‘Self-Selection’ Is an Often Overlooked Factor in the Debate About Guns in America

people stand out in a crowd individual

Bigstock

By Dr. Michael S. Brown

Self-selection as it applies to the debate on gun rights in America may not be what you think it is. Let me explain the context.

One of the obvious missions of the anti-gun lobby is to magnify the negative consequences of widespread gun ownership in America.  As you probably know, they do this in several ways.

Most notably, while discussing rare and highly disturbing crimes like mass murders of children, they throw out a number that represents all types of gun deaths. This distracts attention from the fact that most gun deaths are suicides and most gun murders are criminals killing each other. Misdirection is a cheap trick, but it keeps working well enough that it’s been a go-to tactic of anti-gunners for years.

Another tactic is to compare U.S. gunshot deaths with a carefully selected group of “developed” countries. If you cherry pick the data carefully, you can make the U.S. look like a very dangerous place that is desperately in need of more authoritarian gun laws.

A more realistic measure of violence is to compare our country with all countries and use the overall murder rate rather than just gun deaths. If you do that, the U. S. is right in the middle of the pack.

There is no tsunami of death—our murder rate has been declining for decades. If you look beyond the primary source of homicides, gangs and drug criminals in certain cities, America is one of the safest countries in the world. Not bad for a stressed-out, multi-ethnic society with lots of freedom and from 350 to 600 million guns in civilian hands.

So, with such a huge number of guns in a turbulent society, why isn’t our overall murder rate sky-high?

One reason is never mentioned in gun law discussions. No, I’m not going to throw statistics at you. This theory is strictly based on my own observations, what I call “ground truth.”

Everyone in my large circle of friends knows I’m a gun guy. I’ve taken many novices to the range to introduce them to safe gun handling. It’s one of my passions. I’ve had many of them chat with me privately about their personal feelings regarding gun ownership.

I’ve learned that people generally know when they are not suited to taking on that responsibility. I’d love to have a dollar for every time someone told me they don’t trust themselves to keep a gun around.

They worry about their temper, their ability to react appropriately in an emergency, their use of intoxicants, their relationship issues and other factors that affect their mental state.

The biggest reason we don’t have an astronomical rate of gun deaths is simple: people generally choose the best option for their own circumstances without orders from the nanny state. This “self-selection contradicts the idea that we need to be micro-managed for our own safety.

As a result of self-selection, much of what the anti-gun lobby claims they want to accomplish has already been done individually by the people themselves at zero cost. No tax money expended, no freedoms restricted, no need for state-mandated mental health exams.

 

This theory of self-selection is one of several important reasons that gun control laws  have no measurable effect. It’s been ignored in the gun control debate, probably because it can’t be weaponized in the war on liberty and our civil rights.

 

Dr. Michael S. Brown is a pragmatic Libertarian environmentalist who has been studying the gun debate for three decades and considers it a fascinating way to learn about human nature and politics.

This article originally appeared at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission. 

comments

  1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Very true. This doesn’t even have to be permanent. I’ve offloaded my guns to a friend and vice versa when the circumstances of life were towards the ugly side and the drama of keeping them around was a bad idea.

    1. avatar DrewN says:

      Yep, for a few years I ran a college town bar and our house was the party house. Did not feel comfortable keeping firearms in that environment,so I didn’t. Totally worth it,because never ending stream of attractive young ladies.

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        That is the most immature thing I have read about your disloyalty to our second amendment rights. People like you are the reason they have arguments in the first place. Irresponsible and untrustworthy. Rather than give up your bad party habits, you chose to get rid of your second amendment rights to enable your bad decisions. Pathetic.

        1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          WTF is wrong with what he did? He knew what he wanted to do and he got guns out of the equation voluntarily and without pushing bad laws on the rest of us.

          Many times in life I have gone the other way and not done things I might have been tempted because I was armed or had.

          You hypocrites that like to pass judgment on others are just as bad as the antis.

        2. avatar sparkyinWI says:

          There was nothing wrong with the choice he made. He made it for himself, did not go ask or lobby for laws. Guns rights means as a choice folks have the right to own one and to not own one. And at various stages or situations in their lives they may choose one option over the other. This is exactly what the founders would have envisioned.

        3. avatar DrewN says:

          LOL, I moved them to a safe at my hunting buddy’s house, I didn’t sell them off or anything. But keeping guns in that house would have been extremely stupid. Large numbers of partying 20-30 somethings and guns do not mix .

        4. avatar jwtaylor says:

          B.D.

          Decaf

        5. avatar Matt in FL says:

          All he was doing was relocating his guns, not getting rid of them entirely. That’s hardly disloyal. And even if he did get rid of them, that’s still not disloyalty. You do realize that the 2A right to keep and bear doesn’t require ownership, right? It’s still your choice whether or not to do so.

          Also, “bad party habits?” That’s awfully judgmental. What business is it of yours to make that call?

        6. avatar B.D. says:

          Giving up your right to self-defense so you can have nightly keggers at your house is NOT what our forefathers envisioned in the 2A. Stop trying to justify irresponsiblity.

          The red flag supporters here are in full swing. Give em up.

        7. avatar UpInArms says:

          ” Giving up your right to self-defense so you can have nightly keggers at your house ”

          Nobody gave up any rights. Voluntarily moving guns to a safe place– or any place for that matter– does not equate with a forfeiture of one’s rights. The guns can be retrieved at any time, moved to another location, returned to where they came from, or sold or given away, or even destroyed. The key word here is “voluntary”, and just as a gun is merely a tool in the hands of a human, owning (or immediately possessing) a gun is merely exercising a right that exists totally independently of any guns, and not owning a gun in no way qualifies as a forfeiture of that right.

          So, BD, get your head out of your butt.

        8. avatar Warlocc says:

          B.D. sounds like an undercover anti.

        9. avatar B.D. says:

          Explain to me this, all you VOLUNTARY right to self defense waivers:

          How do you protect yourself at the very moment you need to?

          “Hold on, I stashed my guns down the street at my aunts house, can you not rob me right now? I know everyone just left the party and you waited until the perfect moment but I fucked up and brought this knife to a gun fight, so gimme a chance mmm k”

          or

          “Yes, mr. road rager, please, cut me off and jump out of the car with your weapon of choice, but can you wait until I get into my driveway, because I didn’t feel safe driving with my gun in the truck before this so I keep it at home in the safe. I know I did nothing to antagonize you, but you seem content on harming me, I just can’t defend myself currently.”

          Sad that I have to use crayon for you red flaggers. If you don’t know why you got the gun, to defend yourself, and would rather not keep the gun because you don’t trust yourself or those around you – because you probably cannot keep your mouth shut about your gun collection or have a plan for safe storage – then you need to reconsider why the fuck you invested in a gun in the first place. Self Defense. Above all else. When you remove the sole purpose of the gun because you lack the discipline to realize that your actions have consequences and your current state of affairs as a gun owner should probably be reconsidered, then you are the problem. Not the gun. SO, I say again, what’s more important? Having house parties, letting a road rager have the upper hand even in a situation where you never so much as made eye contact or antagonized at all, OR being disciplined enough to carry every day and know that if you defend yourself you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt to those who will question it. Remove yourself from the situations, not the tool. Pretty straightforward.

        10. avatar Don from CT says:

          You really don’t get it. There is no “disloyalty”. He wasn’t working to disarm others.

          He simply made a choice. A choice that the law allows, to disarm himself for a short period.

          The 2A is about the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. He did nothing to prevent anyone from doing that.

        11. avatar Mike H says:

          BD, most of what drives us 2A supporters is the idea that people think it’s their right to get into other people’s business. You should consider riding your hobby horse somewhere else before your blood pressure gets the best of you.

        12. avatar doesky says:

          Sounds like the guy prioritized puzzy over guns. I can’t fault him for that. The goal is always both in one day but I know which one I choose if there’s only going to be one.

        13. avatar DrewN says:

          And you know what? I never had to make that phone call after a big kid did something stupid. And since you could shoot in the backyard of that house I’m not sure I wouldn’t have been that stupid guy.

    2. avatar Fully Involved says:

      The majority of anti-gunners are not worried about responsible people like you; they are worried about irresponsible people. Their issue basically boils down to the fact that they can’t accept that there are forces in life that are beyond their control.
      As gun owners, we have accepted this invariable truth and can move onto the next step in which we prepare for and respond to these forces in an active manner (including, but not limited to, arming ourselves). Rather than accept this truth, anti-gunners go in the exact opposite direction and passively* scramble to pass as many laws as possible in a desperate hope to regain some degree of control. Inevitably they will realize they ‘still’ don’t have the control they desire and either (1) pass even more laws or (2) delude themselves into believing it ‘is’ working and take comfort in their false sense of security (until reality violently reminds them otherwise and the vicious cycle repeats itself).

      *In a sense anti-gunners are hypocrites because they criticize the irresponsibility of others while accepting no responsibility themselves. This is apparent in their language when they say they want ‘someone’ to do something (rarely do you hear them say ‘we’ need to do something). They lie to themselves when they say passing a law or relying on someone else is “[actively] doing something”. It isn’t. When they rely on laws for their safety, they are being passive (despite all their marching and hollering). Furthermore, they’re being inefficient because laws don’t apply to criminals and the police are not legally responsible for an individual’s safety. “Doing something” includes arming yourself, training, accepting responsibility and ownership for your own (and your dependent’s) safety and following through with viable action.

      1. avatar joefoam says:

        You nailed it with your statement regarding personal responsibility. It seems that nobody wants to take personal responsibility for anything.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        Here is what the anti-gunners are afraid of:

        “Edward Terry of Overland, Missouri, was charged on Tuesday with making a terrorist threat after he sent an email to one of PrideSTL’s parade planners saying he would “come to pride fest with my guns to kill every gay person I can before I kill myself,” according to the paper.”

        As long as old white guys are willing to use guns to enforce their prejudice we will have calls for gun control.

  2. avatar Ronnie says:

    Yep, the reason I dont car carry. I would hate to have something escalate because I was carrying.

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      On the flip side, after I started carrying every day I noticed I became a lot more patient and forgiving of other drivers. I used to lay on the horn from time to time and use other methods to let idiot drivers know how I felt. I don’t do that stuff anymore.

      1. avatar bob says:

        I found as I got older and more responsible with the every day carry that those little things like road rage and drivers riding your bumper or passing you in a no passing area, etc… bother me less as I grasp the concept that it has no impact on me if they’re in a hurry to go somewhere or if they know how I feel about them.
        It’s better to slow down and drop back or take another route than to battle it out and risk death or dismemberment over some guy you don’t know.
        This works everywhere, there are a lot of dumb, angry, lazy, sloppy, ignorant and mean people out there and if played tactful enough you can happily skate right by them without it affecting your general life.

        1. avatar AGuyWithAGun says:

          +1

        2. avatar Ardent says:

          This is true of confident, happy people with or with out guns. When secure in yourself, and happy with your life, you tend to see toxic, stupid people for what they are : generally an annoyance to be avoided, at worst a temporary problem to be solved.

          People who engage with road ragers, or idiotic trolls on line, or who just have to let everyone know their opinion on every topic are not generally self-secure, happy people.

          Lack of self confidence and personal peace is a absolutely the greatest driver of strife that ever was. Once you have these qualities: you know you’re a good, decent person, and you know that you’re doing the right things, it becomes almost impossible to care what some moron thinks or does, right up until you have to do something about it to avoid real harm.

          This extends into the political sphere as well. Many, if not most, people are happy in their daily life, see little need for any fundamental change, and are fairly unconcerned with what others do, so long as it doesn’t directly affect them.

          Seen through this lens, the left/right political divide makes a lot more sense.

          If you’re happy with who you are and how your life is going, you’re going to spend most of your time preserving the good time you’re having, and have little time for either engaging with unhappy idiots or worrying about things that don’t really effect you personally.

      2. avatar Cory C. says:

        I’ve heard that called The Zen of the Gun.

      3. avatar Jon in CO says:

        It’s amazing how the ability to end someone’s life or severely hurt them changes your perspectives and how you act in your day-to-day life.

        It takes an absolutely ridiculous and stupid thing to even raise my blood pressure anymore. Most things are just not an issue.

    2. avatar James W Crawford says:

      First rule.

      If you carry a gun, wave with all five fingers.

      Second rule.

      If you carry a gun, do not allow yourself to become angry because someone is waving with only one finger.

      1. avatar sparkyinWI says:

        +1

  3. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

    I am a firm believer in the Law of Natural Selection. Mother Nature selects the stupid ones to die early so as not to degrade the gene pool.

    It is also my belief that outside of a few exceptions, liberals are quite stupid, especially in their snowflake phase. It’s a good thing for them that they self-select not to own guns, otherwise the slightest little insult would make them turn the guns on themselves after discovering they are totally unable to cope with adversity and reality….

  4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    [This theory of self-selection has] been ignored in the gun control debate, probably because it can’t be weaponized in the war on liberty and our civil rights.

    Saying it another way, gun-grabbers and statists ignore this theory because it works against their agenda, which is consolidating power and money in their hands.

  5. avatar Mad says:

    Liberals are killing each other fast enough maybe they aren’t lost forever try Jesus for once

  6. avatar strych9 says:

    “This theory of self-selection is one of several important reasons that gun control laws have no measurable effect. It’s been ignored in the gun control debate, probably because it can’t be weaponized in the war on liberty and our civil rights.”

    It hasn’t been weaponized for two reasons. 1)It’s facts not feelz and therefore a harder sell for antis and 2) it involves nuance they don’t want to get bogged down in because this sword is sharp on both edges.

    Yes, honest, responsible people tend to self-select against gun ownership. Violent nutbars and criminals self-select in the opposite direction, acquiring firearms or other weapons specifically to use them. Adam Lanza, James Holmes and the Bataclan shooters fighters all have this in common. They didn’t trip, fall down and shoot a bunch of with a rifle. They acquired the rifle specifically to shoot those people.

    One of those groups vastly outnumbers the other, enter that inconvenient nuance, stage right.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Err, excuse me? “Yes, honest, responsible people tend to self-select against gun ownership. ”

      I take exception to your comment above. I’ve owned and used weapons for over a half century and I am not a “violent nutbar”, nor a “criminal” and neither is anyone of my acquaintance. I’ll give you the opportunity to either apologize or explain what you are accusing honest, responsible people of.

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        You read it wrong. He said good people don’t keep guns if they can’t handle the responsibility. You were being quite unfair in interpreting his comment that way.

        1. avatar burley says:

          well, I sure hope you’re right about the failed interpretation. Maybe that added detail would have helped to make it clear. I issue a formal retraction of my previous reply if this is the case.

        2. avatar GunnyGene says:

          I quoted strych9’s comment. There was no “interpretation” on my part. I also gave him the opportunity to explain what he meant. So far no reply. How is that being unfair?

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Gunny Gene, you appear to have unintentionally taken strcy9s words out of context. If that once sentence you’ve quoted was all that was there, I could see you point. But it isn’t.

      2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        If you read his hundreds if not thousands of other comments you will not find one that has the gist you just read into/attributed to this one. Sure he worded it awkwardly but if you write enough comments one will eventually be problematically worded and misinterpreted.

      3. avatar No one of consequence says:

        2 x 2 options: would or would not be responsible with a gun; and, honest or dishonest with himself.

        I read S9’S comment as “someone who is honest with himself, (and knows and admits to himself that he can’t trust himself with a gun), and responsible, will self-select against gun ownership.”

        Someone honest with himself, responsible and can trust himself with a gun, may decide for other reasons to not own a gun; that’s a separate issue and discussion.

    2. avatar burley says:

      And here I was beginning to think that you were a reasonable, well informed individual. So much for that thought. The vast majority of the adults I associate with are peaceful, productive, law-abiding concealed carriers who prove this statement wrong.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      If, for some reason, my comments were unclear (which apparently they were to some folks out there) then I will issue this clarification:

      For those people who are honest and responsible folks, those who don’t see themselves as able to handle firearms ownership for whatever reason tend to self-select away from gun ownership. IOW, responsible people are honest with themselves (and to some extent others) by engaging in actions which they believe they can handle safely while avoiding situations, actions and objects which they do not feel competent to deal with in a safe manner.

      I would have thought this was fairly obvious based on the context, but apparently I was incorrect in that assumption. So, if you found my comments to be confusing I apologize.*

      It was not my intention for anyone to infer that I meant responsible people generally eschew gun ownership.

      *If however, on the other hand, my comments resulted in you getting some bad feelz then I do not apologize for that. That’s strictly a “you” issue and something you should probably work on. I would venture to point out that this was likely due to a lack of decent parenting and/or education in your life and I would suggest that figure out which of these is applicable and express your displeasure with the level of educational services you received by writing a strongly worded letter to the party(s) responsible.

      Thank you and have a wonderful day.

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        Claification accepted, and that will suffice. Thank you. I knew you could speak for yourself. No “bad feelz” at all. 🙂

    4. avatar Richard says:

      Those violent people who self select to own weapons – are a problem. In fact, that TINY minority of people, is most of the problem. The laws which claim to attempt to disarm that tiny group – do nothing to protect us from them. The only way to protect yourself from that type of person is to shoot back at them.

      There are two groups – and one far outnumbers the other. The group that far outnumbers the other are the group of responsible people, who either decide to own guns, or choose not to own guns. You, strych9, need to actually look at the situation, and realize that passing more restrictive gun laws has never done anything to stop criminals, while actually doing a lot to disarm those who would protect themselves and others from those criminals.

  7. avatar WARFAB says:

    Scott Adams has proposed making a rule that Democrats aren’t allowed to have guns. The Democrats generally oppose gun ownership, so not allowing them to have guns would achieve their goal of reducing the number of people with access to firearms in the US. Achieving the disarmament of the general population faces huge legal and practical hurdles. But, the Democrats all voluntarily disarming would move them closer to their disarmament goals while avoiding partisan political fights.

    Plus, they’d be hypocrites for opposing such a measure. If gun ownership is such a bad thing, let the Democrats lead the way and deny themselves access to firearms.

    1. avatar Bob Jones says:

      Anti-gun persons should have large “GUN FREE HOME” signs by the front door of their house to spout their opinion for all to see.

    2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      This should include any non-governmental security as well as any “status” based security. e.g. POs turn their guns in at shifts end, there’s no additional body guards for pro gun control Congresscritters etc.

    3. avatar Eli2016 says:

      “If gun ownership is such a bad thing, let the Democrats lead the way and deny themselves access to firearms.”

      Not a bad idea. If Dumbocrats are that stupid then it should be a no-brainer for them. Pun intended.

    4. avatar James W Crawford says:

      As an added benefit, 2/3s of gun homicides are committed by one particular, Democrat core constituency. They all look like Obama’s bastard sons.

  8. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Dr. John Lott at the Crime Research Center has produced a map of the United States broken down by counties. And it shows where the most murders occur in the United States. And where there are NO murders at all. If you live in rural Idaho or Montana or Colorado you have a very safe place to be indeed. However if you live in large Urban centers such as New York City, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Memphis. You are in serious Jeopardy.

    This map and its information should be passed around to anybody who thinks we have too many guns in the United States.

    1. avatar grumpster says:

      Yes if you don’t live in one of those counties which is less than one percent of the total counties in the US, then you live in one of the safest places in the world. Ironic that almost all those counties and cities within them are run by large majorities of democrat politicians who love to use the violence that happens under their failed policies as a reason to disarm law abiding citizens. Chicago has not even had a republican in the ballot for mayor in several years.

    2. avatar RidgeRunner says:

      Well, my county went WAY up when a guy down the road killed eight people—blunt force trauma.

  9. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Good article. I think it’s constructive to remind People Of The Gun that actual statistics on things like gun deaths are decidedly on our side and, most important, decidedly on the side of our constitution and the 2nd. Amendment. This is all good—for us. It is, however, meaningless to the True Believers who identify with the gun control movement. They believe what they believe because they WANT to believe—that the 2nd Amendment’s guarantees are incompatible with a modern society, that people who own guns are culturally distinct from themselves, are socially deviant (and therefore immoral) because they insist on owning guns which—in their collective definition of the situation—are inherently evil and the source of much dysfunction in civil American society.

    True Believers are perfectly content to conflate gun-deaths from suicide and gun-deaths among criminals and then generalize them in their narrative that it is gun-ownership itself that is the “real” problem that must be immediately addressed. They do this because the gun control narrative aligns with their own anxieties and frustrations. Because of this they are are much more interested in the metaphoric value of misused data than they are in truth. They don’t care if there really isn’t the “tsunami of death” descending on America that they like to proclaim: they just want to rid our country of guns and if concocting a bit of fiction helps the cause, well, so be it.

  10. avatar LibertyToad says:

    They love to point out that, for example, the UK has fewer guns deaths than the US. When I hear that I also point out that the UK has far fewer defensive guns usages as well. It kills their argument.

    If they are not looking at both sides “of the equation” they are not considering all of the information.

  11. avatar B.D. says:

    This comment section is full of pathetic excuses for people. They lack the discipline to EDC, so they chose not to carry, and admit their irresponsibility to do so as if it’s the mature thing to do.

    You are the reason these anti-gunners have arguments. Just give your guns to the king you fucking red coats. If you cannot maintain discipline at your house or in your car and feel your best option is to not have a gun, you should never have one to begin with.

    Fuck off tyrants.

    1. avatar 80D says:

      And STAY THE FUCK OFF MY LAWN

  12. avatar MojoMedicineMan says:

    “Law Man”
    Burt Lancaster

    “The Rifleman”
    Episode where Mark’s friend gets accidentally killed after Mark’s disobeying his father’s rule, while wrestling over the rifle with big dumb kid who wants to look at it. It’s all in there..

    1. avatar Widdler says:

      Bro, you stalking me? I just watched that episode last night, weird how no punishments were handed out even if it was an accident. Not in today’s world.

  13. avatar LifeSavor says:

    I think the anti-gun crowd is not monolithic. Some are simply afraid to be around guns. They do not understand guns or gun people. Others seem to buy into the ant-gun rhetoric because they feel superior in their ‘progressive-ism’ and see gun ownership as the mark of inferior conservative. The first group, those who are afraid because they do not understand, can be persuaded. We can get some of them out to the range to learn and have some fun. The second group may be too dogmatic, too ‘superior’; it is unlikely they will converse with us; they will only talk at us.

    The first group is not polarized; if we hold the door open, some will walk through. The second group is highly polarized; they hate guns and hate makes them blind and deaf.

    Gun ownership has serious responsibilities. But it is also interesting, challenging, and fun. And essential in protecting those whom we love. In the end, that is why we will win.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      we want to retain the right of choice…they want to make it for you….

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Exactly!

  14. avatar GS650G says:

    The Left is incapable of believing people can manage their own lives and decisions without disastrous results

  15. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    This article is your typical juggle and ignore the facts pro gun view. The real facts are we had 1,300 children get their brains blown out because we have no safe storage laws that prevent shiftless, lazy and ignorant people from leaving loaded guns laying out for children to pick up and either cripple themselves for life or kill themselves with. Most civilized nations have such laws but in Capitalvania kids are considered expendable especially when they get blown away at school because any criminal or nut case can buy a gun with no vetting , no restrictions and no questions asked. Remember money is the real God of Capitalvania and the Republicans prove that ever day not only with the gun carnage but with roiling back Obama’s clean air and water act which has now been trashed so the Gangster Criminal Republicans can drown us all in cancer causing pollution but don’t sweat it with the kids they will get blown away by bullets long before they die of cancer. So why sweat the poisoned air and water, remember Capitalvania is the real god worshiped here.

    We need Red Flag Laws to take guns from the mentally disturbed and violent and the right wing religious terrorists.

    We need vetting of all guns to keep States with lax gun laws from funneling tens of thousands of guns into States and Big Cities with tough laws

    We need safe storage laws to prevent theft and prevent 1,300 kids from accidentally being killed by guns each year.

    We need mandatory firearms purchase cards that are issued after a person passes a sanity test proving he is mentally competent to own a dangerous weapon.

    Since the Far Right has fought all this low key common sense laws the majority of non gun owning Americans are now fed up to the gills and will demand laws that actually outlaw and confiscate guns because the Far Right previously had a chance to do something without confiscation and outlawing guns but chose to do nothing and shoot themselves permanently in the foot. Brilliant they could not have guaranteed such laws would be passed if they had wanted them to begin with.

    But when was a Conservative not their own worst enemy. They go bankrupt every day over health care and still do not seem to get it that Republican Criminal Congressmen have State Paid For Socialistic Health Care and the common man Does Not and he then dies or goes bankrupt. When you compare a Conservative to Neanderthal Man Neanderthal Man was a genius.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      U.S. gun homicides in 2017 were 14,542 people

      Great Britain gun homicides in 2017 were 31 people

      The U.S. has 5 times the population of Great Britain but the U.S. has 469 times the gun homicides

      The truth is self evident, gun control reduces gun homicides period. And remember the Las Vegas mass murder or the Florida night club mass murder could never have killed 60 people with a knife because he would have had the shit beat out him just as the bridge terrorists did in Great Britain when they tried using knives on the bar patrons.

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        And Greenland had 3… which puts their rate directly below ours at 5.31% (America is 5.35%). You can list numbers all day, but if you are going to do it, you should do it with the use of propper math. At least act educated. Population density plays a major role in the statistics you failed to mention. Russia, which does not allow people to carry guns, has a rate of 10.81% and 1/3rd the population of the US. You can wikipedia it yourself, sort by rate, and have a laugh at how terrible you are at proving your agenda to be factual, and also chuckle at the fact you failed high school level math. We are all laughing too. But we aren’t laughing with you, we are laughing at you.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          “And Greenland had 3… which puts their rate directly below ours at 5.31% (America is 5.35%). You can list numbers all day, but if you are going to do it, you should do it with the use of propper math”

          Your figures are smoke and mirrors to mask the honorific facts. Here is the truth U.S. homicide rate with firearms is 10.2 per 100,000 population while Great Britain’s is only .2 . Now try and lie your way out of this one or use more smoke and mirrors. Now who is the math moron. You bud, you.

        2. avatar B.D. says:

          Yes, GB has a better ratio. That said, the other countries I listed have the same effect. You are comparing one country. How about comparing them all? Like I said, the info is right there on wikipedia. Tons of “Gun Free” countries with higher ratio’s than both the US, and GB, thus proving your point to be non factual. BTW, I never lied, I never said GB didn’t have a better ratio, I simply exposed your logic to the rest of the world that practices what you preach and fails to match the numbers you say exist in countries with gun control. K? Bai.

        3. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          “You are comparing one country. How about comparing them all?”

          I could but what would be the use. You would just respond ” I have already made up my mind so do not confuse me with the facts”,

          Here are a few examples compared to the U.S. with a murderous 10.0 per 100,000 population

          Japan 0.0
          Germany 1.
          Austria 1.1
          Italy 1.3
          New Zealand 1.2
          Spain .6

          I could do on and on but sane people get the picture and are able to fathom simple math. Where does that leave you????

      2. avatar Someone says:

        And he couldn’t run over 80 people with a stolen truck like the asshole in France, right?

        Only “dangerous weapon” is the one that doesn’t work properly.

        So, UK, where hand guns are totally illegal and rifles are very strictly regulated has less murders committed with firearms? Mind blowing! I bet there was also more cases of camel bites in Marrocco then in USA.

    2. avatar MojoMedicineMan says:

      Wow.. Dont talk stats about Great Britain to me!
      They ruled over eight continents with an iron fist at one time in history. Winston Churchill was a great man, I suggest you read up on him and what he contributed to the world with our God, blood, guns and guts.
      I will not allow my 2nd amendment rights to be threatened or removed because of another person’s ignorant victim mentality, lack of common sense, etc.
      You need to move out of America and make room for passengers of like mindedness.
      History is not your forte.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        “History is not your forte.”

        You proved you are the one who is the History mental midget and that is giving you more credit than you deserve. The majority of Industrialized Nation on earth that have decades ago vetted all gun purchases, had red flag laws, safe storage laws, and gun owner i.d. cards which often include a mental test to prove they are sane enough to own a deadly weapon. None of these laws were aimed at taking any guns away or any ones rights that were not a criminal or a lunatic. Now what part of this do you not understand.

        1. avatar Mad says:

          Vlad what you know in reality is very little what you don’t know is a lot yep I’m sure of it your still an idiot

        2. avatar B.D. says:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler

          Classic. Someone arguing murder rates, with their alias mimicking respect towards a psychopath who murdered hundreds of thousands and impaled his victims. Can’t make up the irony if I tried.

          What country is your work/school visa from?

        3. avatar Someone says:

          B. D. Dracula here realized that nobody was reading the mindless and repetitive drivel under he posted under “crisco kid” handle. He, maybe subconsciously, picked a name that best mirrored his dreams and ambitions- tyrranical dictator who tortured and cruelly murdered his opponents. At least we know what kind of person we’re dealing with.

  16. avatar Will Flatt says:

    The USA drops to the bottom of the list of homicides when you remove all the Demonrat-controlled, antigun cities where gun ownership/carry is highly restricted. That speaks volumes, too.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      “The USA drops to the bottom of the list of homicides when you remove all the Demonrat-controlled, antigun cities where gun ownership/carry is highly restricted. That speaks volumes, too.”

      It speaks volumes about your ignorance as the Chicago study proved that guns are funneled into it by States that have lax gun laws and the average age of a weapon used in crime is 11 years old and has passed through many hands totally not vetted and not all of them used in crime are stolen either rather they are second hand guns that changed hands face to face in more than one state and or city. Now what part of this do you not under stand.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        And I forgot to mention that

        Murder is the second leading cause of death among Americans aged 15 to 24, the study found. The research also showed that murder was the third leading cause of death among those aged 25-34. Compared to those in the same age groups in other wealthy countries, Americans aged 15-24 are 49 times more likely to be the victim of a gun-related murder. For those aged 25-34, that number is 32 times more likely, the research revealed.

      2. avatar Mad says:

        Vlad so stupid and still an idiot

      3. avatar Someone says:

        If the problem with Chicago’s murder rate is that “guns are funneled into it by States that have lax gun laws”, how come those lax gun laws states don’t have murder rates at least as high as Chicago? It’s almost as if it’s more important what kind of people lives there, not what laws forbid or allow to buy or own.

        You can be sure that if all firearms evaporated by some miracle this moment, the same people will still be running around killing and maiming tomorrow.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          “You can be sure that if all firearms evaporated by some miracle this moment, the same people will still be running around killing and maiming tomorrow.”

          History has already proven you wrong. You cannot get onto a tall building and slaughter 60 some people at long range of 400 yards like the nut case did in Los Angeles .

          And in Britain where terrorists went into a bar to kill the people with knives last year they got the shit beat out of them with flying chairs and broken beer bottles.

  17. avatar MojoMedicineMan says:

    Vlad has not refuted one statement.
    Yet has humiliated himself, herself or itself.
    Whatever a Vlad is, lol.
    Troll comes to mind, no longer worth squat.
    Bye now Vlad, be sure and keep your calculator charged up or you may have a nervous breakdown. Perhaps watch basketball on tv and keep stats?
    Will be sure to ignore you from now on.

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