Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Maps, trends and facts

As we move forward with the "debate" about guns and gun violence, it's time to look at things differently. The same old, same old has not worked well. I have been looking at some interesting maps, charts, graphs and articles written after the Tucson shootings. First is this one, from the Atlantic Monthly. The information in this article is presented to get us to think about gun violence in a new way. The conclusions validate what is already known- more gun deaths correlate with states with less strict gun laws. In the words of the report: "While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed."

Professor Saul Cornell of Fordham University is a wise man. I heard him speak when he came to Minnesota on a book tour. Cornell's scholarly and dispassionate examination of the second amendment, "A Well Regulated Militia" is worth reading. Now he has written this article about why the debate about gun issues needs to change. He's right, of course. From the article: " The notion that regulation is antithetical to the Second Amendment has no basis in history or law. As long as there have been guns in America, guns have been regulated. Even at the height of the Wild West in Dodge City, gun regulation was a fact of life." 

Cornell goes on to talk about changing the parameters of the gun debate from the typical pro/anti gun debate to a more modern and useful debate about how to get illegal guns out of the market place and the black market. This can be done to the satisfaction of both sides if they are willing to change the direction of the discussion. Cornell argues that the recent Supreme Court decisions actually allow us to do this. Now that gun bans are "off the table" and some restrictions are considered to be constitutional, what can be done? " Reframing the gun debate in economic terms has another advantage -- it moves public discourse away from the rhetoric of demonization in which gun nuts battle against gun grabbers. The terms of the discussion should be shifted into the more analytical and dispassionate realm of economic analysis. If nothing else, reducing the rhetorical excesses of the gun debate would be a major step forward."

And yet another interesting article asks whether national gun tragedies lead to the tightening of gun laws. A Washington Post article shows a time line of shootings followed by national gun laws. As you can see, much of our current national gun laws took effect after debate about the laws following infamous shootings. Notice that we have only a few national gun laws in spite of the fact that the gun lobby complains about too many laws restricting the rights of gun owners. The main laws regulating guns include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Law, the once and now expired Assault Weapons Ban, and the National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act. Other provisions have been enacted after being tacked on to unrelated bills such as the amendments that  allow guns to be carried in our National Parks (amended to the recent Credit Card bill), the Tiahrt amendment and the measure allowing weapons to be checked on Amtrak trains. 

Most other gun laws are state laws which are a virtual patch work making enforcement more complicated and confusing for law enforcement and gun owners. In one state all sales of guns, including private sales, require background checks while in a neighboring state, private sellers can sell any gun to anyone without background checks. States with stricter laws find that criminals can buy their guns in states with looser laws and traffic them illegally. With some common sense, and the will to think differently after the latest mass shooting , we can accomplish some effective measures to reduce the carnage caused by shootings. There is ample evidence that we have a national public safety problem left unaddressed because of the overwhelming influence of the gun lobby. It's time for that to change.


  1. I particularly enjoyed this comment:

    "...Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, found "Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1 ".
    See that? SIX TIMES the murder rate in Obama counties, but you claim there is a lower correlation?"

    This the inherent flaw in the statistics portrayed in this analysis. It's always best to fight meaningless statistics with meaningful statistics.

    Of course, your mileage will vary...

  2. ...which is then refuted, and restated further down.

    More proof that statistics can be made up to cover any angle in a debate!

  3. There is ample evidence that we have a national public safety problem left unaddressed because of the overwhelming influence of the gun lobby

    Please cite empirical evidence to support this claim. I would say our "national public safety problem" has more to do with drugs, gangs, urban decay, lack of education, destruction of the nuclear family, etc, etc, etc...

  4. "Now that gun bans are "off the table" and some restrictions are considered to be constitutional, what can be done?"

    That's a good question. Guess who I think is standing in the way? Most gun control voices I hear are reasonable in their acceptance of the fact that "gun bans are off the table." Gun-rights guys on the other hand, at least the ones I know on the gun blogs, are not nearly that reasonable. For the most part they object to every single attempt at "restrictions which are considered to be Constitutional."

  5. Well-written, Japete. These recent statistics and the survey from Mayors Against Illegal Guns has really done a great service to illustrate ramifications of gun regulation (or lack thereof) to death rates and to clarify public support of those laws.

  6. Well Pat, I would need to see more of Professor Olson's statistics which, of course, go against all other such findings. Do you have it anywhere? Perhaps his stays are flawed. You always assume that numbers from my side are flawed even when they have shown to be true.

  7. The "empiracal" evidence comes in the every day newspaper and t.v. stories about shootings and mass shootings.

  8. Are those statistics from Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law the same ones mentioned at these sites:




    Please provide a source for your stats since you may be using stats that come from a KNOWN HOAX!

  9. With respect to the "Joe Olson" quote, I should point out that Joe Olson didn't say it. That doesn't mean that it's not true, but Joe Olson wasn't the source.


  10. Thank you Laci for setting this all straight. As usual the gun guys are talking murder rates and I am talking rates of gun homicides- 2 different stats. But the overall stats in the fact checking articles are just plain wrong. It's amazing what people will believe even though it couldn't possibly be true.

  11. Given that even you showed a link to an article showing this to be false, do you still believe it jdege?

  12. Pat- I realize that you were referring to comments on the article, which I had not read. I don't always read the comments since it is time consuming and doesn't serve much purpose. Your point, however, is that statistics can show whatever you want them to. That is true. But since there is more than one source for the states provided in the article about correlations between gun deaths and states' gun laws, it is showing something that is more than likely true. At least this article chose stats that are hard to refute. You may or may not like the conclusions reached. My point is that if we examine things differently, it may actually reveal that some things are not true and we can then move on to deal with that which is and try to find solutions to the real problems rather than those perceived.

  13. "japete - As usual the gun guys are talking murder rates and I am talking rates of gun homicides- 2 different stats."
    Your "gun homicides" include suicides. Suicide accounts for 60%+ of "gun homicide", and all-cause suicide rates don't vary so much.

    So restrictive gun laws prevent some gun suicides, but don't change the suicide rate. That means most people intent on suicide will find a way regardless of the extent of local gun laws.

    So why burden lawful, non-suicidal gun owners? To "save" the marginal guy who wants to die, but chooses a less effective method?

  14. Johnny - No you are not right. Gun suicides are not included with gun homicide stats. Suicide by gun accounts for more than half of total gun deaths but are separate from gun homicide numbers.

  15. What I still don't understand is why "gun homicides" are infinitely more important than "murders". Is it to be said that a person murdered by someone using weapon/method X isn't as important as one murdered by someone using a gun? Surely that cannot be the case. Surely what matters are the victims and not the method used.... right?... right?

    If the method is what is important, why? If all victims of unjustified violence are equal, then it shouldn't matter what method was used and we should be concentrating on finding the core reasons for that violence and reducing that.

    As to the alleged correlation, logic dictates that if a state has a political climate that allows for passing more restrictive laws then it probably also already had lower over all gun ownership. Thus, one could try and draw a conclusion that lower gun ownership equals lower gun murders. However, that conclusion seems to be on very shaky ground as it is easy enough to point to different sample groups and areas, that still have restrictive laws, and that has the opposite experience. As such, it would seem to me that some other factor is in play and the gun laws really have little to do with it. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

    To be honest, there is evidence that the presence or absence of gun laws alone doesn't have much direct impact on crime in the short to mid term. You could ban all guns tomorrow and send around armed details to pick up the legal ones out there and you wouldn't immediately have a huge spike in crime. You would eventually have a rise in crime as criminals come to realize that they have little to fear going about their business, but it would take time.

    In my opinion though, none of that matters. Because, no matter how many laws one passes it doesn't change the, albeit almost cliché, fact that when seconds count the police are (at best) minutes away.

  16. Science is about the testability of ideas. While Richard Florida processed his numbers to make beautiful charts, his results failed some quick tests that led me to disregard the rest of his conclusions. For example, Oregon and Illinois are the same color, yet Illinois has much higher gun control than Oregon. Firearm rights are written into Oregon's constitution but not in Illinois, so in Oregon you can get whatever firearm you want whenever you want and shoot it on public lands just like Idaho which has worse numbers. Oregon and California are the same color also, but California has greater gun control. Arizona and Alaska have the same carry permit laws as Vermont, but Vermont is the same color as Illinois.

    And what is the creative class? How is that measured? Seattle, Portland, and the San Francisco Bay Area are extremely creative cities accounting for the majority of internet innovations and most of the software and high tech engineering firms in the nation, but they have extremely different gun laws. Salt Lake City in Utah is a bioengineering haven, but it has more deaths than California.

    I would spend more time with this, but this happy gun owner with a high standard of living and a Masters degree who voted for Obama has to go earn a living at his creative job...

  17. Japete: “Cornell goes on to talk about changing the parameters of the gun debate from the typical pro/anti gun debate to a more modern and useful debate about how to get illegal guns out of the market place and the black market. This can be done to the satisfaction of both sides if they are willing to change the direction of the discussion.”

    I agree with this. As I said many times, I think we can make inroads in that direction. The impasse comes when the idea is to keep something (be it certain guns or magazines) out of the civilian market, as opposed to just the black market.

    Japete: “Now that gun bans are "off the table" and some restrictions are considered to be constitutional, what can be done?”

    Gun bans are NOT off the table. The only thing off the table is a complete ban on all handguns. DC only lifted the ban on revolvers, continuing to ban just about every semi-auto pistol in existence. Also, there is a revitalized push for an “assault weapons” ban, and we certainly know that accessory bans are not off the table, as a bill was just introduced to ban magazines that carry over 10 rounds.

  18. Atrius- that was a fairly reasoned comment. We have gone over and over my reasons for concentrating on gun homicide in particular. I am writing about guns, gun violence, gun policy, gun homicides, gun suicides, accidental gun deaths. My blog does not deal with other homicides. As you know and as I have said ad nauseum- I care about ALL violence and all methods one human being uses to kill another. But I can only concentrate on this one area for some very obvious reasons. Further, guns account for the largest number of homicides by far so it makes perfect sense to concentrate on the area causing the most mayhem.

  19. Joan,
    I realize that you have your reasons and all that. Also, we cannot concentrate on all things all the time and remain even remotely effective. We're in agreement that there are too many people killed and harmed via unjustified violence, regardless of the method used. We're further in agreement that concentrating efforts is also a good idea to remain effective. However, by overly concentrating on "gun violence" it seems that one loses focus on the "violence" aspect and focuses more on method. This seems to me to be both illogical and counter productive.

    If we, as society, were to focus more on the core causes of unjustified violence we'd reduce so called gun violence at the same time. As you said, guns are currently the weapon of choice for most homicides and therefore a reduction in overall violence levels would logically result in a reduction of "gun violence", no?

  20. TS - As I'm sure you already know, the result of controlling any commodity for which there is a market demand is a black market for that commodity. Guns, drugs, cars, whatever. As a result, I'm not sure it is really possible to control any commodity item for which there is a demand.

    Though your general idea of getting guns out of the hands of those of ill will isn't necessarily a bad one, I do think it continues to ignore the elephant in the room. That being what are the core causes of such violence and problems in the first place. It is my belief that if we address those, the need for stricter gun laws (not saying you were advocating that) and a lot of other things would become moot.

  21. I look forward to a formal study from Mr. Florida to discuss his findings in a peer reviewed journal. It would truly be earth shattering research, as right now, there is no sound evidence that shows that any sort of gun control law is effective at reducing overall violence rates. After all, just a few years ago (2004), the Nat'l Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 gov't pubs covering over 80 different gun control measures and could not find evidence that showed that any of them worked to reduce violent crime or suicide. The NAS panel was started in the Clinton administration and none of the members are pro-gun rights, so if they couldn't find anything in the literature, then maybe it just isn't there.


    Just from my knowledge of Alaska, I feel that Mr. Florida is asking the wrong research question. He is asking, "What are the correlates of gun deaths?" The real question is, "How do we reduce mortality?"

    Most firearms deaths in Alaska are due to suicide. Unfortunately we have one of the highest suicide rates in the country, which is why we're red on Florida's map. University of Alaska researchers have published some studies indicating that the main causal factors of suicide here are rural poverty and endemic rural unemployment, substance abuse, and fraying rural communities. While firearms are preferred for committing suicide, if none are available, sadly people seem to find an alternative which is all too often lethal as well. Economists call this a "substitution effect."

    Native leaders trying to stem the epidemic of suicide here -- which is hitting their villages and culture hard -- aren't calling for gun control. They're calling for schools that aren't dysfunctional, economic growth that brings jobs to the villages, and dealing with substance abuse. That's probably because there isn't any causal link between gun control and lower suicide rates. You might feel better about suicidal people using ropes or overdosing to kill themselves because at least they aren't firearms deaths, but maybe when it is your own neighbors that are taking their own lives, one is inclined to look for more serious solutions that might work.


    If that last sentence was too harsh, here the section of the NAS literature review on Suicide (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=152). Their findings?

    NAS noted many methodological errors, many of which were quite serious. It was almost as if the researchers had found a conclusion and then manipulated their data sets to come up with that result.

    NAS concluded:
    "Some gun control policies may reduce the number of gun suicides, but they have not yet been shown to reduce the overall risk of suicide in any population."

    I wish the answer were as simple as Mr. Florida makes it out to be.

  22. johnnysquire is pushing that famous old pro-gun spin job that "most people intent on suicide will find a way regardless of the extent of local gun laws." It's just not true, in fact if you want to you can find plenty of research that shows just the opposite.

    The reason that makes sense is that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Think about it. It's been shown that the few who survive attempted gun suicides never try it again and are grateful they failed.

  23. Chris- I have not had time to read the link yet, but I did want to comment on this from you: " You might feel better about suicidal people using ropes or overdosing to kill themselves because at least they aren't firearms deaths, but maybe when it is your own neighbors that are taking their own lives, one is inclined to look for more serious solutions that might work." As you said, that is harsh. I, of course, wouldn't feel better about anybody using any method for suicide. My brother-in-law jumped off of a very high bridge. Did I feel better that he died that way instead of shooting himself? Certainly not. My daughter's good friend hung himself from a tree near his house. Did she feel better that he chose that method rather than a gun shortly after her own aunt had been shot to death, by the way? No. We all realize that people will choose all kinds of methods to commit suicide. The fact that guns are more effective and are used in a higher percentage of suicides than other methods says something, though. It can't be ignored.

  24. Mike,
    I'll see your "research" and raise you logic. If a person is truly suicidal, as opposed to those looking for attention, they will find a way. Take their gun, they'll find something else. Your statement, and the "research" would only be true in cases where the person wasn't really determined in the first place, or if guns were magic devices that could compel someone on the edge to do something. They aren't, so that just leaves the level of determination. Many countries which have near total gun bans still have high rates of suicide. Once again, guns have nothing to do with the issue at hand and are merely tools. Suicide is almost always a tragic thing. Let us not trivialize it by presuming some magic solution to a complex problem.

  25. "We all realize that people will choose all kinds of methods to commit suicide. The fact that guns are more effective and are used in a higher percentage of suicides than other methods says something, though. It can't be ignored. "

    The point Chris was making is that while guns are used more frequently in suicide, when guns are not available people will just use other means.

    Because of that, if you want to reduce suicide, you need to focus on the underlying cause, not the method. If you affect the underlying causes, gun suicides (and other suicides) will decrease, as will the overall suicide rate. If you focus just on the guns, it's more likely that gun suicides will decrease while other suicides will increase, to leave the suicide rate effectively unchanged.

    Which do you prefer?

  26. Heather, I do not buy into the myth that people will just use something else if they don't use a gun. We don't know that for sure. That is conjecture. There are certainly all kinds of methods and when they don't work, some people don't try again and remain alive. But with a gun, it is permanent with no chance to change your mind in a moment of depression or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. So efforts to reduce suicide by gun will most likely also reduce overall suicide. That could be considered conjecture on my part and I'm sure you will all take it that way. But your view is no more credible or believable than mine.

  27. Obviously it is a complex question and it is difficult to determine causation, but a quick glance shows that Canada (with restrictive gun laws) and the US (with less restrictive gun laws) have just about the same rate of suicide. Actually, Canada is even fractionally higher, though not enough to be statistically significant. Obviously one comparison is not conclusive.

    Regardless, it still seems like common sense that it would be more effective to address the reasons that people commit suicide rather than the methods they use to do so.

  28. Your logic doesn't work very well, Atrius and I'll tell you why. The determination level isn't he real point. The real point is the "temporary" aspect of the problem. Most suicides are not facing a life or death situation, often the problem is sadly trivial and as such it would pass given a little time. That's why I say "permanent solution to a temporary problem."

    Add to that the higher lethality of a gun compared to the other commonly-used methods, and you've got a problem that can be addressed by removing the guns.

    Heather's right about the underlying causes. But what she's missing is that we already do address them. And we already do discuss them, but that's on other blogs. Here we're talking about the gun availability which japete says very rightly increases the sad stats on suicide.

  29. "Add to that the higher lethality of a gun compared to the other commonly-used methods, and you've got a problem that can be addressed by removing the guns."

    What makes you think this is true? As a paramedic for 29 years, I know that it is not. I have seen firearm attempts fail and many other methods succeed. If they make the decision to do it, they will find an effective method. Automobiles are a common and effective method, jumping, hanging, the list goes on. A large number of unsuccessful overdoses are attention seeking and they were not serious, the same with many cut wrists. If they are serious the method is really irrelevant. I have seen many overdose or cut themselves INSTEAD of using the firearm that was readily available.
    Look at Japan, they have a far greater per capita suicide rate than we do, and there are NO GUNS. In fact the preferred method creates a serious threat to others by exposing others to toxic gasses.
    We need to address the issue, not the thing you fear. 50,000 people die each year in auto accidents, why no car control laws? It is the behavior, not the tool.

  30. Jack, You're just repeating the same old talking points without thinking about them.

    Take Japan for example. You screamed that there are "NO GUNS." That's not exactly true, now is it? What they have is fewer guns than other developed countries, but it's not none. They have a high suicide rate, but do you know why? It's because suicide has played a centuries long and honorable role in their culture. You've heard about the hari kari thing right? Don't you think that plays a part?

    Despite your anecdotal references to having seen first hand, "firearm attempts fail and many other methods succeed," most people accept, and some sutdies have shown, the fact that gunshots to the head are more likely to kill than the other common methods. So, my question is this, if Japan were suddenly flooded with guns, do you think the suicide rate would rise, yes or no?

  31. No. The method may change, but not the rate.
    Gabby Giffords received a fatal gunshot to the head, yet she lives. I simply do not buy the argument that guns are deadlier that cars, knives, or jumping from height.

    Just because your mind is made up and I can't change that does not mean you are right.

  32. Mike- Jack hasn't answered yet but I will. I don't believe it would make much difference either way. There is a slight chance there could be a minor increase in successful attempts. However, they don't seem to be having too hard a time succeeding now as is.

    The interesting thing here is that you're 100% correct that it is a cultural thing. The presence or absence of guns has little impact on their, or I believe our, suicide rate.

    You're argument about the effectiveness of one method vice another doesn't seem to make logical sense. Sure, shooting oneself is probably more effective than jumping out of a second story window. Yet it is no more effective than bailing out on the 30th floor. Yes, guns are more effective than some methods but they are less effective than other methods. Thus the argument isn't really relevant.

  33. But some here keep saying "the increased lethality of guns" It just isn't so. There are far too many factors, Caliber distance, type of round etc. There was an issue a few decades back about russian roulette with .38s like in the "Deer Hunter" which was a Vietnam movie. People were shooting themselves temple to temple and surviving. Often blinded, but quite alive.
    I transported a guy who was shot about 2 inches above the heart with a .44 magnum. All of the ballistics say there is no way to survive this, he did, and with only a little loss of lung function.
    I just don't buy the more lethal theory, if the person is truly motivated, they will find a way. Driving a large car at a high rate od speed into a crowd is very lethal. I don't see cars banned from schools.

    The thing to address is the person, not the tool the person used. That is just silly. Where does it stop? in England they ban class containers from bars because they are broken and used as cutting tools. If there are no guns, people will adapt.

  34. You know, Jack. Every time someone says something like this- " Driving a large car at a high rate od speed into a crowd is very lethal. I don't see cars banned from schools."- it's pretty much a conversation stopper and leads me to wonder whether the people who say it are thinking it through rationally. Really- what are you saying here? This is just nonsense and doesn't deserve consideration for the purpose of rational discussion.

  35. As a Paramedic, yes, I have seen it done and it was effective from the perps perspective. I see cars used to end life too, 90 mph in a parking lot into a concrete wall of a building ect.
    Why is it that an opinion that disagrees with yours is a conversation stopper and doesn't deserve consideration. A bit narrow minded don't you think? I am in fact looking at it rationally, not emotionally as are some. Where there is a will, there is a way. Addressing the person and their issues is the only rational answer. Making narcotics illegal does not make them go away, it only makes them a new source of income for smugglers and other criminal elements. look at prohibition, that didn't work either. Good, bad, or indifferent we must look beyond our narrow view of things and see the problem for what it is, an individual problem, not a gun problem.

  36. Jack- I would say narrow minded and single focused is someone who refuses to acknowledge that we just don't have a lot of deaths by someone driving into a crowd of people with the intent to commit murder. On the other hand, we do have a lot of deaths by someone with the intent to murder by bringing their loaded guns to public places and opening fire. If that person didn't have any kind of gun imaginable available to them plus the type of ammunition to commit mass murder, we just plain wouldn't have incidents continue like the many mass shootings we have had in our country. So for you to try to change the subject by telling me that there are just as many people driving their cars into crowds is disengenous at the least. The problem with your logic is that it just so happens that homicide and suicide by gun are among the leading causes of injury death in this country. That is why I'm doing what I'm doing. I'm sure you do see all kinds of other types of death. But to say that guns are not so bad because there are others is just plain wrong,.

  37. Perhaps you should re read what I said. If guns were banned, they would use other things such as I mentioned. and this HAS been done. I never said it was as common currently.
    BY FAR more people are killed in car crashes each year than are killed from guns, this is not in dispute.
    You fail to consider the 800,000 times each year that the FBI says firearms PREVENT violent crimes, and they admit that the number is higher, but as they are often unreported they could only guess.

    The thing is, it is not the gun. It is the human behind it that makes the decision to BREAK THE LAW and obtain one illegally and use it in the commission of a crime.
    Look at Briton and Australia when they enacted strict gun bans violent crime Skyrocketed! 400% was the last numbers I saw from Australia. In Briton they are now banning knives and glass in bars that can be broken to make a cutting weapon.
    When people get past their emotions and look at the problem with a clear head, they will be able to accept that the thing that needs addressed is the person that chooses to commit the crime.

    Look at the 1920's. You make alcohol illegal and ban it. Look how that worked out. It created one of the worst crime waves in US history. They attacked the thing, and not the person.
    Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result is a definition of insanity.

  38. I suppose I could say that this is a broken record. You may say the same about me. Gun deaths did not go up in Britain and Australia after enacting strict gun laws. You guys keep talking about overall crime. That's good. We should all be concerned about crime rates and I sure am. But I am writing about the effect of guns on the lives of human beings in America. And since the shootings go on unabated and have for years because we have not the courage to enact gun laws that would make a difference, we continue to see this. No other country has this problem. We are unique. Why? Because people like you insist that guns are not the problem and you hide behind the Second Amendment. We can do better and we can prevent and reduce gun deaths and injuries. I don't care if we say the gun did it or the person did it- surely it is the bullets that come from the guns which can't be shot by themselves, unless they do in instances I have provided. What matters is the daily carnage which is preventable. Saying it wasn't the gun makes no difference whatsoever on the outcome. So "attacking the thing" as you say, or the "person"- who's attacking? Not me. I am urging common sense. I am doing that by not attacking anyone or anything but urging you all to realize that you can help with the solution and not fear that this will affect you if you are a law abiding citizen. This debate about the "thing" or the "person" is old and tired. We need to talk differently about this. That's what I'm all about. So forgive me if my eyes glaze over when you give me your constant refrain about guns don't kill people. Find a new "attack". This one isn't working any more. Everyone knows that guns kill people. And my family knows that for sure.

  39. I am sorry that you cannot see the forest for the trees. EVERY State that has enacted shall issue concealed carry have seen drastic drops in violent crime, and gun violence. The highest crime rates are in Chicago, DC, and New York, all of which have the strictest gun laws,if not outright handgun bans.

    Your logic is that any decrease in gun violence is good. Ok say we restrict the rights of people who have been checked by the FBI, trained, and holding a permit to carry and now no one has hand guns (not really possible, criminals will be the only ones with them outside of the police in that case) so gun deaths go down say 50%. Overall violent crime deaths go up 2-400% to your logic that is a win. I am sorry, I cannot accept that line of "thought"

  40. Jack- we will have to agree to disagree then.