Worldwide – U.S. Ranks 1st in Gun Ownership and 28th in Gun Homicide, Ron Paul says Resent and Resist

By on January 10, 2013

by Ezra Van Auken

Since Sandy Hook’s devastating shooting, there have been discussions from everyday citizens, politicians, media pundits and political organizations on how to resolve the problem that has taken mainstream media spotlight in the past year; the problem? Shooting sprees, which have occurred in malls, movie theatres and schools.

One of the trends that has followed in the wake of Sandy Hook’s shooting is misinformation or inaccurate reporting on gun-related statistics. To cut it short, CNN’s Piers Morgan in particular has led the way for pro-gun law advocates and has done a great job at displaying statistics, which are demeaning. For instance, Morgan continues to claim that Britain, a country that happens to have firearms banned, only produced 35 gun-related homicides in 2011.

Sure, but looking at the overall picture, Britain is actually second in the European Union when it comes to crime rates. The UK also has the fifth highest robbery rate, and fourth highest burglary rate; to top it off, the EU declared Britain the most violent country out of all European countries.

As SLN reported, “However, according to the CATO Institute and FBI statistics, when guns were banned in the UK, armed robbery rates jumped 40%. In Australia, armed robbery rates increased 40%. The statistics also show that the majority of robberies in the UK happen when people are home, which is 50% of the time.”

Interestingly, Britain’s violent crimes rate is 2,034 per 100,000 people compared to the United States’ 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

As Fox19’s Ben Swann pointed out, the U.S. has the highest gun ownership in the world – 88 guns per 100 people. Although the U.S. has the highest gun ownership, America is 28th in the world when it comes to gun homicides; 2.97 per 100,000 people.

Luckily, Representatives in D.C. like Thomas Massie from Kentucky are taking the stand against gun grabbers and lawmakers who think reforming firearms is a reasonable idea. The freshman Congressman proposed a bill recently that would repeal all federal “gun-free school zones”, Massie explained, “Gun free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals.”

A prominent figure in the Liberty movement and a man who helped Rep. Massie find his path to D.C., former Congressman Ron Paul spoke out against the idea of gun grabbing on Wednesday during the Alex Jones show. Paul said regarding Obama signing a gun-related executive order, “Well, it should go without saying, he’s has gone way too far. It should also go without saying, he’s acting with the use of illegal violence.”

The former Rep. detailed, “I’ve always assumed the line in the sand will be drawn, if the federal agent marches in, unannounced and they say, well give me your gun and give me your gold. I don’t think we’ll do that, calmly. I think the American people will highly resent it and resist.”

Image Reference

About Admin


  1. Marc

    January 10, 2013 at 3:25 am

    Gun free zones are more appropriately labeled defense free zones.

    • DJK

      January 11, 2013 at 2:57 pm

      Or “Target Rich Environments”.

  2. jake

    January 10, 2013 at 5:57 am

    It won’t happen like that. They won’t just march up to the door and say Give Me Your Guns! It will happen over the next 20 years. Like this:

    1) Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Theater Shooting, Columbine, and others will make their way into the public school’s social studies textbook showing that “guns cause violence.”

    2) Meanwhile, laws will be tightened – first they made it illegal to own automatic rifles, then they’ll make it illegal to own semi-auto including handguns and assault rifles. The only legal guns left will be hunting rifles – a poor defense weapon.

    3) They will make full gun registration – which is practically already in place today.

    4) The cost of hunting licenses will increase which will in turn deter people from hunting and buying hunting rifles.

    5) As this generation grows up learning how “dangerous” guns are, they will be persuaded to voluntarily give up their guns like Austria in WWII.

    6) Those who do not give up their guns will have them forcefully taken from them – after all, they’re all registered which makes it very easy to know who has them.

    The end.

    • The One

      January 10, 2013 at 4:02 pm

      I think your incorrect in your assumption on this. The Elites are getting scared because people are waking up from their mind controlled slumber. They are going to force the issue at a more rapid pace. I am afraid they would prefer to start a bloody civil war to totally destroy America and remove the last hope of mankind getting free from their tyranny…

      • aOd

        January 10, 2013 at 8:43 pm

        I think you’re right…Im thinkin complete gun ban by the end of the year if they get this AWB rolling. If they pass that the way it stands now, they’ll realize that they can do anything.

      • Ricky

        January 12, 2013 at 12:59 am

        there can be no civil war between pro gun and anti gunners.. The anti gunners have no way to defend themselves

    • Bilbo

      January 10, 2013 at 7:07 pm

      You are right on the money…a slow creep. Some of the stage has already been set.

    • Michael Anderson

      January 11, 2013 at 11:57 am

      Your wrong. That is exactly what happened after Hurricane Katrina. The National Guard was used to go house to house to collect guns, and was given to the order to shot if anyone refused. No one refused, and it was hard to since they came with 20 people in swat gear busting in your door.

  3. Who would think

    January 10, 2013 at 9:17 am

    We rank #28 in gun homicide? Maybe if we only consider homicide within our own border. If we extend this world wide we would probably be #1… why aren’t you calculating the people we kill overseas?

    • David

      January 10, 2013 at 11:01 am

      Probably because those deaths have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand…

    • Lori edens

      January 10, 2013 at 11:55 am

      your kidding right? what kind of asinine comment is that? What people overseas are you talking about? You sound like you think americans are a bunch of warmongers picking on the world!! sounds like you need a new place to live. I’ll help youpack!

      • Joey

        January 10, 2013 at 9:38 pm

        Americans are a bunch of war mongers and we do pick on the world

        • guy fawkes

          January 12, 2013 at 2:56 pm

          mmmm at the time, muslims had displayed no intent to attack america and we trained the afghanis to defend their country from a foreign invasion by the ussr which was bent on world domination. get yer history straight, jack!

      • Jacob

        January 10, 2013 at 10:53 pm

        Americans are ignorant warmongers, the only reason I live here is because it’s so damn easy to make money. I have no problem giving up a little of the money I make so other people can eat and live decent lives. If you are complaining about the economy it’s probably because you are too stupid to figure out how to make money on your own. Here’s something interesting, Republicans states have a much higher gun death per capita rate than democrat states. Want more? The states that value religion more (Republican states) have been shown to be less educated.

        Bottom line, American patriots are idiots and I cant wait until I retire at 40 and move to a country worth living in.

        • Junior E

          January 11, 2013 at 4:50 am

          Not all American patriots are idiots, that’s an ignorant statement, equal to the ignorance that “Lori edens” said when he/she said “THEY” started the war.

        • JB03

          January 11, 2013 at 11:46 am

          Perhaps you should give up that money sooner rather than later you ingrate…why wait until you are 40? Answer that. There’s a reason you make more money here…namely b/c we have an economy propped up by defense spending. So get off your ignorantly high horse and go make less money someplace else if you are going to keep complaining about the very thing that brought you to this country in the first place…greed. Hypocrisy is the sign of a true idiot.

        • JB03

          January 11, 2013 at 12:13 pm

          And your little statistic about gun deaths per capita is a pretty easy way of making conservative states look like gun swinging killers simply because the number is completely throw off by population. Any idiot knows that the actual odds of being assaulted or killed by someone (with a gun or anything else for that matter) is far higher in large, highly populated metropolitan areas. Which by the way, are predominantly LIBERAL. Take a look at a county to county comparison of crime and you’ll see fairly quickly that crime happens in liberal counties. If you knew anything at all about this country you live in (and obviously you don’t), you would know that life here is defined far more heavily by urban and rural, not state by state. Your little statistic doesn’t do much to explain why DC, the most liberal of liberal districts in this nation, with its former restrictions on gun ownership, ranked at the top of the murder rate scale for years and years. Then there’s Detroit…also a blue state…hmmm?

        • Michael Anderson

          January 11, 2013 at 12:28 pm

          Hmm, you have it wrong. The biggest gun deaths areas are Chicago, Washington, D.C. both Democratic states. Just about everywhere were they have gun bans in America the crime rate with guns are higher than areas without gun bans.

          Learn your facts, don’t just make them up.

          • Nicholas Aupke

            January 11, 2013 at 1:46 pm

            How about YOU read the facts. First of all Chicago is not a state, that would be Illinois which is 23 (including DC) highest. The highest places in the US where guns are used to kill people are as follows:
            DC, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Michigan, Maryland, Missouri, Arkansas and so on. Out of the top ten only three states are “liberal” as you put it, or states where people don’t think you should be able to own an AK47 or an RPG or a tank as I call them. The rest are all Pro-gun states.
            Also, it is basically the same when you look at gun assaults and gun robberies. Mostly occur in red states when you base it of off population. Also, the DC crime rate with a gun has skyrocketed since the REMOVAL of the handgun ban. Sooo, yeah. Try actual research sometime instead of listening to only FOX.
            Democrats aren’t going to take your guns, just not let you get new hand cannons, the second amendment was only meant for state and county militia, and there are more deaths in areas where guns are more readily available.

          • JB03

            January 11, 2013 at 3:14 pm

            Actually the DC crime rate dropped for several years after the gun control laws were removed. It wasn’t until 2012 that the “skyrocketed” again. But that had zero to do with gun control laws and everything to do with poor government management.

          • JB03

            January 11, 2013 at 3:17 pm

            The murder rate dropped substantially the years after the gun controls laws were removed. I’m not going to lie and say that other factors didn’t heavily influence that, but saying that crime skyrocketed in DC is just plain false.

          • JB03

            January 11, 2013 at 3:18 pm


            Maybe you should read up before you believe CNN.

          • Tristan

            January 11, 2013 at 10:06 pm


            Don’t you know that FOX is owned by ABC? You probably get some of your news there…Don’t you know that 3 moguls own most of the media outlets in America? You keep drinking the kool-aid and not understanding what Michael was trying to say, that Chicago and DC are in Demoncrat States. And the others are trying to get it through your thick skull that tho the State may be Republican, the main populace live in densely packed cities, which are mostly Liberal/Democratic. NC voted for Romney, however the densely packed cities like Raleigh and Charlotte are highly Democrat sites and tend to elect Governor’s and state officials that are also Democrat. So take the wool off your eyes and look around. Stop believing everything you are told by the media.

          • Nicholas Aupke

            January 12, 2013 at 9:29 am

            *Clap Clap* Oh man you guys got me, sorry that you could only point out one mistake in what I was saying and not on anything else. Also, thank you JB03 for that website I honestly didn’t know that was way things had been going, but from that you can see the crime rate in DC was dropping before the gun ban was removed (which was in 2008), which still kind of doesn’t prove your point. It negates one of mine, but that just means we are both wrong. I don’t listen to nearly any American news, as a large part of it is either lies or they like to ignore much of what is going on in the world.
            Point is that letting everyone have guns doesn’t make anyone safe. And truth be told it doesn’t matter if you are Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or even Green Party, there are people in your party that kill other people so why make the means for killing so easy and available. Maybe its just me and I would rather be like the UK where I may be robbed at knife point, where my chances of being stabbed to death are very slim, then here where all it takes is a pop and I’m dead. If you want to go with the “protection and uprising against the government” side of why you should be able to keep your handgun or AK and if any of you seriously believe that you, with your little pea-shooter, is going to anything against me and my friends in tanks and F-22s and fighter drones then you are very very mistaken.

          • M. E. Berube

            January 13, 2013 at 1:41 am

            Nicholas wrote: “there are more deaths in areas where guns are more readily available.”

            Um…like Maine and NH? The “Guardian” (basically as well regarded in the UK as we regard the National Enquirer here in the States) shows pretty clearly what a ludicrous statement you’ve made above is. Maine has the highest per capita firearms ownership in the Nation and very nearly the least amount of ‘gun’ crime (or any violent crime for that matter.) We can buy a firearm from the classified section of just about any newspaper in the state LEGALLY. We can openly carry a firearm anywhere in public without any permit LEGALLY. We don’t have any license or registration at all unless we want to carry concealed. If ‘guns being readily available’ caused crime or deaths, our streets would look like those of Somalia…but they don’t…because the assumption is false.

        • Jonesin9

          January 11, 2013 at 7:09 pm

          You just lied about those bogus stats… Emotional liberals ignoring facts because they feel moraly superior to take away guns from people, as if it saves lives. I honestly hope you and your family are in a situation one day where some armed hayseed hick like me has to save your ass……

        • Judge

          January 11, 2013 at 11:35 pm

          Don’t wait until 40. Just leave now… I’m sure nobody will miss you

        • DJW

          January 16, 2013 at 3:25 pm

          If you do the math, you will see that states that require background checks on purchases made at gun shows actually have slightly higher death ratios (per 100,000) than states without background check requirements at gun shows.

          I’m not sure if it’s ever been published (did the math myself), but if you average them all out, you’ll find that statistic to be accurate.

          There are just a lot of assumptions being made by paternalistic elite liberals who have probably never even held a gun in their life. Stay out of my business, just like I stay out of yours.

      • JB03

        January 11, 2013 at 11:40 am

        Perhaps the world should stop expecting us to fight their battles for them then?

    • Lori edens

      January 10, 2013 at 11:58 am

      Soundsu like you need a new place to live.. here, let me help youpack! i dont know what killings overseas your talking about…. I hope your not talking about the war.. you know the war that THEY started…

      • Jacob

        January 10, 2013 at 11:00 pm

        They started? Are you kidding? It would take me less than one second to trade 50,000 American lives to save the 300,000 Iraqi civilians our cowardly and terrified troops murdered. Every life has equal value.

        Going to war with “the middle east” over 9/11 is like going to war with all gun owners over Newtown.

        You are truly a picture perfect example of how educated our country is, and the very reason why other countries rightfully believe we are ignorant.

        • sortino

          January 11, 2013 at 5:05 am

          cowardly terrified troops? You know nothing. how about you go over there you know what those animals do to people… they put bombs in DOGS and CHILDREN they count on the fact that we will try to help them and they blow them up along with us. the kids on the street that havent eaten in days. we help because no one else want to, you think people want to be in that god forsaken desert away from home and family, helping people that want you dead? and than to come back home and see comments like this. Jacob i dont know you and I dont wish to know you, if your saying these things to get a rise out of people, it worked. if you really feel that way about our country than get out.

        • Keenan

          January 11, 2013 at 10:01 am

          How dare you blame the atrocities of war on the troops. Besides the fact that your arguments are completely unrelated to the topic of this article, I find them to be outrageously disrespectful. I would love to see you call one of our troops “cowardly and terrified” to their face. These are people willing to go to war, putting their life on the line, and facing horrors that I highly doubt you could deal with watching in a movie. All this to in the name of protecting their family, friends, and millions of fellow americans, included your ungrateful ass, they’ve never even met. These are honorable men, and I will not stand idly by as you proceed to drag their good names through the mud. What have you ever done in your life that’s so great for mankind that you seem to think you have the right to degrade the image of these brave individuals? My bet is on absolutely nothing, but you do have a right to say it because you live in a America with soldiers willing to give up their lives to protect that right. If you have a problem with the war that’s fine, I’m quite conflicted about whether or not we should be there myself, but don’t try and blame the troops for something that’s our governments decision not theirs. Or you can continue to be ignorant and blame “Americans” for the acts of the government. These are two separate entities, something that almost every pro-gun person knows and is the precise reason why we need to have guns in the hands and control of Americans, not just in the control of the government.

        • Jason

          January 11, 2013 at 12:19 pm

          Every life has equal value? Are you joking? You must be… There’s no way that a suicide bomber’s life is worth the same as anyone else’s. Your bluster does not mask your ignorance.

        • JB03

          January 11, 2013 at 12:35 pm

          You, Jacob, are truly a picture of how little you actually know about this country you have made your new “home”. If you are a naturalized citizen, was it easy keeping the hypocrite trapped inside of your head quiet while you lied as you pledged your allegiance to our flag for the first time? Does it hurt every time your American employer writes you a check and your ungrateful little soul goes a little deeper into debt? We have a little saying…”If you aren’t a part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.” The American’s I know aren’t under some false delusion that we live in some perfect country or world, but we do believe in working at finding ways to solve our problems as opposed to complaining about who’s fault it is, waiting for some government figure to fix it and then abandoning the very hand that fed us when we retire at 40 because we’re too lazy to help find a solution. Your 40th birthday will be a celebration this whole country should be taking place in. I’m even thinking about starting a petition called “Help Jacob Pack”. I guarantee your move would be a breeze. I’m sorry you won’t miss us…but hell, we won’t miss you either.

          • JB03

            January 11, 2013 at 12:37 pm

            It’s even worse for me to think that maybe this has always been your “home” Jacob. Then you are truly an ingrate.

        • Nicholas Aupke

          January 11, 2013 at 2:01 pm

          I’m just going to say I know where you are coming from in this, but seriously you phrased that horribly. First of all three tours Iraq and no one wants to be there doing what we do. However, I know that “they” didn’t start it and neither did we.
          They have terrorist leaders (not political leaders mind you) who instill fear on their people and then manipulate children and the poor to do their bidding. We have terrorist leaders who tell us that they are all out to get us and that we should die and kill as many of them as we can so that can make money. Our leaders are fucked up, not the people.
          Also, generally speaking Americans are not so much ignorant as they are mindless sheep with no knowledge outside of the biased media and below mediocre schooling. Just google “what percent of Americans don’t know” and the results are… depressing to say the least.
          I digress though, seriously don’t blame the troops. Some of them are royally fucked up in the head but most of us just wanted to go home. So in short, your statement in itself is ignorant and this is really not on topic at all

        • Judge

          January 11, 2013 at 11:40 pm

          You are one big heaping pile of garbage. A traitor who should be shot… That is all of my time you are worth.

        • DJW

          January 16, 2013 at 3:43 pm

          Jacob, we went to war with two specific countries in the Middle East since 9/11: Afghanistan and Iraq.

          We are fighting in Afghanistan because the terrorist organizations that were harbored there killed thousands of innocent people in the United States and in other countries. Pretty simple.

          Iraq has a more complicated history, and our invasion of that country is not linked to the events of 9/11. Iraq didn’t harbor Al-Qaida. First, they used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, then they used chemical weapons on their own people (Halabja, for example), then they invaded Kuwait, we beat them in the Persian Gulf War, the U.N. imposed sanctions because Iraq would not allow U.N. inspectors to search all their facilities for proof that they had gotten rid of their WMD programs. When 2003 rolls around, the United States, tired after 12 years of being played with, gives them a hard-line saying they must allow inspectors into facilities. Iraq doesn’t comply. The U.S. invades and learns that Iraq in fact had gotten rid of their program sometime around the Persian Gulf War. If Iraq had complied with U.N. inspectors at any point in the preceding 12 years, they would have had no problem and Saddam Hussein, the dictator and torturing thug he was, would still be alive and in power. Bill Clinton also supported regime change in Iraq, but while he was President, didn’t think it was time yet to use military force. See

          My point: You’re just another idiot with an opinion, who is too lazy to disrupt their ideology with facts.


      • OneofOne

        January 11, 2013 at 10:11 am

        Sweetie, Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and we knew that. Bin Laden was in Pakistan, our so-called ally, the entire time, not hiding out in a cave but living a normal life. Anyone with half a brain knew that’s where he was. I knew that was where he was. All of my friends knew that was where he was. I have news for you. Al Qaeda is everywhere! They’re taking over northern Africa as we speak. Are we going to invade Somalia…again? WE started those wars. Don’t kid yourself.

    • Scotty Starnes

      January 10, 2013 at 9:42 pm

      Probably because the weapons used overseas are automatic weapons, here in the US, the majority of firearms are only semiautomatic. Learn the difference and then you won’t have to ask.

      • OneofOne

        January 11, 2013 at 10:13 am

        Question from a person who doesn’t know much about guns: is it really that difficult for a criminal or sociopath to turn a semiautomatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon? I only ask because I’ve been told that it’s rather easy.

        • kyle

          January 11, 2013 at 10:49 am

          It’s actually pretty difficult on most AR15 platforms. Don’t listen to those who say it is. That rumor spreads easily bc people don’t actually try the conversion due to the risk of going to prison.

        • Deco

          January 11, 2013 at 11:02 am

          Yes, it is impossibly difficult. Converting a semiauto into a full-auto would require already having in your possession a functional full-auto. The firing mechanisms are completely different devices. The myth that they are interchangeable is a complete fabrication with no basis in fact.

          • JB03

            January 11, 2013 at 12:42 pm

            I’m entertained by the fact that the people spread the misinformation that it is easy, couldn’t figure out how to turn off the safety if their life depended on it…pun intended.

        • Jonesin9

          January 11, 2013 at 7:17 pm

          Semi auto, fully auto who gives a shit.. And no its not hard. Google SSAR-15 bump fire stock or ssAK-47 bump fire stock…. I think everyone is missing the point…!?!?! If I am a law abiding citizen and want to have a fully auto or semi auto weapon, I have that right. That right was on purpose and that right protects any other rights listed in the constitution…. The speed limit is 65-85 in Texas, so should I not be allowed to own a car that exceeds that? Its dangerous right?? When do they stop taking away our rights?? I would rather live in a world where people can kill one another and be free than in some nanny state where only cops and government have weapons… it wouldnt be safer, I guarantee that.

          • Nick

            January 12, 2013 at 9:51 am

            I’m glad you mentioned the firing stocks. Thank you.
            I will end my complimenting you there though. So you think that the rest of the western world, other than us, is a “nanny state”?
            Laws about what I can and can’t eat? Hell no!! Laws about personal drug use? Hell no!! Laws about buying an object that can kill 20 people from 100 yards away? Maybe not so much. You rights are to protect what you do to yourself not what you can do to other living things.
            Don’t get me wrong, in an ideal world no one would have guns anymore. Hunting with a gun is just for bitches who can’t do it with a bow… a compound bow mind you.. or a crossbow like my dad.. But still

    • 1984isnow

      January 11, 2013 at 1:54 pm

      You are absolutely right. We should count the people our government killed with impunity overseas, including the murders ordered by the president. This is why we have a second amendment, to protect us from tyrannical government. Our government is killing people with drones overseas and now is flying drones here. If there ever was a good argument for an arms populace you just made it.

  4. Whatever

    January 10, 2013 at 12:58 pm

    @Lori we are war mongers and think we are the world’s police!! We do not have to move either, because IF this is still the United States of America i think we still have free speech at least for now. So quit telling people to move! Ever heard of such a thing as blow back research it, we are part of the problem. quit believing everything your told by the main stream media!!!!!

    • Can't believe this SH!T

      January 10, 2013 at 1:48 pm

      You are truly to stupid to argue with…. I pray horrible things happen to you prior to you contributing to the American gene pool.

      • wolfgang dieterich

        January 10, 2013 at 3:42 pm

        1. Looking at the middle east, impoverished parts of Africa and other international hotspots, being 28th in gun related homicides is not surprising, though not to be seen as a comforting statistic. Look at it this way, if there are 192 countries recognized by the UN (maybe 193 but besides the point) that puts us in at about the top 15th percentile of all gun related deaths. Not exactly something to be bragging about for a modern developed nation and the worlds largest economy.

        2. Blowback is completely real and events in the middle east cannot be seen independently from interventionist policies followed in the past 60 years. There is a reason we are hated and no it is not all because of mtv or our freedom or our higher standing of living.

        3. We are war mongerers, and nation severely influenced by neocon policies, with a stubborn military industrial complex that has commercialized war and spreads its profits to politicians and gun manufacturers, at the cost of our tax dollars.

        please read more than one or two news sites people, read a book, and question question question!!!!

        • The One

          January 10, 2013 at 4:11 pm

          Please stop trying to use logic and reason with them. They hate that stuff… They believe it is righteous to kill brown people as long as the government told them those guys “over there” squatting in a mud hut pulled off the greatest attack against a superpower in history… They are lost in that fantasy world psy-ops creation.

        • Jason

          January 11, 2013 at 12:25 pm

          Ahhh, you must mean the interventionist policy of supporting Israel, the only free state in the region and one of the shining beacons of enlightenment in the free world (free world). That is the primary reason why they hate us. Given that, I’m happily willing to shoulder the responsibility.
          And you must be talking about the neocon policies of JFK and LBJ, the guys who led us into Vietnam. And Clinton who had us in Somalia and Bosnia. Right?

        • JB03

          January 11, 2013 at 1:11 pm

          It’s not a “stubborn” industrial war complex…it’s an IWC that’s so completely and deeply entrenched into our economy, the world’s economy and the well-being of the WORLD’s most powerful entities, that shutting it down or even slowing it’s production would cause them (and us…don’t lie to yourself) more pain than we believe we can tolerate. Don’t fool yourself and say this is just about greedy politicians and gun manufacturers anymore. The wool was pulled away years ago. Like it or not, we have all drank the kool-aid, all sold our souls and are all a part of this cluster now. We know that if we rip the band-aid off of this festering wound, it’s not just going to sting a little, it’s going to throb and the blood and pus will flow relentlessly. The increasing number of these conservative vs. liberal arguments we wager is just a sign of the increasing fear and desperation caused by something we are all too afraid to think about. In standard human form we are now opting for denial and the blame game as we wait, not just apprehensively, but sadly with near eagerness, for something to finally snap and force us to react…if for no other reason than to relieve us of all this anxiety. It’s time to stop wasting our energy trying to change what everyone else is doing and start changing what we are doing.

  5. Brian

    January 10, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    obviously some people don’t realize that the guns are not the cause of the violence. @who would think: i get what you’re saying, yes war is never the best choice, but those deaths are the result of a one-sided religious war that nobody except for radical muslims realize ended in the middle ages. they would probably murder you without a thought, not to mention anyone else who lives in a democratic country. anyway back to gun control issues. obviously per capita we aren’t as bad as some countries as far as violent crimes go, but lately the ones being committed are becoming more and more tragic. i believe it should be harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands, but they’re always gonna be able to get them, so the only real way to control violent crime is to not control legal gun owners.

  6. chad

    January 10, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    What that rank turn into when you consider all of the killing in Mexico is from american guns? We are ranked 28th because there are 27 failed nations in front of us inline. WTF is wrong with everyone

  7. Gee

    January 10, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    When are you pro-gun nuts gonna realize that a “discussion about regulation” is not synonymous with “take your guns away”, for fucks sakes?

    • citizenx

      January 10, 2013 at 10:19 pm

      when are you anti-gun freaks gonna figure out that any law forced onto our Rights is a infringement on that Right, their RIGHTS, NOT privileges!

    • averros

      January 10, 2013 at 10:44 pm

      When you anti-gun nuts gonna realize that right to self-defense is NOT up for negotiation or restrictions. To defend themselves from a government going insane (and, yes, this CAN happen here – Russia and Germany were quite civilized countries, populated with well-meaning and peaceful folks) people have to be armed at least as well as the government. Meaning whatever firepower is available to the cops and other armed civil “servants” must be available to citizens, period.

    • BobGunNut

      January 10, 2013 at 10:59 pm

      Wow, hate much? I find the most vicious people are the ones who can’t face facts. Why don’t you tell me why Bloomberg deserves guns for his bodyguards, or why Obama signed himself Secret Service protection TODAY for life? Will his guys be armed with bear spray and Tasers?

      You secretly believe there are 2 classes of people – the protected, and the rest of us, and you think you are in fact better than “the rest of us” even if today you aren’t in the “protected” class. Or you’d be honest and admit that there’s a double standard going on here.

      Regulation is a major step towards confiscation and thus needs to be fought as far as possible. You can’t confiscate what you don’t regulate.

    • JB03

      January 11, 2013 at 2:32 pm

      Do you really believe that Gee? Because I’m a pretty rational human being and I’m calling BS on that. People that don’t like guns aren’t paranoid of auto-matic and semi-automatic guns…they are paranoid of guns! They are afraid of little metal barrels, with a handle and a lever mechanism, that holds some form of encapsulated explosive powder, that when released, goes BOOM! I’ve seen people pass out and/or become crippled by shock the first time they shoot a handgun even though we were in a very professional and formal shooting range environment. That’s irrational fear based on ignorance. Admit it, it’s not that you don’t want me to own a semi-automatic handgun, it’s that truthfully, you don’t want me to own a gun at all. We are all smart enough to see where this type of regulation will eventually lead if left unfettered, because we are all smart enough to see that there is no fine line in this situation. There is no happy place, no optimal level of regulation that can both, guarantee us the freedom to protect ourselves with guns and simultaneously ensure that zero people will be wrongfully harmed by guns. That would be called LaLaLand and we don’t live there. So at what point do you propose we stop regulating? When we reach 2000 wrongful deaths by gun each year? When only citizens over the age of 18 are being injured by guns? Maybe when only law-abiding citizens possess guns? Tell me…if it’s regulation you want and not a ban, what is your level of tolerance? I can easily guess that for anyone that doesn’t like guns, it’s likely zero. I’m guessing it’s also zero for the people that are afraid to let themselves think about what an intruder can do to their daughter in the time it takes for them to struggle to call 911 or think about the odds of her surviving the 7-8 minutes it typically takes for an ambulance to show up once a 911 call has been placed. So please don’t try to convince me that deep down you are “cool” with me owning any type of gun at all. What you don’t realize or maybe don’t want to admit behind those rose-colored glasses, is that the dangers associated with “no” freedom to protect oneself is just as, if not more threatening then the risks associated with having that freedom. Additionally, many of the problems we have seen associated with having the freedom to own guns are the result of the ignorance of those who are afraid of them and thus never properly educate themselves or their families on the subject. Fear is never a good educational tool, especially when used to quell curiosity. It’s not about regulation and restriction, it’s about knowledge and responsibility for yourself and others.

      • Nicholas Aupke

        January 12, 2013 at 10:37 am

        Couldn’t agree with you more on this. However, there seriously should be some regulation on who can buy a gun or how guns are bought. Nothing is wrong with a waiting period and a background check to see if you have a criminal history. Or maybe people shouldn’t be allowed to have fire stocks or go to a gun show and buy a .50 caliber weapon. I don’t think people should have their guns taken away and I don’t think that would ever happen, but if you think that anyone should be able to buy any gun nilly-willy then I can’t agree with you.
        Its actually funny that you mention a gun phobia because one guy, back in basic, got kicked out because he screamed and nearly fainted every time he heard a shot, IT WAS HILARIOUS! (side note: it actually takes a while to bleed out from a majority of injuries)

  8. Ridiculous

    January 10, 2013 at 10:06 pm

    What a ridiculous headline. The content doesn’t support it and you can’t tell me that 27 countries have a higher rate of gun homocide than the US. Ridiculous. I’m disappointed Ron Paul.

  9. scot

    January 10, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I think all of my guns are about to be “stolen” and I will have no idea who could have done it.

    • Kyler

      January 10, 2013 at 11:48 pm

      @ scot you are not required by law to report your guns stolen. Or do any paperwork if you “sell” them. I sold all of mine….ha

    • JB03

      January 11, 2013 at 2:36 pm

      I’ll “steal” yours, if you “steal” mine!

  10. Nimue

    January 11, 2013 at 12:04 am

    “Shooting spree” it’s called here. Very euphemistic.
    Mass slaughter of innocents by crazy people with war
    weapons is more honest. Sorry, and I appreciate Ron

    • Deco

      January 11, 2013 at 11:09 am

      Basic semiauto rifles (like the AR-15) are not “war weapons.” Soldiers use full-autos (like the M16).

      • james d brasfield

        January 12, 2013 at 12:11 pm

        You obviously know nothing of soldiers or war. Soldiers use semi automatic M4s or M16s. There is a safe setting, a Semi setting, and a 3-round burst setting. There are no fully automatic weapons being used by our military unless they are being used by Special Operations groups.

  11. Nick

    January 11, 2013 at 12:06 am

    @ Jacob.
    Could you please let me know when the last mass shooting was committed in a hard red state like Texas? Don’t you think that there is a reason this keeps happenIng in places like Colorado and Connecticut? Why does this keep happening At places of education where no one is allowed to carry? Why has no one ever shot up a gun show, an NRA office, ( like so many people have threatened over the last few months). Wait, I think I know why! It would be stopped IMMEDIATLY! It would be a non issue. There would be no massive story because no one is dumb enough, including you patriot haters, to try it! Stop being ignorant!

    • Sam

      January 11, 2013 at 12:54 am

      If our police listen to you and carry some weapons with them, I’m sure we can stop cops been shot dead.

  12. citizenx

    January 11, 2013 at 12:07 am

    Scot, i was thinkin the same thing

  13. Sam

    January 11, 2013 at 12:48 am

    Dishonest argument. The count absolutely doesn’t matter. One terrorist attack can bring a country to a halt. A single house with broken gasses can bring the property value. It is not the numbers, it is the uncertainty. We expect robbery, we even expect homicide. But we could not expect mass murder of children.

  14. Joseph Chapman

    January 11, 2013 at 3:02 am

    I’m looking at all these comments by people who are obviously “anti-gun”, and I’m realizing that they really don’t know what they’re talking about. First of all, in what way do guns actually kill people? Hmm? Really think about that for a second. Well, you might say “Well the bullets they shoot kill people.” And you might think “Lets restrict ammo.” But….wait a second. Let’s go back a step. The firing pin within the gun hits the primer of the bullet and the bullet fly’s out at it’s victim, killing them. Yes. “Restrict ammo!” No….wait a second. Let’s go back further. The trigger mechanism releases the tension in the firing pin spring, which then hits the primer in the bullet, which then shoots out the barrel of the gun, into it’s target, killing them. Ok. That’s it. “Let’s restrict guns AND ammo!” Well, wait a second. There’s ONE last step here. The PERSON holding the gun makes a conscious decision of squeezing the trigger, which then causes the trigger mechanism to release the tension in the firing pin spring, which then makes the firing pin hit the primer of the bullet, causing the bullet to shoot out the end of the barrel into the target, killing them. Hmm. Yeah. That’s right. It’s the gun’s fault for being available to the individual. The gun consciously made itself available so that the CRIMINAL who makes the CONSCIOUS DECISION to commit a CRIME of heinous MURDER. So let’s punish ALL gun owners, even the LAW ABIDING ONES, and restrict or remove their ability to carry guns. Yep. But, wait. The criminals will still have guns. So, the law abiding people will be defenseless, the criminals will rob, rape, and kill people because their victims are no longer armed. I’m sorry, but the UNALIENABLE RIGHT to self defense is a HELL of a lot more important than what you scared little children out there who think guns are “evil” and that the guns “kill people” believe is “right”.

    Put yourself in the shoes of a person whom owns a gun, and someone tries to rob you or rape you. You have this thing called a concealed carry permit, and you have a small 9mm handgun hidden on your person, and you’ve trained very hard and become very proficient with this gun. A criminal comes up to you with the intent on robbing, raping, or killing you. What do you do? Do you A) Not pull your gun because “guns kill people” and are “evil” and should not be in the hands of regular, law abiding citizens, even though most if not all law abiding gun owners practice for the intent of hunting and/or defending themselves; or do you B) At the right moment you pull your gun and shoot to defend yourself from being robbed/raped/murdered, stopping or killing your assailant.

    I’ve got a strong feeling you’d defend yourself, wouldn’t you? “But, I’d only do it because you’re putting me in the situation where I’ve got a gun and training. If I didn’t, then I would call 911″….wait….no….the criminal wouldn’t let you do that. Let’s try that again: “If I didn’t, then I would let the robber/rapist/murderer do what they want, THEN I’d call 911″…..wait wait….no……if you were murdered, you obviously couldn’t call 911 because you’re already dead. If you were raped, well, sure you could call 911 afterward, but you’d still suffer the mental trauma, and possibly even more trauma from deciding to abort a “rape baby”. Which is also murder BTW, but that’s off topic. Or, if you are robbed, you’re still going to deal with the trauma of being robbed, feeling defenseless, and then trying to find a person with a phone to call 911. What is the moral of this story? If you had a gun, you could stop this from happening to you…….or someone else.

    The point of all this is simple: If more law abiding citizens were gun owners, there would be a significantly lower rate of ALL crime. There’s a few reasons for this, but I’m going to only mention and emphasize one: Criminals will be much less inclined to commit crime because they will not know who is armed, and who is not. Simple, plain, easy to understand. Guns….are……A DETERRENT!!!!! There are SOLID FACTS and STATISTICS that PROVE this! Those of you who read this and flare your proverbial nose, while looking down your nose onto your screen while thinking you’re better than me, and say “You’re just a bigot who doesn’t know anything, and a hater. You must like murdering people. You must be a criminal!”….or something like that, you’re displaying the most oblivious nature, blatant ignorance, and lack of critical thinking. GO READ CRIME STATISTICS OF STATES WITH STRICT GUN CONTROL LAWS, AND STATES WITH LOOSER GUN CONTROL LAWS!!! You will see that the states with strict gun control laws have higher rates of crime than those with the looser gun control laws. If you refuse to look this up because you think you “know the facts” and don’t need to research for yourself, please….for the love of Christ….use the space between your ears for something other than hot air!

    One final thought: Gun control laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are what? What do they represent? The LAW OF THE LAND! What does the 2nd Amendment state? Let me tell you for those who don’t know and are too lazy to Google it: A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the People to Keep and Bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Take that in, and focus on those last 4 words: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. So, what does this mean? This means that the Federal government, as well as State governments, who have gun control laws (INFRINGEMENTS), are VIOLATING the Constitution for the United States!!! VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION!!! UNCONSTITUTIONAL! What do you think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is? Hunting? Where in the WORLD does the 2nd Amendment mention ANYTHING in any REMOTE manner about hunting? ANYTHING?! It doesn’t. What else do you think the purpose is? Hmm? What? I can tell you what. “A Well regulated Militia…” (definition of Militia: A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency; this means “The People”) This right here, if you go back and read the papers and letters of the Founders, as well as the Constitution itself, means that the federal government is supposed to train, equip, and utilize the Militias in times of emergency (remember that they are separate from the federal government, which means NOT MILITARY, but can only be called upon in dire situations)…”being necessary to the security of a free State…” Now, PLEASE note this. In the WHOLE of the Constitution, NOWHERE ELSE does it say any right, or any part of it, is NECESSARY….except here. What does this mean? It means that a well armed, and well trained populace is NECESSARY to the security of a free nation/country/state. Makes sense, though, doesn’t it? I mean….if most or all of a population of a country were well armed and trained, don’t you think that an aggressor would think twice before attacking/invading said country? “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear arms…” This here is an important part of the amendment. Why do you ask? Because, it explains that the ability to keep and bear arms is a right. Not a privilege. Privileges are something granted by a higher authority (ie: Parents giving their children the privilege to stay up later on school nights), but that can also be taken away. A right is something inherent, something that cannot be taken, because it’s not someone else’s to take. It belongs to the individual. It is theirs because it is theirs. The only way it can be taken is if it is given up freely. If you want to give up your right to self defense, by all means, go ahead. Just remember that another person could, and likely would, use their RIGHT to self defense to defend you. I sure as hell would.

    And last but not least, “shall not be infringed.” So, “what does this mean” you ask? Here is the definition of “infringement: violation – an act that disregards an agreement or a right.” This means that any restriction on our RIGHT to defend ourselves (ie – GUN CONTROL LAWS), is an infringement of said right and thus is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in nature. Which means, as I was saying, any gun control laws are inherently infringements of our right to self defense and are unconstitutional, which means that the nature of said laws makes them null and void.

    Of course, you won’t hear any media outlets say this, nor will you hear any politicians say this, because it’s outside the “norm” and isn’t “politically correct”, among other reasons. But…..that’s just my 2 cents.

    • wolf d

      January 11, 2013 at 11:41 am

      My counter to the numerous bad arguments i have been seeing:

      1.GUNS ARE A DETERRENT SO LONG AS THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE SITUATION ARE RATIONAL ACTORS!!!!! look at nuclear deterrence, it works because the costs are grave and the people behind the buttons are rational leaders supported by intelligent advisors. THIS DETERRENCE SCENARIO DOESN’T WORK WITH CRAZY SUICIDAL PSYCHOPATHS BECA– USE THEY ARE NOT RATIONAL AND DONT SEEM TO CARE ABOUT GETTING THEIR BRAINS BLOWN OUT!!!


      3A. PRIVILEGES: BEARING ARMS, PROTEST ie things the gov must allow. iF owning guns was a right then they would be handing them out to everyone for free. its a privilege by definition, trust me its my major.




      • Jason

        January 11, 2013 at 1:06 pm

        My counter to YOUR bad arguments, wolf d:

        1. Deterrence isn’t the only reason to have a firearm. One also requires the gun in the presence of an active threat.

        2. The original intent of the gun is irrelevant. A gun may be used to hunt or to shoot targets, or to act as a doorstop; guns have many uses. Nuclear technology was first used to destroy two cities in Japan, but it is now used for energy all over the world. See? Original intent is irrelevant.

        3. Rights are inherent to a person as their birthright as a human being. They are given by no one or no government. They may be taken away or abridged, but that is against the moral/ethical code by which we measure the value of a society. The more human rights are left alone by a society, the better and more just it is. Our constitution REAFFIRMS basic human rights with its first ten amendments. The human RIGHT in question is that of SELF DEFENSE. The gun is merely the tool which allows one to perfect the right most effectively in today’s world (which addresses your Number 5 above). What you listed as ‘Rights” are not ‘Basic Human Rights,’ they are wants that can be satisfied without a government by individuals who are interested in survival and advancement.
        3A. Bearing Arms is not a privilege, it is a means of enforcing the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT of self-defense. Because a government might give something to you free doesn’t make that thing a right. That is boldly illogical. You need to demand your money back from whatever school you are attending.
        4. What makes you so certain we’d be fighting the military in the event of political overthrow? I think they’d fight for what is right; that is, right beside the folks who are resisting tyranny. And just because one might be outmanned and outgunned, one doesn’t lay down, one fights harder and smarter. You clearly are not made of the same stuff that won this country its independence.
        5. (addressed above) Yes, muskets were the firearm that would be used against the citizen in that age, and in turn that is what the citizen used to defend against it. Today the semi auto pistol, the semi auto AR15 and similar guns can be used against a citizen so that is what the citizen requires to defend against them.
        6. All weapons enable people to kill people. Let’s get the bad guys first.

        Ignorant is a word often used as an insult. But when i call you ignorant, I mean it in the other sense; Lacking Knowledge. You are ignorant, but with effort, you will become enlightened. Good luck with that.

        • Jonesin9

          January 11, 2013 at 7:22 pm

          Well Said Jason. This is where the typical liberal will start trying to attack you personally, since you just blew his mind with truth!! 😛

      • JB03

        January 11, 2013 at 2:46 pm

        Wow! You would have made a better case for gun control by keeping your mouth (i.e…fingers) shut. You are wrong in about every possible way. Read a book…

      • JB03

        January 11, 2013 at 2:47 pm

        I was referring to Wolf D’s embarrassingly incorrect rebuttal BTW.

    • ChrisB

      January 12, 2013 at 11:12 am

      The second amendment point is quoted regularly but it makes a strong constitutional argument in favour of gun control: A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the People to Keep and Bear arms, shall not be infringed. The first and key part of that sentence is ‘A well regulated militia’. it’s not two separate parts, it’s one statement that clearly requires that ‘well regulated’ is an intrinsic part of the ‘right to keep and bear arms’. It is the job of the government to determine how that regulation will be achieved, and that will depend upon the circumstances that prevail at any particular point in time.
      There is no need to argue over the right to own a gun as that seems to be perfectly clear, but only if it is appropriate to the security of the free state and subject to proper regulation.

  15. Umpa Lord

    January 11, 2013 at 6:28 am

    As a honest citizen I expect not to be robbed, killed or assaulted by
    honest people and government officials. I know this will happen as it
    did to Mary Copper and Susana Stodden. They were family to me and shot in the back of the head by some azz-hole MoFo. Mary’s lentil stew is legendary and Susana always was coy when I was around. They were butchered by a person using a tool. If everyone obeyed good laws then this would not happen. If governments honored the power base it comes form(citizens) then there would only be a need for hunting rifles.

    But since criminals don’t give a damn about laws then no matter how may you have on the books they will break them. And governments will abuse the powers given by the citizenry. This is the reason the second amendment was created. Read what our founding fathers, almost all of them believed, that we the individual citizens should be well regulated and well practiced at weapons of all kinds. For if a government has more firepower than the people they will always be able to put down a righteous insurrection.

    My grouping with a .40/9mm at 25 yards stressed is 6″, rifle… well you cant out run a .223 fast enough or far enough. Don’t tread on me and be honest and respectful and life will continue. Putting your head in the sand and saying “it wont happen here” is delusional as history has proven many times. Stopping the glorification of weapons and fear mongering by media and lies by idiots in polytics must stop. Our founding fathers understood that a gun in the hands of a habitually violent person was unacceptable but they also knew that a peaceable person was the best deterrent. They knew what they were talking about, do you?

  16. Capt Jack

    January 11, 2013 at 8:03 am

    The best way to stop lone-wolf idiot shooters is make them realize that everyone else is armed
    to the teeth. The best protection from invasion is a populace that is armed to the teeth.
    The best protection against democide is a populace that is armed to the teeth.
    The best protection to home invasion and burglary is the common knowledge that everyone
    is armed to the teeth with lethal force.

    Crimes will happen on this screwed up world, but they are less likely to
    occur when you are NOT defenseless.

    • OneofOne

      January 11, 2013 at 10:19 am

      For all intents and purposes, Americans are armed to the teeth. We rank first in gun ownership worldwide. When was the last time you heard of an ordinary citizen, with no police of military training, stopping an armed shooter? Hardly, if ever. The reason for that is that only trained professionals know how to react in that situation. The shooting scene at that theater in Aurora was said to be so chaotic that a police officer would have hardly been able to locate and hit the intended target. Ft. Hood was a military base and that didn’t stop a mass shooter. When people are running, screaming and chaos breaks out, it’s very difficult to be rational enough to take out a gun and be sure to hit the shooter and not others. Guns are not the problem (necessarily) and they’re not the solution either.

      • Deco

        January 11, 2013 at 11:18 am

        You hardly hear about it because it usually doesn’t get reported beyond the local news level.

      • Jason

        January 11, 2013 at 1:26 pm

        You are absolutely wrong. There are frequent instances of people saving their lives with firearms, often without firing the weapon (I publish them on my Facebook page). Just because you don’t know something doesn’t mean it does not exist. It only means you are getting your news pre-screened or you are self-selecting away from it.
        We rank first in gun ownership but there are vast numbers of people who do not own guns. Care to guess why? I’ll give you a hint. Americans are free to won more than one of something in this country. Further, there are vast areas which are off-limits to firearms. These tend to be areas of high firearm violence, but that gets off the point. There are also small areas where guns are off-limits but within places where guns are allowed; post offices, schools, theaters, malls, and yes, military bases. Isn’t it interesting that these places also have high instances of gun violence. If you were to be concerned with facts, you would note that the Islamist domestic act of terrorism
        that occurred at Fort Hood was enabled by the fact that rank and file on the base are prevented from having their guns with them. They are locked up. There are armed guards on the wire and MP’s who patrol, but that sort of resembles life outside the base, doesn’t it? My cousin was a career Marine and he confirmed that individuals are not permitted arms while on base except on the ranges.

      • JB03

        January 11, 2013 at 2:52 pm

        Here’s some truth for you…

        1) Everything that the media says, isn’t true.

        2) Just because the media doesn’t report it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen…it just means it’s not a topic that will upset people and get ratings. Good news = no news.

    • wolf d

      January 11, 2013 at 11:55 am

      why should “lone-wolf idiot shooters” stop if everyone is armed to the teeth? Do you think these people are that logical or sentimental or loving their life enough to try and preserve it? NO! they are suicidal lunatics looking to make a scene and usually end up shooting themselves in the head after they are done. THEY DONT PERCEIVE AN ARMED CIVILIZATION TO BE A THREAT! HELL MAYBE IF THERE WERE 10 LICENSED CONCEALED WEAPONS HOLDERS ON THE SCENE OF ONE OF THESE MASSACRES OTHERS WOULD GET HIT IN THE CROSSFIRE!! IN A CROWDED MOVIE THEATER FULL OF SMOKE GRENADES AND PEOPLE WITH CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSES SHOOTING EVERYWHERE, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW WHO IS THE BAD GUY???

      • Jason

        January 11, 2013 at 1:43 pm

        They wouldn’t stop, wolf d, that is why people must be armed. You are assuming wrongly that the only value of a firearm is deterrence. That is the least of its value. Its true worth is in using it to engage an active threat.
        Are you arguing that the because something might not work flawlessly that it therefore is wrong or useless? That makes no sense at all. If the odds of the perp dying with no defensive gun owners present is 100%, it makes sense to improve the odds in favor of the innocents. You are arguing from a position of the cowering victim. Not everyone has your mindset, some actually are assertive individuals. Very few of these mass shootings involve smoke grenades. That doesn’t mean that the inability to identify the target in one or two means that defensive gun carry is therefore of no value in other situations.

      • JB03

        January 11, 2013 at 2:59 pm

        Lunatic does not automatically mean suicidal and rarely are they idiots. Many of these “shooters” are highly intelligent people. They are opportunists though…thus why, as stated elsewhere, they don’t walk into NRA events or police stations to kill people…instead they walk into schools and movie theaters.

      • JB03

        January 11, 2013 at 2:59 pm

        PS…you watch too many movies.

      • Jonesin9

        January 11, 2013 at 7:28 pm

        wolf d
        January 11, 2013 at 11:55 am
        why should “lone-wolf idiot shooters” stop if everyone is armed to the teeth? Do you think these people are that logical or sentimental or loving their life enough to try and preserve it? NO! they are suicidal lunatics looking to make a scene and usually end up shooting themselves in the head after they are done. THEY DONT PERCEIVE AN ARMED CIVILIZATION TO BE A THREAT! HELL MAYBE IF THERE WERE 10 LICENSED CONCEALED WEAPONS HOLDERS ON THE SCENE OF ONE OF THESE MASSACRES OTHERS WOULD GET HIT IN THE CROSSFIRE!! IN A CROWDED MOVIE THEATER FULL OF SMOKE GRENADES AND PEOPLE WITH CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSES SHOOTING EVERYWHERE, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW WHO IS THE BAD GUY???

        Why do all of these massacres happen in “gun free zones” you think these pieces of shit are brave? No they are cowards looking for big numbers of defenseless lemmings… 5 or 10 gun owners in a theater would identify the shooter and take him out… Even if there were some accidental hits, it would take the bad guys attention away to deal with someone shooting back at him and stop him from walking down rows excuting people point blank… 70 people were shot in CO had I been there i guareantee it would be way less… He may have killed me, but I would have gone down shooting and it would have allowed a lot of people to get away…

  17. Suzi

    January 11, 2013 at 9:23 am

    The last successful terrorist attack in Texas was in Ft Hood where the terrorist knew it was a gun free zone and was shouting “Allah akbar”. The guy you Libs just reelected refuses to let it be listed as a terrorist attack or an act of war and insist it was ‘On the job violence’. This is not only a lie, it cheats the sitting duck victims and their families out of benefits they deserve. Nidal hassan was passed through the Army’s Medical System with promotions because everyone wanted to be politically correct and not be accused of being racist. Blood is on all of their hands.

  18. Chris

    January 11, 2013 at 10:00 am

    I find it hilarious that you dumb ass liberals are posting this nonsense about American imperialism on a Ron Paul article. Both Dems and Republicans are fucking snakes and traitors. It costs on average 1.1 million dollars to run a political campaign. A citizen politician has not been in office in the big leagues for some time. Ron Paul does not buy in to any of the “over there” bullshit and has routinely made it clear that if he were president we wouldnt be there. STFU and learn something before you come on here trying to attack people because they are christian or any other useless basis for your faulty attempts to insult others. Typical left wing bullshit, spin the facts, ignore the ones that counter your argument and make fun of the personal beliefs of people who do not agree with you.

  19. OneofOne

    January 11, 2013 at 10:02 am

    America will never have nationalized health care and will never have a ban on guns. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is severely underestimating the gun lobby. I sincerely doubt the validity of these statistics. The fact is that we can’t rely on any of these statistics. One source says we’re 28th. Perhaps when compared to places like Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan,etc. However, when compared to the so-called developed world, we rank number one.
    We should all stop being so paranoid. No one is taking your gun. Furthermore, it’s time to rid ourselves of this notion that having more guns makes us safer. Columbine had an armed guard. Virginia Tech had it’s own police department, Ft. Hood for a military base for goodness sake and the fact that there were guns present didn’t stop a lone crazy person from destroying lives. Gun control isn’t the issue. Our failure to diagnose and properly treat those with mental illnesses is the problem. All of the mass shooters in decades past have suffered from a mental illness. We can’t diagnose someone with a mental illness, prescribe them a pill and put them back into society as though pharmaceuticals solve everything. That, my friend, is the REAL problem, NOT guns.

  20. Adam

    January 11, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    I agree with jake. All infringements on human rights start off small and “for you own good.” Usually also pushed by a manufactured (real or not) crisis. And why start a battle to infringe on rights now when you have so many that are foolishly willing to give them up first? Then after those people give up rights then go after those left who will fight as their numbers will be fewer. America as a whole still votes for career politicans that pass laws that many times aren’t even constitutional. I think the “awakening” in the the US is still infantile at best.

  21. Charles

    January 11, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    UK’s Murder Rate 1.2 per 100k US: 4.8 per 100k. Even with the higher crime rate, you are more likely to die in the US due to homicide.

    • Jason

      January 11, 2013 at 1:53 pm

      Many of the deaths in the US are not innocent victims, they are suicides or warring gang-bangers. They are firearms deaths, but when we use the stats in the Van Auken piece above, in my opinion it deals with crime on innocent people.
      Another thing to consider is that guns are used to thwart violent crimes that may or may not involve a firearm. Hence, the stats regarding home robbery. If someone tries to rob my home, they are as good as down from a bullet. That is within the point being made by the author, the British do not have the luxury of defending themselves in their home. what would their death statistics be there if 90% of those vilent crimes were stopped by the victim with a gun?

  22. Jay Are

    January 11, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    If there are any people in here that have been disarmed and are your
    government’s BITCH, you need to mind your own business. Once you
    gave up your guns you gave up your Right to speak. You are now your
    government’s slaves or Serfs. Sure you can always fight back with
    pitchforks but you won’t. You gave up your voice in your country,
    and now you try to feel like you still have a voice by splewging
    comments on websites where people live who won’t give up our guns.
    You have no Rights to be here. You gave up your Rights so shut
    your pie hole and go make your own country what you want it to be.
    This is none of your business.

  23. nofrop

    January 11, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    gun free zones…a.k.a. CRIMINAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES

  24. Slim Platy

    January 11, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    If any of you honestly believe a gun ban will be successful in this country not only are you wrong but if they try their will be a lot of dead American’s. As well as a lot of new criminals, messing with constitutional rights is just more proof that their are too many cry babies.

    On a completely different note their should be major accountabilities brought upon the families of the people that do these things (although that’s consitutionally protected as well). You cannot tell me that they had “no idea” that something like this was possible and the capabilities of these people went somehow “oh so magically unnoticed!” The truth has been: Aurora shooting mother’s reaction “I’m not surprised” (She actually said that upon contact with authorities). Sandy Hook was a squabble between an obviously majorly disfunctional family and a community of people who had seen the undeniable evidence that it was taken too far. Columbine, I was there, and Dillon and Eric were certifiably insane and it was well-known, as well as insanely spoiled children. What is the cross-referenceable medium here? Insane people that things were not done about. Very clear signs of serious problems. What is our community, government, SOCIETY doing about these people? If it’s not a gun it will be something else.. then what? A universal ban on cutting utensils? Security checkpoints in our kitchens and at wal-mart? Sounds good doesn’t it?

    Anybody who thinks guns should be banned I pray at night you have a time in your life when you need a gun but don’t have one, I pray your losses are undeniable that you say “If only I had a gun…” Fuck you for thinking the gun is the problem, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

  25. Hope

    January 11, 2013 at 5:53 pm

    “I’ve always assumed the line in the sand will be drawn, if the federal agent marches in, unannounced and they say, well give me your gun and give me your gold. I don’t think we’ll do that, calmly. I think the American people will highly resent it and resist.”

    They have already demanded our gold. Executive Order 6102 Section 5 (b)
    of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, entitled “An Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency
    in banking, and for other purposes,”

  26. Hope

    January 11, 2013 at 8:50 pm

    They took our gold. Now they will take our guns.

    I submit that we are already slaves of the US Government and by extention international bankers. We have been so for nearly 100 years (at least). It has been an easy yoke for many if not most of us. We are not beaten, starved or snatched from our families and sent elsewhere and yet I say we are still slaves. When a man (or woman) is forced into unwilling compliance that is slavery. The definition of slavery is this “the state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder”.

    This is how it happened. President Lincoln attempted to borrow money from international bankers to fund the Civil War. It was offered at interest of 26 -34%. Not wanting to indebt the people, he got Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort called the Greenback Law. This money was debt and interest free. The international bankers realized that the only thing that is a threat to their power is sovereign govern­ments printing interest-free and debt-free paper money. They know it would break the power of the international Bankers. The bankers attempted to influence the war by having England (which was controlled by the London and other European Bankers) support the south hoping to break the govts back so Lincoln put forth the Emancipation Proclamation knowing that the English people would not support slavery. It worked. We had our own monetary system independent of international bankers and we were prosperous and debt free. Note that Lincoln was assassinated just five days after the War ended. And on December 23, 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed supplanting the National Banking Act that had earlier replaced the Greenback Law. The Republican controlled Senate rammed the bill through when many members of the US Congress were home for the holiday. President Woodrow Wilson, signed it into law. President Roosevelt passed Executive Order 6102 Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 Section 2. ‘ All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933″. The consequences for not obeying was prison. We now have neither a reliable nor stable monetary system. As we have seen this paper money can be manipulated. The international bankers now had the power to run the country by controlling the creation of the money, and were free to charge the interest they desired. As Mayer Anselm Rothschild (founder of the Rothschild family international banking dynasty that became the most successful business family in history) once said: “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws…”

    On June 4th, 1963, President Kennedy signed a presidential document, called Exec­utive Order 11110. This gave Kennedy legal clearance to create his own money to run the country, money that would belong to the people, an Interest and debt-free money. He had printed United States Notes, completely ignoring the Federal Reserve Notes from the private banks of the Federal Reserve. Only five months later in November of 1963, the world received the news of President Kennedy’s assassination. Only one day after Kennedy’s assassination, all the United States notes, which Kennedy had issued, were called out of circulation. All of the money President Kennedy had created was destroyed. And not a word was said to the American people.

    Slowly but surely they are doing the same with our weapons.

    A few quotes from our Founding Fathers on the “right to bear arms”: “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

    Patrick Henry:
    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

    “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
    George Mason

    “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
    Samuel Adams

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

    “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
    Patrick Henry

    Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy both had the courage to stand up for principles and to fight for justice. Our last hope is the Second Amendment and we are fast giving that away. You can’t fight for justice with no weapons. I do believe that all the “anti-gun” people will feel differently when they have no means to protect them from their own government.

  27. Nick

    January 12, 2013 at 4:31 am

    There are way too many smashed fingers while framing.
    There are way too many paper cuts while filing.
    I have stubbed my toe way too many times on the coffee table.
    Many children have skinned their knees after tripping over their untied shoelaces.
    How many people must be cut while preparing dinner?
    How many times do kids have to be hit with a baseball during kid pitch?


    For the safety of American Citizens, I propose a ban for the following

    1. All hammers over 6oz.
    2.. All paper
    3. Any furniture that does not have rubber padding around the legs.
    4. All shoes (with exception to slip ons) that are kids sizes.
    5. All metal cuttlery. Even plastic knives shall have a rounded tip.
    6. All hard balls. Period. We cannot control the fact that a child might get ahold of a hard baseball meant for play in the MLB, therefore, all hard balls will be banned.

    Kindof asinine isn’t it?

    • ChrisB

      January 12, 2013 at 6:01 am

      Your point is lost because you draw such a nonsensical comparison. How can you compare the dangers of a high power automatic weapon with a piece of paper?
      Come on gun lobbyists, tackle the issue with reasonable debate instead of nonsensical propositions like this. It’s obvious that no-one needs a machine gun to stop an intruder, so there is no argument that they should be freely available. If you want to take the discussion to extremes why stop at guns? You reckon you’ve a right to bear arms, so why not missiles, grenades, tactical nuclear weapons… You see, it’s as ridiculous as suggesting that you ban hardballs.
      If you need a pistol to protect your home then fine, have one. License it and show the rest of society that you are a well-intentioned person. There’s a big difference between that an keeping an arsenal of military firearms capable of killing dozens of people.

      • Junior E

        January 12, 2013 at 2:57 pm

        It’s “nonsensical” to ban a rifle because it LOOKS scary. It is currently illegal to own an automatic weapon so I don’t know why you even brought that up (along with bombs, etc). The issue at hand is that they are wanting to ban “assault rifles” simply based on the fact that they look a certain way. It’s stupid by any sense of logic, equal to the stupidity of banning hammers, paper, shoes, cutlery, etc. Ultimately, you can’t fix stupidity with laws, you can’t get rid of mass murders by taking guns out of the hands of honest Americans, and you WILL NOT take or illogically LIMIT our right to defend ourselves from any enemies, foreign OR domestic.

        • ChrisB

          January 12, 2013 at 3:18 pm

          It has nothing to do with the appearance of a weapon. all that matters is what it does. Further, it is far from nonsensical to take the matters at hand extremely seriously because lives are at risk. As long as the gun lobbyists continue to use extreme examples to emphasise their ideas they will get nowhere and are actually more likely to lose their ‘rights’.
          The obvious point is that shooting is a reactionary and final solution to disorder and crime. The government has a duty to be proactive before the fact and work to take guns out of the hands of those who intend to use them illegally. Everyone needs to cooperate in that aim, even the hardcore gun fans, because the bad boys are making your argument a very weak one.

          • Junior E

            January 12, 2013 at 11:26 pm

            If what it does was the only thing that mattered, then they should be looking on pushing any gun over .22 caliber that isn’t bolt action along with any magazine extended over 10 rounds. It would be amazing to see a world (or just our country) where everyone could agree to stop using firearms with malintent, however, that is a world that we do not live in. Any legislation, if passed would mainly hurt Americans who are responsible gun owners. I do agree that the examples some pro-gun people are using are terrible, but they’re just trying to be sarcastic. Doesn’t really help the cause, I believe that using logic would help the cause better. More extensive background checks, and participating in a class before being able to obtain a firearm would be good examples of a way we can deter firearms getting into the wrong hands. Regardless, I’m surprised to find someone like you who isn’t an extremist anti-gun person on here, there’s actually thought put into what you have said.

  28. Twindaddy Brad

    January 12, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    [Citations needed] Anyone can quote stats and name names, give me a source.

  29. brian

    January 12, 2013 at 3:18 pm

    you people are stupid for arguing. its our right to bear arms. if you are law abiding you should be able to own them. ar15 or a bolt action. shouldnt matter. make it harder for people with mental health issues to get them and criminals. the person who shot up the school used his moms guns. shit happens but i shouldnt have to pay for what some idiot did wrong. nor should anybody else. should also have armed guards or police officers at schools at the main entrance. some schools in texas i believe are already doing it. the only thing i dont care if they get rid of is fully auto’s. should just make those for military. even if they did ban guns criminals would still be able to get them. banning any law abiding citizen from any type of semi auto gun is just dumb.

    • ChrisB

      January 13, 2013 at 3:38 am

      Brian, you go through life paying for what others have done. Your insurance premiums for your car, house and health are a testimony to that. Society balances risk and cost on your behalf by means of fiscal and government policy. When individuals decide that they do not agree with government you have two ways to go, a democratic lobby or armed insurrection.
      I have faith that the US will never permit the latter, so no matter how determined the cause or how vocal the interested parties, solution by the gun is not going to happen.

  30. ChrisB

    January 12, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    You have no right to bear arms outside the USA and you are a lot safer for it. Criminals in Europe use guns from time to time and there are casualties, but it’s common sense that regulating guns to an absolute minimum reduces the likelihood of a shooting. There are no armed guards outside UK schools and our children are pretty safe. We did have a school shooting at Dunblane in 1996 where the perpetrator used legally held multiple shot handguns that allowed him to discharge over 100 rounds and massacre sixteen pupils and teachers. In consequence various pieces of legislation barred the ownership all multiple shot handguns in the UK and the amnesty produced hundreds of weapons. There has not been a school shooting in the UK since.
    I say again to all the pro-gun lobbyists – stop pleading constitutional rights and curb your aggression over gun control. Work with your government to ensure that safeguards are put in place to prevent guns being used for illegal purposes. That means intelligent regulatory measures, not shootouts at the thresholds of our schools and colleges.

  31. nickdoa

    January 12, 2013 at 5:56 pm

    Assault weapons in the hands of Americans are the thin line that stands between the rise of a left-wing, socialist, and brutal dictatorship and the vulnerable denizens of this country. Because when they take away gun owners rights to own assault weapons, that dictatorship will seize the opportunity to rise up and subjugate its own people with the support of America’s Armed Forces, and while the 50 states will not exercise their sovereignty and support the rise of said dictatorship. Sounds pretty fucking stupid to me. Keep canning food and don’t hold your breath for America to turn into Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc.

  32. Alicia

    January 13, 2013 at 2:31 pm

    Ron Paul is making up these numbers.
    Official UN stats clearly show that the US is #8 in
    gun homicides per 100,000, not 28!

  33. FreedomRifle

    January 13, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    Quit using the enemy’s terminology, i.e. “assault weapon.”

    The powers that be are not after our “assault weapons.” They are after our “freedom rifles” because they hate us for our freedom.

    • G. Thomson

      January 13, 2013 at 8:33 pm

      Please. Your “Freedom Rifles” are of little interest to anyone unless they
      are Full-Auto, large cap mags or Assault rifles. _Not_ some tarted up AR-15
      but a full auto SKS or such. You take far too much credit on yourself, if you
      are a law abiding, safe operating, gun owner. Stupid and dangerous people, who
      go “hunting” with Auto-weapons and while drinking, who ‘deer-jack’ with big
      bores… they should be in jail for the crime of stupidity and making all
      other gun owners look bad. So suck it up, Buttercup and rein in your
      idiot ‘friends’ who are making everyone look bad.

  34. BuzzBuzz

    January 15, 2013 at 1:18 am

    Jake said: “4) The cost of hunting licenses will increase which will in turn deter people from hunting and buying hunting rifles.”

    Now that we have Obama back in office and see what he is attempting to do, people are not going to be purchasing guns just for hunting.

    • ChrisB

      January 15, 2013 at 4:06 am

      You live in a society where your Government is the arbitrator. You should respect its majority mandate, even if you didn’t vote for it yourself. Aggressive views toward the ‘free’ use of guns have no place in a civilised society. There may be a way to go before the US can be made a safer place to live and there will certainly be some horrific instances that challenge common decency, but a resolution will be found through strength of government, a resolute judiciary and certainly not through gun law. Your proposition that citizens should purchase guns because your country has democratically elected a particular party is reprehensible and would send you to jail in some more enlightened societies.
      You must have faith in your country’s legislature and reject unilateral armament, otherwise the path that you fear – the disintegration of society to a situation where weapons are the only means of survival – becomes more likely, not less.

Leave a Reply

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