Gramlich: Some Think Gun Control Would Lead to More Mass Shootings

mass shootings gun control

courtesy Getty Images

Pew Research is at it again, this time throwing out percentages related to mass shootings and gun laws:

Americans are split over whether legal changes would lead to fewer mass shootings, according to the fall 2018 poll. Nearly half of adults (47%) say there would be fewer mass shootings if it was harder for people to obtain guns legally, while a similar share (46%) says there would be no difference. Very few (6%) say there would be more mass shootings if it was harder for people to obtain guns legally.

Americans are also split on a related question about the potential impact that more Americans owning guns would have on crime more broadly. While 37% of U.S. adults say there would be more crime if more Americans owned guns, 33% say there would be no difference and 29% say there would be less crime.

– John Gramlich for Pew Research, 7 Facts About Guns in the U.S.

What do you think? How would changes or additions to existing laws impact mass shootings?

comments

  1. avatar Dev says:

    The article is titled “7 Facts” and number one is based on a survey. No need for me to read anything else, the author is full of it.

    1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      Yup, changes from Facts to Key Findings once you start reading.

      There is a plethora of information out there that’s nothing more than thinly disguised propaganda. All part of a very coordinated effort to disarm this countries citizens. This is just another helping of waste product from the bull.

    2. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      So opinions are now “facts”, this will prove very helpful in the long term…

    3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      He also said the 2nd Amendment ‘gives Americans the right to bear arms’.

      The only way you could construe anything in there as a ‘fact’ is that it is a ‘fact’ that their polling is an accurate measurement of American sentiment, which I don’t believe it is. He claims 83% of Republicans want the government to have the power to keep a secret list of people barred from purchasing guns where they don’t have to explain to anyone why they put you on the list and getting off of it means years of fighting a Kafkaesque bureaucracy. Either the question was misleading or they’re lying about the results.

      In #7 he claims ‘2017 saw more gun deaths in the U.S. than any year in decades’. Of course, by decades he meant 2. Normally when someone says ‘decades’ they mean 4, 5 or 6 of them. Then in the acknowledges that ‘gun-related’ deaths were considerably higher in the early to mid 1990s. This is a tactic to mislead people who just scan the article and not read all of it while still being able to pretend the integrity of the article is still in tact.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        I’d fix that last paragraph but someone around here decided we don’t need an edit feature.

  2. avatar Baldwin says:

    “… would … additions to existing laws impact mass shootings?” Stupid question. Everyone knows suppression of rights has always made the world a safer place. But more firearm restrictions and bans won’t help unless we also fund clinics to educate the criminal element that it is rude and hurtful to violate gun-free zones to prey upon the vulnerable unarmed sheeple herded there for their convenience. Criminals just don’t understand their responsibility to stay the fvck out of gun-free zones.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, that is not quite accurate. We don’t have to educate the criminals, all we need to do is educate the people who respond to polls, what the correct response should be.

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    6%er here. Most mass shootings oxcur in GFZ. Duh😋😋😋😋

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    Funny how it still matters to these people what that 37% of adults “feel” even though they have absolutely been proven completely and utterly wrong with both record high levels of guns in circulation and record low levels of crime.

  5. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    Guns aren’t making the difference, people are.

    Increase the conviction rate for homicides. Lock up felons and require mandatory menial work to pay their debt to society – and rehabilitate them with a vocational skill that they can do when they get out and provide the carrot and the stick when they are released.

    Cut government benefits for able bodied individuals that are capable of work, and reward those that try to work by only cutting benefits by a percentage.

    Decrease the amount of drugs coming from the southern border by securing it. Also decrease the amount of low wage workers, Latin American criminals and gang members, and folks coming here just for the socialist handouts; thereby decreasing the amount living in blighted urban neighborhoods.

    Sit back and watch the nation develop and innovate, individuals thrive, and tax revenue increase.

    If we do these things and gun violence hasn’t decreased, then we can look at that issue.

    1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      That’s because guns don’t kill people…..

    2. avatar Tim Kiphart says:

      Where is the “like” button?

      1. avatar SouthAl says:

        It’s in the same general area of the screen where the “edit” button shows up on your own posts 😊.

        1. avatar Geoff "Jingle *this*..." PR says:

          {Asking where the fuck the ‘edit’ button evaporated to}

          “It’s in the same general area of the screen where the “edit” button shows up on your own posts”

          *snicker* 😉

          (Man, the legal Fentanyl in the ER the night of the ‘splat’, and the Oxycontin right now is some serious good stuff, and much appreciated… )

        2. avatar Geoff "Jingle *this*..." PR says:

          Make that –

          {Asking where the non-existent (thank God) ‘Like’ button is }

          “It’s in the same general area of the screen where the “edit” button shows up on your own posts”

          Hey, TTAG management –

          Are your ‘code monkeys’ aware there is a problem with no edit button, and what do they have to say about when there is an expected resolution to the problem?

          Thank you, an annoyed butter-fingered TTAG commenter flying on some good drugs today who *really* wants to correct recent mistakes, (like the one to go riding on the 22nd)…

    3. avatar Elaine D. says:

      It’s a good list in some ways.

      But the issue of drugs is a lot more complicated than securing the border. You can get heroin for $10 in any high school here. That availability of such drugs is not because there are people walking over the border carrying drugs. Those drugs are being carried and sold into schools by American born citizens who have cartel connections. Many of them are white and middle class or better.

      The United States has a huge appetite for illegal drugs. As long as that’s the case those drugs are going to come, and they’re going to come with the participation and help of American born citizens who see the dollars to be made by selling pills and powders to their fellow Americans. The Mexican cartels simply provide their people false documentation so that their agents can move around freely in this country. They have tons of money and they can get anything they want done in Mexico because everyone is afraid of them and will be killed if they don’t comply. It’s easy as cake for them to generate false documents.

      1. avatar el possum guapo says:

        And crystal methamphetamine. I hate that sht. It’s ruined more lives then booze. A real brain fryer. It should be illegal, oh wait it is. Well so much for a law stopping a crime huh.

        1. avatar Elaine D. says:

          Meth tends to be domestically produced tho. Because it’s cheap and easy and doesn’t take much to set up a lab. Any yahoo can figure out how to do it. The stuff coming from South America is the heroin and cocaine products and the pills, and some weed, though the cartels are figuring out how to set up their weed farms in national forests and parklands here. There’s a brisk trade in pills from overseas as well.

        2. avatar el possum guapo/ ironicatbest says:

          That’s why I see meth as a bigger problem, any yahoo can make it. I found it ironicatbest I can google earth and see my house, but the Feds can’t see a cocaine factory with attending coca fields? I did once hear something about a war on drugs, perhaps they meant a war on the United States drug users?

        3. avatar Don says:

          Actually there’s tons of Meth coming across in a semi-finished liquid state. Hard to get the chemicals here, so the cartels either made a deal with or bought factories in China, they ship container loads of powder in barrels into Mexico, manufacture the drug up until it’s in a liquid state, then ship it across to be finished here. Pretty easy to ship the liquid in sealed containers and it’s not as easily detectable by the dogs for some reason.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Solution to drug abuse is both simple and cheap. Get the flaming hell out of the way, repeal all laws, and defund any OD preventions, let them die. In the gutter. Once OD is determined as cause of death, cremate them in mass ovens and don’t even spend a dollar to figure out who they are or to notify next of kin. The world is overpopulated, stop wasting irreplaceable resources trying to save these losers. So long as there is demand, there will be suppliers, put one in jail or kill him, another will be in place before sunset. Once users are all dead, suppliers will learn to flip burgers.

      2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        “The United States has a huge appetite for illegal drugs.”

        And so, despite intense drug prohibition laws stretching back decades and trillions of dollars spent to maintain anti-drug law enforcement, drugs are more freely available and substantially cheaper than ever before. The obvious conclusion is that drug prohibitions—like anti-gun laws (including prohibition and gun confiscation)—are fundamentally symbolic gestures which are designed to make their supporters feel that they are “in control”. That they are effectual at actually doing anything meaningful about drug usage or “gun deaths” is of little consequence. They fact that they exist is all that matters to their advocates.

        1. avatar Don says:

          The war on drugs has only served to make criminals rich, gangs powerful, cities more dangerous, and oh yeah, illegal guns much more plentiful. Way to go us.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          As Bill Hicks said “It’s not a war on drugs. It’s a war on personal freedom”.

          Gun control and the WoD are both rooted in the same statist mentality. The goal isn’t safety, or “reducincing gun violence” or “reducing the use of dangerous drugs”. The goal is slowly but inexorably increasing government control over the population.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          reducincing… that’s an awesome typo.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yeah, but I’d still prefer an “edit” button.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Don, those same 2 guys in DEA can also take over all the productive functions of the Dept of Education, saving another $75 billion/year, without any loss of benefit to the nation.

      3. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

        i know it’s more complicated than simply building a wall or fence, but when we have no barrier or areas of very porous border that is one more way for drugs to come in.

        Does it matter? I’m going back to my agricultural degree from University of Kentucky and remembering what they said about tobacco. I don’t remember numbers anymore, but the basic premise was if you could make cigarettes $3 or 4 a pack instead of $2 (1990s $) then the cost barrier to entry would prevent many young smokers from having the disposable income (or ability to steal from parents) to ever start in the first place. That makes pretty good sense to me and I think it would transfer to other drugs as well.

        I accept there are always going to be people who choose drugs, but the dignity of honest work, an associated income, and stronger moral values would go a long way in curbing demand.

        I farm and buy guns, so I have neither the time nor the money to get high.

        1. avatar Don says:

          As far as recreational drugs, just legalize them all, 18 or older, sign the waiver of liability and fly. Keep the money here, reduce the price, legal is always less attractive anyway and the money added to our economy instead of going to the cartels will help keep the job market booming, people working and seeing “common sense” increases in benefits and buying power probably be too happy and too busy to waste their lives on drugs. Plentiful supply and low prices will help Darwin weed out the weak ones and we’re all better off. Border crossings and border traffic will drop by half the first year as the incentive disappears. The DEA can be downsized to a couple guys doing videos for high schools and a couple billion a year can be saved there as the cherry on top.

        2. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Cooter

          Believe me. I’m all about inculcating those values into young people. Family, community, friendships, spirituality, hard work, helping others. There is no better preventative against addiction than that combo.

          I think that that was the idea with legal weed in Colorado. That you’d have a high quality legally produced and controlled product that was expensive and would raise the bar to entry. However, that hasn’t worked out like they thought so far. They thought having legal weed would make the black market weed go away. But the black market is still there and has maybe even grown in size, mainly because a lot of people with limited incomes or disability checks who want to be able to use weed legally moved to Colorado and can’t afford the high grade stuff, so they go in search of cheap non legally produced or monitored weed.

          I read awhile back that the Netherlands has actually greatly restricted its famous coffeehouses and other providers of legal drugs because they have had so many problems with people coming in from other countries to get high and then creating problems for the local people. I haven’t looked in a while, but I think that now most of the coffeehouses are restricted only to Dutch residents and don’t offer all the stuff they used to.

          The best way is to keep anyone from getting addicted in the first place. Once someone has already become an addict they’re likely to struggle with it the rest of their life in some way. There’s just so much money in both addictive drugs and addiction treatment that maybe there isn’t a real incentive for anyone to address the social measures that would actually make a difference.

      4. avatar Perry says:

        If it’s so easy to get a kilo of illicit drugs into a high school, then why is anyone surprised when a kilo of GLOCK gets into a high school?

        Open borders means open guns. Any attempt to disarm the general population only further empowers the criminals.

  6. avatar Tim Kiphart says:

    I wouldn’t be so harsh Dev, it can be a “fact” that people responded to a survey a particular way. Of more concern is whether the data are any good. A stranger calls on the phone: “I’m doing a survey. Do you own a gun?” Me: “Why would anyone tell a stranger whether they have a gun in their home?”

    Most alarming was the report that 9 out of 10 democrats and 8 out of 10 republicans favor restrictions on gun purchases by folks on the no-fly list. Sounds great, right? Consider that once you’re on the list, say because a minimum wage over-worked clerk made a typo entering a name similar to yours somewhere, it is all but impossible to be removed. The list is secret, and you effectively have no recourse. A constitutionally guaranteed right is lost without due process.

    But also alarming is that 50% of republicans (who probably self-identified as such. RINO anyone?) support an assault weapons ban (because that worked so well before, right?), and limits on “high-capacity” magazines (which, quite frankly, are more likely to malfunction than lower capacity magazines).

    I wish the folks at Pew would have asked why people who answered affirmatively that they support gun control, why they think there are no mass shootings at gun shows…..

    1. avatar Bob999 says:

      I would bet that the poll was done in Los Angeles or San Francisco where the Democrat Party can easily be described as extremist left, perhaps better described as Globalist-Socialist. That means if you oppose Global-Socialism, a moderate leftist if you will, you have only one place to go to oppose this extremism — the GOP.

      1. avatar Draven says:

        yeah, I bet the small print is “phone survey was restricted to urban areas of over 800,000 population” or something.

  7. avatar strych9 says:

    I think the premise behind these questions is flawed.

    First, when it comes to civil rights neither public opinion nor a risk presented by that civil right is a moral or ethical reason to curtail the right itself.

    Second, the question rests on a “common sense” conclusion that doesn’t apply to reality. Yes, it is true that were there no guns there would be no gun related deaths but the same is true of everything that can cause a death. On top of that Pandora’s Box has been opened. Banning guns doesn’t work because it doesn’t cause guns to cease to exist, doesn’t erase the knowledge of how to make them and doesn’t remove the root cause of the killing.

    Would removing or restricting the public’s access to firearms do anything? Sure, it would probably reduce gun related injuries and deaths by a measurable amount. However there is no reason to suspect that it would have a significant impact on overall “violent death rates” as guns would still be available to the criminally minded, those bent on killing but unable to get a gun would find other means and law abiding folks who are victims of crime would probably see an uptick in their death rate as the easiest and best form of self defense is denied to them.

    So ultimately strict gun control might reduce, maybe even significantly reduce gun related injury and death but those numbers would simply shift to being related to something else.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      strych9,

      … when it comes to civil rights neither public opinion nor a risk presented by that civil right is a moral or ethical reason to curtail the right itself.

      THAT . right . there !

      THAT should be our mantra. That mantra takes the debate AND EMOTIONS away from firearms and puts the discussion EXACTLY on point.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Every once in a while this blind squirrel finds a nut.

  8. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Historically, more such laws have made absolutely no difference. But nobody cares about history anymore. It’s all about the latest tweets. Idjits abound, like ticks in tall grass.

  9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    … 37% of U.S. adults say there would be more crime if more Americans owned guns, 33% say there would be no difference and 29% say there would be less crime. — John Gramlich for Pew Research

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why so many federal politicians are unwilling to significantly change firearms laws at this point in time. Upsetting the status quo could push a few percent of voters to break ranks and vote for the other party — which often means losing an election given how so many candidates win or lose on razor thin margins.

  10. avatar David Walters says:

    One should not discount the impact the fulsomeness or dearth of a socially supportive economy has on the incidence of violence of many kinds, including gun violence. But I don’t see this variable controlled in any of the studies or surveys I’ve read about gun violence.

    It’s easy to see differences in today’s world without having to do much of a historical study, although I think a historical correlation has existed in modern America between violence and a good or bad economy, especially during a recession vs. an economy that’s expanding. Where to easily see those differences? Well, between affluent neighborhoods and cities and those where the slums prevail.

    I live in Spring, TX. It’s a northern and reasonably affluent suburb of the greater Houston area and violence of any kind is quite rare compared to that of the inner city. Indeed, there are areas of the city that I won’t transit due to the increased level of crime in those areas.

    Other examples would be the increasingly violent cities of Chicago and Baltimore which have large areas of economically depressed neighborhoods vs. a city like Denver, Dallas or Houston where more affluent neighborhoods exist within the city limits.

    So, what’s the import of the correlation I observe. Well, the U.S. economy in Trump’s first two years has been improving. But it’s for a variety of reasons it’s soon to see a crash in 2019 (see discussions on Zerohedge.com and Marketwatch.com for examples).

    If you believe in the correlation above then it’s time to improve your homes defenses, harden the approaches, install and maintain security systems and improve your firearms training.

    As an example, I’ve installed wrought iron fences and gates on both my driveway and front door entryway. I’ve also cut down trees and bushes that would provide cover to assailants, I’ve trained a 110 lb. male German Shepherd for protection and installed a security system along with a Ring doorbell and security flood lights that link to our cell phones. I’ve purchased a safe for my guns vs. the thin metal cabinets previously used. And, I’ve installed improved alarms on my vehicles.

    I’ve also enrolled myself and my wife in more advanced home protection firearms training.

    I belong to USCCA and they publish a bi-monthly periodical that has excellent information on how to improve home and personal security, although I’m sure the Internet abounds in similar sources.

    The crash is coming. Best to prepare now.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      David Walters,

      While many economically depressed areas in the U.S. certainly correlate with violent crime, this is simply correlation rather than causation.

      Fact: there are many economically depressed families and RURAL regions of the U.S. that exhibit extremely low violent crime rates.

      The primary reason that violent crime is high and the economy is depressed in urban cores: the relatively high rate of residents with poor ethical character. The very characteristics that define criminals (people who have no reservations committing property crimes and violent crimes) are the very characteristics that disqualify such people from engaging in honorable business. And, to make matters even worse, people with those very same characteristics end up killing honorable local businesses.

      It should therefore be obvious: when people of poor ethical character dominate an area and preclude honorable business activity, that area will have a depressed economy.

      1. avatar David Walters says:

        Yep, good point about correlation and causation.

        Thanks for posting.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      “So, what’s the import of the correlation I observe. Well, the U.S. economy in Trump’s first two years has been improving. But it’s for a variety of reasons it’s soon to see a crash in 2019…”

      I’ve heard this quite a bit but have yet to see any convincing evidence that it might be true.

      1. avatar Geoff "Jingle *this*..." PR says:

        “I’ve heard this quite a bit but have yet to see any convincing evidence that it might be true.”

        New auto sales are *tanking*, for one.

        The next biggie is the price of gas. The price is low because there’s more of it out there.

        People are buying less of it. Is it because Obama’s ‘Cash for clunkers’ was such a success everybody is tooling around in fuel-efficient new cars?

        Really doubtful. When times get hard, people keep older cars running longer for necessity.

        Also, research housing starts. I believe they are depressed, as well. Other numbers to watch are credit defaults…

        1. avatar Geoff "Jingle *this*..." PR says:

          “US auto sales are expected to drop below 17 million for first time since 2014”

          https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/13/us-auto-sales-to-drop-below-17-million-for-first-time-since-2014.html

        2. avatar Draven says:

          A significant number of the ‘older cars’ are gone, turned into 3’x3′ cubes courtesy of cash for clunkers.

          New housing starts isn’t a good figure to use considering that there has been a glut of housing for over a decade.

        3. avatar Ams says:

          The gas prices are low because the speculators learned in 2007-9 that $4/gal would break the econmy.

          Less car sales because millennials are not buying them, less new housing starts because millennials are choosing to live in the city and use mass transit. Less people having kids so there are less people looking for new houses. Old people are retiring and down sizing.

    3. avatar jonnlakeland says:

      I’m just on the other side of Houston, down in Richmond. Salut, David.

  11. avatar Some dude says:

    According to this poll,

    American adults (54%) say there would be no difference or there would be more mass shootings if it was harder for people to obtain guns legally.

    62% of U.S. adults say there would be no difference or less crime, if more Americans owned guns.

    More gun control fails, as a solution to crime and mass shootings, according to most Americans.

  12. avatar Phil says:

    it’s not a gun problem, it’s a people and mental health problem. When someone goes nuts or a violent criminal decide to get a gun, he/she WILL find a gun.
    Terrorists in France and some drug dealers have no issues buying full auto AK with 30rds magazines. They surely don’t buy it at the local gun store, gun show, upon completing a background check.
    I think many do not understand how great the US Constitution is mainly because they have not lived in a crazy nation with less freedom. When the Kouachi brothers or Mohamed Merah opened fire I bet some citizen wished they had some sort of firearm on them.

    1. avatar David Walters says:

      Yep!

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The goatfuckers who shot up the newspaper in Paris were wandering around without a care in the world, carrying full auto AKs where a normal person has no chance of obtaining a gun. One of the videos was taken from a nearby roof, showing the killers chatting in the street 100-200 yards below. All I could think of was that if I were there, I’d pop off 5-6 rounds of 9mm at them, not because I could possibly hit anything, but just to make them duck, crack that veneer of invulnerability that so inspires terror.

  13. avatar Darkman says:

    The only potential mass shootings could be the politicians who would vote to outlaw the ownership of firearms by lawful citizens. Making them criminals for exercising their Right put forth in the Bill of Rights. Keeping in mind the Bill of Rights was enacted as a firewall against an overbearing Tyrannical government. If such legislation were to be enacted then it becomes not only the Right of every individual but also the responsibility to throw off the Tyrannical bonds of such an act. As clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence. Since such a Act as not happened as of yet. No one can say what the implementations will be. That part of the story is yet to be written. All things are possible when a populous is faced with the Tyranny of an oppressive government. Keep Your Powder Dry…

    1. avatar Harry Bowman says:

      I was about to write something similar, but your response is far more eloquent. Rather than mass shootings in schools or night clubs, it isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that those who support or push hard on infringements may reap some Unanticipated Consequences.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Highly unlikely, but mass shootings in the halls of congress are within the expressed intent of the second amendment.

  14. avatar Pete says:

    I would suggest that a control question be added to all opinion polls like this, something along the lines of “Do you believe the moon landings were faked, chemtrails are real or the Earth is flat” .
    A “YES” answer means to throw the poll in the trash.
    This would weed out a sizable portion of the kooks.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      Exactly. Around 25% of adults think the moon landing was faked, about half don’t know that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, about half don’t know when the U.S. civil war occurred and about 25% don’t know who won. Nearly 30% don’t know which country we gained our independence from. The opinion of “Nearly half of adults” is completely meaningless.

  15. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well, I suppose it is newsworthy that some people got it right.

  16. avatar RGP says:

    It could also lead to people creatively expressing their emotions with knives, baseball bats, crowbars, hammers, etc.

  17. avatar el possum guapo says:

    Them numbers mean nothing. .02 percent of the population is not 36℅. . It’s like going into the Midwest cow country and deciding 85℅ of Americans drive a pickup.

  18. avatar Nanashi says:

    That only 6% realize it is the result of k-12 government indoctrination (“education”).

  19. avatar M1Lou says:

    These polls are about as great as asking the general population if they would support a ban on dihydrogen monoxide? 100% of people that consume this substance die! It also causes corrosion. Ban it for the children!

    1. avatar MyName says:

      It also causes floods and tsunamis.

    2. avatar Flying Fish says:

      DHMO is a byproduct of rocket and jet exhaust. It was the main byproduct of the F1 engine on the Saturn V booster and Gemini capsule fuel cells. It is the main component in many coolants and contributes to the greenhouse effect and global warming. It is also present in automobile exhaust. It is directly responsible for more than 10 deaths per day in the US, more than any black rifle. Yet, no one has seriously considered banning DHMO.

      1. avatar Flying Fish says:

        DHMO makes up 90 percent of greenhouse gases by volume.
        (Miss that edit botton)

        1. avatar MyName says:

          Nearly everything you eat (except maybe salt) has some in it.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        When adulterated with good bourbon, it can render you unconscious!

  20. avatar Yarbles says:

    Opinions=Facts=Socialist Bullshit

    Pew! That stinks.

  21. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    Also: Mass shooting statistics don’t matter. “Gun _____” statistics don’t matter. If you’re going to argue based on if society gets safer or more dangerous with a certain law the only thing that matters is do you have more violent crime and murders or less violent crime and murders than you would have under the counterfactual.

    So far all the evidence points to gun ownership leading to fewer violent crimes and murders and gun control leading to more.

  22. avatar Bill Seiber says:

    look at the mess that Germany,France, UK, and most of europe are in.They have the strictest gun laws and they still have mass shootings.crimes like rape and robbery and assault are far higher per 100,000 then in the US. I can only speak from experience I have carried for about 44yrs. and have really needed my weapon only 5 times ,once to save a young woman from being kidnapped,the other times to protect myself.Maybe because I was an over the road truck driver I found myself in more dangerous situations .Twice I have found people who have been attacked and injured and I was able to protect them and myself. This may seem to some to be BS but it all happened in the 44yrs of driving our interstates believe it or not. And to this very day I am like the american express add says don’t leave home without it

  23. avatar George burns says:

    Surveys said Trump didn’t have a Prayer to become President, so much for surveys. Most of the so called deaths, by firearms, are suicide, about 80% of them. So you are more likely to die drowning in the bath tub rather than die from a gunshot wound. If you want to stop drugs from coming in, the “Wall” is the singularly single thing you can do to cut the flow by about 75%.

    You can’t walk through a wall, and then they could put more time and effort into searching vehicles of all types driving the crap in. If we didn’t have such easy access there would be a natural drop off over time of use. It’s like when they stopped people from smoking in most places, somehow they survived without cigarettes.

    1. avatar George burns says:

      By the way, just about all, if not all, of the places where these things happen are gun free zones, isn’t it about time that the politicians figured out that these cowards who act out, are sissy punks who are afraid of being shot. All you needed in most of these situations is an armed good guy, to put a shot right between their eyes to stop this from continuing. Bars, Schools,”that theatre”, nd most others including Concerts do not allow anyone to “carry” on their premises. Isn’t that stupid? I remember when I had a NYC carry permit, many of the places that are now restricted in FL, were not in NYC.
      We are a nation of antiquated laws. In NY you better not leave your gun in your car, because cars get stolen in a matter of hours, “nice cars”, in Fl you are required to leave it in thecar when entering many places, that don’t allow guns. God forbid you got your gun stolen in NY, by being dumb enough to give the car thief a gun, you will never own another one. So we need more standardized laws so that common sense prevails.

      If someone is going to soot you, will a walk to their car stop this from happening ? And I would bet that many of the folks who pick up their kids on the way home from work, have a gun in their car, do you really think they are going to drop it off at home and go back? I doubt it. Not having any kids I wouldn’t know, but my one Granddaughter was in he Parkland school when the shooting went down, and my stepdaughter said she watched 5 cops stand outside for 5 minutes while the shooting was going on, and one cop was telling others not to enter the building. He’s been terminated. But they need more training, because they didn’t go in for 5 -6 minutes while shots were being fired. What would you do if your kid or grandkid was in there and the police were standing around discussing what to do next?

      1. avatar Perry says:

        In Colorado, your vehicle is considered your home. It is legal to CC and wait for your kids in your car in the school parking lot. (At least it was the last time I read the Colorado Revised Statutes. We have a Dem guv and a Dem House and Senate, so all bets are off.)

      2. avatar Darkman says:

        Nothing to do with inadequate training. More to the point the courage and desire to do the job. Damn straight it was a bad situation but that is what they signed on for. Dealing with Bad situations. Unfortunately many are guilty of failing to protect those children beyond law enforcement. The politicians who hamstring police with their rules of engagement and restrictive laws i.e. Gun Free Zones. The school administration and teachers who put their dislike for firearms ahead of the safety of the children. The Students themselves bear some responsibility also for keeping quiet about someone who acted oddly in what they were saying and posting online. Most importantly the parents who allow their children to be placed in an environment where their safety is second to the feelings and desires of those whose job it is to protect them. The dislike of firearms was placed above the safety of all involved. Regardless of how one feels about firearms they are just one more tool in the arsenal of things that can keep your child alive. Rejecting that tool simply because you don’t like it. Is a poor excuse once the children are dead.

  24. avatar Thomas Stults says:

    No law about guns has ever prevented a criminal from acting like a criminal.

    1. avatar Perry says:

      This. Criminals just be gonna criminalize.

      Ask a gun-grabber how his proposed legislation will stop someone who ignores legislation. Their head explodes and the ensuing torrent of babble-speak is quite entertaining. (I usually have to cut it short with “you’re disconnected from reality” and walk away. Otherwise, they continue to attempt to self-justify.)

  25. avatar Michael says:

    People want to be happy, even if it kills them. Money gets you prescriptions, escort services and reservation casinos. Everybody else gets theirs in the back alleys. Industrialized vice owns some politicians. The do-it-yourself nature of man cuts their bottom line. Results are war on … fill in the blank. The addition of privatized prisons and post prison supervision make selective enforcement a lucrative investment. They make bank on the front and back end of every transaction. Don’t buck the house, the house has the edge. And tobacco soaks up how much money and kills how many people each year? Legal everywhere and subsidized at the federal level. Eh, Forget about it, let’s go get us some beers…-30-

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Cool! We gonna hang with Pocahontas?

  26. avatar Ironhead says:

    Based on the last 2 times the .Gov tried to ban things and seeing the violence that it caused, I dont doubt it’s a good possiblity.

  27. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Some think “gun control” would lead to more mass shootings going on, and on, since the “control” would restrict the good folks who stop these things. Less safety, less life, but more “control.” It’s like control is the point.

  28. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

    The problem of mass shooting is not what “gun control” does to, Gun ownership “Keeping”.. though it could.
    The mass shooting problem is what “gun control” does to the “Bearing”.
    With mass shooters choosing “Gun-free” killing zones, more and more.. gun control is actually raising the kill and injury count per each incidence.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email