic weapons are already banned.
2) Yes lets create more unemployment based on bogus claims of lower intelligence because of owning firearms. Thats hilarious.
3) By the Walmart logic, don't shop at grocery stores, gas stations, mcdonalds, etc cause all of those "outifts" sell products that could hurt you or your family.
4) Try and use logic yourself, and have an open discussion. Claiming the other side is irrational only exposes your own close-minded agenda.

iThinker in reply to Galaicus2010

Well put. There are only 3 types of people who own guns: criminals, hicks and paranoid delusional lunatics. Anyone who continue to scream gun "rights" falls into one of the above category. Our society will be better off without all 3.

Wrecked in reply to Galaicus2010

I consider myself very much on the "anti-guns" side of the equation, but your comment is as bluntly ignorant as those of the "guns don't kill people" people. If you're going to argue with a closed mind, best do it with a closed mouth as well.

Galaicus2010 in reply to Wrecked

Anti-gun, you? You wrote "Gun ownership is a "right" because it was enshrined as such by the 2nd amendment"
You seem to be a confused person. Keep the "close mouth" advice to yourself. The issue has been discussed to death, now it's time to vote and you are clearly on the deranged side.

Wrecked in reply to Galaicus2010

The issue has not been discussed to death at all; it's generally been shouted about by extremists on both sides of the debate.

I may "seem" confused to you, but I'm not at all. While I personally dislike guns and would be happy to see a firearms-free society, I also recognize that others - not all of them paranoid maniacs or people with "poor logic and low intellect", as you'd find out if you actually engaged in conversation with some of them* instead of dismissing them outright - hold radically different views, and that though I might disagree with them on fundamental points, that doesn't mean that their POV is invalid or that I should refuse to consider it.

Likewise, in the USA, gun ownership IS in fact a right: a legal right, granted by one of the founding documents of the nation. While I personally don't see the need for it, I also recognize that my opinion on its merit has no bearing on its status as such.

Let me suggest to you that "if you're not with us you're against us" thinking - from the left as well as the right - is a large part of what's got the country into the situation it's in. Factionalization has weakened public engagement and allowed both corporate interests and government bureaucracy (not to mention the NRA) to perpetrate abuses that would not have been possible otherwise.

*a course of action I don't recommend for you, as your shrill tone and assumptions of moral and intellectual superiority won't encourage the rationality that many of them do - believe it or not, fella - display when they're not being actively insulted.

Living hope

Life begins at Conception. 9 months and 9 days later a human being is born. Terminating a life AT ANY TIME after conception is MURDER plain and simple. Do you agree or do you not agree. 1,200,000 human beings are killed every year in the United States COMPARED to 26 children killed by Adam Lanza in a school last Friday.
It is pure hypocricy for President Obama who signed the Abortion Bill legalizing the murder of the unborn, to publicly to weep over the 20 children and 6 others. Obama shamelessly signed the Abortion Bill, with 8 pens(as if 1 pen was not sufficient). He signed it one hour before a long week end and took off to avoid debate. Obama is a narcissist, seeking self glorification. Obama could show his concern for human life by placing a Ban on Abrotion Clinics. Abortion is as immoral as shooting children in school or street violence. People kill, guns do not go off by themselvs.

la.výritý in reply to Living hope

Not knowing the president's beliefs concerning unborn life, I know that your portrayal of him - at least in this context - is wrong.

In 2010 Obama signed an executive order which actually banned federal funding for abortion, and did not 'encourage' it. He followed, then, the advice of fellow anti-abortion Democrats.

Thus, instead of 'legalizing the murder of the unborn', as you put it, his executive order was intended to ensure that federal funding for abortion stays restricted to very special, medically and morally defined cases, such as rape, incest and when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk. It also insures that federal funds cannot go toward abortion, once Obama-care is enacted.

Pro-life proponents as yourself will need to rely on state legislatures to impose new legally indictable restraints on abortion.

You are free to go this democratic political road.

NickyGoodtimes in reply to Living hope

Psst- Presidents OFTEN sign bills with multiple pens so that said pens can be handed off to various people- either the original sponsors of the bill, museums, etc- so they can technically say "XYZ legislation was signed with THIS pen" .

But the fact that you went with abortion as a comparable situation to Newtown should have been our first tip as to your ignorance-


Funny how americans think of their guns as a mean to be protected from the government.
In a civilized world, the only weapon you have to protect yourself from your government is your vote. That it, use it to choose the ones who will turn to be your enemy.
The government is choosen by the people, for the people, so this does not justify this strange american claim.

I think that whoever possesses a weapon thinks to be somehow superior to the others. It gives them some exagerated sence of pride and arrogance. It is part of the american way of thinking and there is nothing you can do about that.

The only way to mend this chaos is to ban all types of guns. Britain, Australia, etc are some good examples to follow.

We dont see such problems in Europe (ok, someone will try to mention the mass shooting in Norway last year), where gun rules are the toughest.

la.výritý in reply to guest-iseeenw


This thought is located at the other end of the 'ideological spectrum' in the US.

Most American gun owners see their guns as mere tools, tools for hunting or for personal protection. Those who own guns for an "exaggerated sence of pride and arrogance" belong actually to the 'problem groups' in our country, consisting mainly of value-distorted, predominately white middle class 'survivalists' and gun-besotted individuals.

guest-iseeenw in reply to la.výritý

An assault weapon for hunting?
Why americans are so afraid anyway? They have one of the most efficient police that is present in every corner (even though there are cases when the cops sleep inside their cars).
Americans use weapons that once belonged to Yugoslavia, Albania, and there were smuggled. We are talking weapons that were used in wars. Those weapons killed thousands.

I dont think that the sence of arrogance belongs only to a group of people, it is a general sense which can easily be perceived.
In Texas or some other states they go to the grocery stores with a riffle in their shoulders. In those states you could be killed even if you try to minimally curse or give the middle finger to someone.

Guns mean death. And it seems to me that death is vey fascinating to americans.

la.výritý in reply to cbhall13

In most U.S. states potential police officers must undergo extensive background checks and tests to detect possible emotional disturbances which may affect the applicant's ability to do his/her job securely. This applies even more so to federal police.

All this is, of course, no guarantee that 'black sheep' could not slip through some cracks. It's, however, a much more secure and thus acceptable procedure than allowing about 'any' murderous gun freak free access to high-powered semiautomatic assault weapons that exist for one purpose only . . . and that is to kill people.

la.výritý in reply to guest-iseeenw

I live in rural Midwest, "little north of Texas".

I've never seen anyone "go to the grocery stores with a riffle in their shoulders". Yes, during hunting season, people might carry their gun on a rack in their truck when shopping for groceries. But this is a seasonal exception, rather than the rule.

Those carrying 'guns' as a "sense of arrogance" belong to the limited group of obsessed gun-freaks. These are the ones we are talking about here.


While you're at it, USA, stop exporting "small" arms to drug dealers and terrorists in Mexico and Central and South America. We don't need your NRA's insane policies here.

Dr Alan Phillips Sr.

Adam Lanza

Whatever the psychological or spiritual deviation this young man that took Newtown Connecticut’s finest from society is marked forever as a tragic despicable figure. Characterized by a doting mother preparing for the end of the world replete with guns and survivalist obsessive cognition living with two brothers one of whom was deranged at best fostered the game. A tile glazer whether at the barbershop or with an extremely stressed baby sitter who lacked any meaningful relationship failed to relate to people.

Adam was evolving into the vilest type of terrorist complete apparently with a strong background for violent and deadly video games. Adam became a nonperson, a zooid, a candidate for a psychiatric couch. Who’s to say how much influence Hollywood horror films had on this young beast? His relationship with his doting and permissive mother was non effectual based on her getting shot in the face. On his way to take innocent lives from the Sandy Hood school this young undisciplined and unresponsive coward would perform his dastardly deed on our best children and adults.

Now we are seeking greater gun and magazine control while we look for psychological answers. Frankly, what to date have psychological therapists and their answers managed to problem solve? The problems are still with us, the Adam Lanza’s sadly are not just in America—remember Norway and Scotland. Perhaps it might be best to ask for a return of old fashioned disciplining parents, couldn’t hurt! We must let our presence be felt in society.

Alan G. Phillips, Sr

How can you force an open society, where the freedom of information is also a valued constitutional amendment, into a "return of old fashioned disciplining parents"?

There are tens of thousands of potential "Adam Lanza(s)" out there, trained by their white, middle class, 'survivalist' gun-besotted parents in the use of the family's lethal assault weapons, which exists for one purpose - and one purpose only ... and that is to kill humans.

Only this is the reason why these horrible incidents aren't a rare phenomenon in our country, as they are in Norway or Scotland, but became rather regular-sporadic 'outbreaks'. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek and Newtown are still downplayed by assault-weapon proponents as 'acts of God'.

AK-47 rifles and other high-powered semiautomatic assault weapons don't belong in the households of ordinary Americans. Period.

Violent and deadly video games and Hollywood horror to blame?

Please remind me:

Which of those video games did Charles Manson play? I heard it was "Call of Duty", but my friend swears I am mixing him up with Richard Speck, who preferred the "Grand Theft Auto" games...or was that John Wayne Gacy? I always mix those guys up...

Who was Jim Jones' favorite rap artist- Tupac or Biggie?

David Berkowitz (aka Son of Sam)- was he more of a fan of the "Friday the 13th" films or the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series?

Old fashioned disciplining parents must surely be the answer! Two Words: "NO MORE WIRE HANGERS!!!!!!"

Poor Kmart in reply to la.výritý

I'm sorry, but the meaningless use of the words 'assault rifle' is getting out of hand. I have multiple rifles more powerful then the AR-15, and any semiautomatic rifle can have a similar rate of fire. All the weapons I have were designed before WWII. Neither those rifles nor the AR-15 are assault rifles. None of them are capable of automatic or burst fire. If you are going to argue for further restriction on firearms, at least use arguments that actually address some part of the problem, not focus on words meant to scare people.

la.výritý in reply to Poor Kmart

I'm sorry not to meet your expectations. Call those souped-up semiautomatic killing machines "cotton-swab throwers" if you like. I'm sure the families of the "assaulted" and murdered children and innocent victims will 'praise' you for that.

Or read about what kind of weapons were meant before the 1994-enacted Federal Assault Weapons Ban was watered-down (and thus rendered ineffective).

Or, am I mistaken and the ban was renamed "Federal Cotton-swab Throwers Ban"?

Poor Kmart in reply to la.výritý

Way to ignore the point. You again focus on vilifying objects rather than addressing actual problems. Rifles are the great evil? They are rarely used in crimes in the first place. Further restriction added to the purchase of firearms? Will do little to nothing to actually limit these crimes as the firearms used are either stolen, purchased in a black market, or purchased legally because the thing that should prevent their purchase now doesn't show up in the system in the first place. Limit 'modern firearms?' Several different types of widely available firearms are based on or using designs even a hundred year old, and are no less dangerous than more modern weapons. The Ar-15 itself is just shy of 50 years old.

So what could work? What kind of systems could be used to get people with extreme mental health issues in the system without violating someone's right to privacy or minimizing overuse of restrictions? Can we do something to address how long it takes police to respond to these incidents? Should school and police have better lines of communication so the police can have a better picture of the situation? Should schools have better plans to deal with these situations than 'hide under you desk and hope you don't get shot?' Are the laws we already have not being enforced? How do we better enforce them?

Naw, let's just focus only calling each other nuts and focus on aesthetic qualities in some weapons. We'll act like the great enabler of tragedy is a 20-30 round magazine, and ignore that the very purpose of a magazine is to enable the fast reloading of a weapon, and limiting the size is nudging the number of dead, rather than actually limiting casualties in any meaningful way.

la.výritý in reply to Poor Kmart

Poor Kmart: „Way to ignore the point. You again focus on vilifying objects rather than addressing actual problems. Rifles are the great evil?”

We had this before: This debate is not about ‘general crime’, but about guns used in mass killings that spray 33 bullets in less than 10 seconds. These ‘killing machines’, in wrong hands, are the problem. To continue spreading them without tight control is surely not the solution. It's rather a tragedy that America’s nutcases can freely obtain the ‘demilitarized’ version of the M-16, the super-fast .223 caliber Bushmaster AR-15 rifle.




There are already too many guns out there to go for an effective ban. My inclination would be to heavily regulate ammunition. Make it difficult to purchase, limit quantities to reasonable needs, and tax it as we do tobacco.

Elizabeth Woodsmall

Renowned psychiatrist Karl Menninger said, "What we do to our children, they do to society." The recent shootings attest to this. Important to focus on preventing the root cause of violence in America – our endemic child abuse. It begins in the cradle and pervades all socioeconomic levels. Our sad denial - the US has the highest level of child maltreatment in the industrialized world, with correspondingly high rates of incarceration, mental ill-health and economic problems. The World Health Organization considers child abuse the most critical health problem in the US.

A good place to begin getting info is the October 2011 BBC documentary, “America’s Child Death Shame.” Also, the monumental ACE study conducted by the CDC and Kaiser shows adverse childhood experiences are major risk factors for the leading causes of illness, death and poor quality of life in the US. Progress in preventing and recovering from the nation's worst health and social problems will benefit from understanding these problems. According to the research, ACE increases risk for: alcoholism, COPD, depression, fetal death, illicit drug use, heart disease, liver disease, partner violence, STD, smoking, suicide, obesity and teen pregnancies.” As a survivor of 15 years of torture-level abuse, – I know it is curable and preventable! ACE site:

J'en ai marre

The argument that the 2nd Amendment protects against tyranny is ludicrous. It is clear from Afghanistan, Libya and Syria that even a well-armed populace cannot stand up to the military without extra help. To be effective the armed populace (read right-wing militia) needs either to have:
(a) help from the military – this is called a coup in most countries
(b) someone outside to impose a no-fly zone – any suggestions for foreign governments who might be prepared to try to do this in the US?
(c) recourse to more than even the powerful weapons allowed in the US – just trot along to your local Walmart and pick up your suicide belt and SAM missile.


If somebody thinks that the Second Amendment thing is a real argument, please do explain. I am pretty sure that 'the right to bear arms' does not protect you if you store an anti-aircraft missile, a bacteriological or nuclear weapon, or even three tons of fertilizer. It is just a matter of where to draw the line, and regulate weapons, uses, users, when and where, etc.

Carbon Copy in reply to ignaciozz

Absolutely correct. Just like free speech doesn't mean you can incite violence, and protection against search and seizure doesn't mean the police can't pat you down with probable cause.

Its almost like the 2nd amendment isn't special but comes with the same problems/restrictions as other rights (see existing legislation banning full auto weapons).

ignaciozz in reply to Carbon Copy

You could even keep ownership and use of assault rifles and anti-tank missiles, as long as they are stored and secured in a certified facility (that covers the really outdated constitutionally 'necessary well-regulated militia') where you can target practice and play soldier and prepare for Armageddon, from which of course you can't take them out legally (and taking them out illegally would be pretty much impossible, and the attempt itself would make you a criminal). It doesn't seem that complicated to me.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Alibaba's IPO: Shocked, shocked!
Schumpeter -60 mins ago
World Cup predictions: Scoring ourselves
Graphic detail July 12th, 19:03
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00


Products and events



