Nation needs stricter, safer gun control

web.coloredited.franchescaspektor.guncontrol copy

Approximately 270 million people in the United States own firearms. The United States also has the highest gun ownership rate per 100 residents on the planet, with an estimated 466 crimes per 100,000 people. This raises questions regarding whether or not the ability for American citizens to obtain guns should be allowed because of safety, as well as various interpretations of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Gun control laws in the United States need to either become more strictly enforced regarding backgrounds checks and the ability to obtain a gun, or guns should be banned altogether from citizens and police forces. This is because easy access to firearms leads to an increase in mass shootings and general violence as well as decreased safety of the public. No other position can be validly justified by the spirit and intention of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Second Amendment was originally created to address the fact that members of militias had the right to bear arms, not the general public. Former Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger stated that “the real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the ‘state armies’ — ‘the militias’ — would be maintained for the defense of the state.” The Second Amendment does not say anywhere that each individual has the right to bear arms and exclusively states that this right pertains to militias. Justice Stephen Breyer emphasized in the same case that “self ­defense alone, detached from any militia­ related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.” This means that individual self-defense was not what the amendment originally was intended to promote. Regarding the District of Columbia V. Heller case of 2008, Justice John Paul Stevens mentioned in his dissent that the purpose of the Second Amendment was a “response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States … ” meaning that there was fear that Congress would create only one standing central military instead, posing a threat to separate state militias. Using these interpretations, it is easy to rationalize the idea that the original intent of creating the Second Amendment was not to give every individual citizen the right to own a gun but to ensure that members of state militias were able to.

Another popular argument regarding the Second Amendment, if interpreted as every American man having the right to bear arms, is that the general public owning guns leads to a safer country with less crime rates. This can easily be disproven by simple statistics, in addition to the fact that the basis of the argument is an incorrect interpretation of the amendment itself. According to a study conducted on mass shootings by criminologist and author Frederic Lemieux, the number of guns per 100 inhabitants in the United States is 88.8, making it the country with the highest number of guns per 100 people. Because there has been a direct correlation between the amount of guns per 100 people in the U.S. and gun violence per year, the country has had more mass shootings than any other country on this planet. A study by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center showed that the number of days separating mass shootings went from on average 200 days between 1984 and 2011 to 64 days between 2011 and 2014. Increasingly frequent mass shootings do not make the United States safer than it could be if both citizens and the police force were not allowed to obtain guns and if the United States discontinued the manufacturing of firearms. If nobody in the United States owned a gun, including authority figures such as policemen, there truly would not be any valid reason for one to feel the need to own one themselves. There would also be more of a balance in power. Rather than using guns for self defense and protecting citizens, police officers should be given alternative weapons that do not have as easy of an ability to end a person’s life as a gun does, such as pepper spray, mace, tranquilizers and Tasers. If citizens don’t own guns, the police force won’t need them either. This could also be a step forward in solving the issue of police brutality that has become increasingly prevalent during the past two to three years.

One prevalent argument that is used over and over in favor of allowing gun ownership is that guns don’t kill people but people behind the trigger kill people, and that if we ban guns, we should ban all other weapons in the United States that can potentially kill a human being. But, according to the FBI’s Expanded Homicide Data Table, firearms (including handguns, rifles, shotguns and more) are the No. 1 most popular weapon used for murder in the United States. The second most common are knives and cutting instruments, and yet guns are more than five times more popular than knives regarding murderous weapons. This clearly shows that, although it is a human being behind the gun that is pulling the trigger, the gun itself is what is truly dangerous and has the most potential to kill someone. Another significant detail is that it is both physically and emotionally easier to end someone’s life with a gun because you do not have to physically stab them, strangle them or hit them. Also, things such as knives serve other central purposes than injuring or killing human beings, but guns are created solely for that purpose.

Many believe that as long as the individual buying a gun goes through a strict background check and does not have any mental illnesses, it is perfectly safe for them to buy and own firearms. This argument has a variety of different flaws, one of them being that although the buyer may satisfy gun ownership criteria and not be mentally unstable, they are still a human being and human beings still feel intense emotions such as raging anger or occasional depression. Human beings are impulsive and will act in the moment when trapped in extreme situations. A person could not have a background of mental illnesses and still go through a fit of anger and shoot their gun to release the emotions pent up inside of them. There is also a fatal link between guns and suicide, according to a 2008 study by Matthew Miller and David Hemenway of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, or HICRC. States with the highest rates of gun ownership had guns in 47 percent of households and more than 16,000 firearm suicides. Compare this to states with guns in 15 percent of their households and only about 4,000 firearm suicides, and one can clearly tell that there is a direct correlation between guns and suicide rates.

Another flaw regarding the argument above is that, although whoever is buying the gun may be mentally stable and meet the criteria, others living in their household may not be. An example of this is the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting of December 2012, in which 20­-year-­old Adam Lanza fatally shot 26 children and staff members using his mother’s gun, and then shot himself shortly after. The entire situation occurred because his mother’s guns were easily accessible and not locked up properly. Lanza was also diagnosed with various mental conditions years before as a child, such as sensory­ integration disorder and obsessive­ compulsive disorder. This and many other public shootings could have been easily prevented if firearms were not so accessible to other members of the household or even kept in a safe elsewhere, like at a specialized shooting range.

Overall, the public and police force’s access to guns has led to far more harm than good in the United States over the past few years and only continues to worsen as time goes on. Change can be made and action can be taken, however. If firearms are banned from being manufactured and obtained by the public in this country and members of the police force are only allowed to use defense weapons that don’t have the potential to end a person’s life in a single shot, it can lead to decreased crime rates, decreased suicide rates and a generally safer and more peaceful nation for future generations.

Jaskrit Bhalla Shifa is a member of the greater Bay Area community.

The byline accompanying a previous version of this op-ed misspelled Jaskrit Bhalla’s name.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • doninla

    83% of all killings with a gun are by gang members or drug dealers. The murder rate in most of America is less than that of England France or Germany. Guns are NOT a white problem, or a middle class problem. Guns are a black and brown problem. Oh and there are about 90-120 million gun owners in the US, or there about.
    Lastly, PLEASE stop using the names of mass murders. Even in death deny them the publicity they so craved.

  • John Kiernan


  • AHill

    Whoever paid for your college education needs to get their money back. The Second Amendment DOESN’T say: … The right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms… It says the right of the PEOPLE.
    Also even if your erroneous “militia membership required” reading was true; according to 10 U.S. Code § 311 :

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    Which means ALL ABLE BODIED MALES OVER THE AGE OF 17 ARE THE MILITIA! Which therefore means they would be allowed to keep and bear arms anyway.

  • Madcap_Magician

    If anything in this article is factually correct, from the VERY FIRST SENTENCE, it escapes me.

    1. “There are 270 million gun owners in the U.S.” Um, no. There are not. There are only about 320 million people in the United States. A generous estimate would be that half of them, or maybe 160 million people, own firearms.
    2. “The U.S. has the highest gun ownership rate per 100 residents on the planet, with an estimated 466 crimes per 100,000 people.” Those are not even the same things! I don’t even… how do you conflate “guns owned per 100 people” and “gun crimes per 100,000 people”? Do you even read your own work before sending it to the editor? Does the copy editor? Does ANYONE?

  • Kurt VanderKoi

    You forgot to mention this research:
    “Much of the political thinking about violence in the United States comes from unfavorable comparisons between the United States and a series of cherry-picked countries with lower murder rates and with fewer guns per capita”

    Background Checks:

    The Truth About Gun Control:

    Two Jihadists tried the same thing in Texas and were dropped on the spot by an alert, trained and courageous Garland TX Police officer. And had that officer not been there, Mohamad and Malik would have been dropped by any number of proud Americans from Texas who are not afraid to carry their firearm and who know how to use it.

    Thanks to CALIFORNIA ANTI-2ND AMENDMENT LAWS AND THE ATTITUDE OF TOO MANY LATTE SIPPING CALIFORNIANS, all they could do was cower and hide. A few trained and armed citizens would have dramatically reduced the loss of life in San Bernadino.

  • CJ

    Only dictatorships, fascist states and New World Order Illuminati like strict gun laws,

    • lspanker

      You left out idiot goo-goo liberals who think passing laws against gun ownership will make criminals give up their guns…

  • R T Deco

    “Suppose the Second amendment said ‘A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.’ Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?”

    – Robert Levy, Georgetown University Professor

  • Kyle Guthrie

    Utopia is just beautiful this time of year.

  • cpatd

    Sorry, Jaskrit, your research is lacking. Nobody disputes the fact that the SCOTUS has utilized
    The Federalist articles in helping to determine Constitutional issues. One of the most important
    articles involving private ownership of firearms can be found in The Federalist #46 authored by
    James Madison who is considered to be the “Father of the Constitution “. The subject of this
    particular article is the relationship between various levels of government. Madison points out
    that in Europe the governments do not trust the people with firearms which is not the case
    in America. He speculates that if Europeans had their own weapons they would overthrow their
    tyrants. Clearly, Madison points out that ARMED CITIZENS can form militias rather than organized
    militias being granted access to firearms. You need to abandon your trite and inaccurate argument
    regarding militias and firearms. I challenge you and other skeptics to read Federalist #46.

  • Paul Anderson

    “whether or not the ability for American citizens to obtain guns should be allowed because of safety” the passive voice herein accompanied by defensive arguments. The 2nd amendment was about allowing people with the means to kill native Americans and keep slaves and fight in foreign wars.

    A proposal: reassign federal, state, and local authorities to disarm every private gun owning resident of the United States. Don’t wait for an amendment to the constitution. Fight any challenges to the disarmament program in court. But, whatever the case, continue the program of disarmament. If the feds won’t do it, do it locally first without them.

    • cpatd

      No, the 2nd Amendment was about the people having the right to challenge
      a tyrannical federal government. As I have previously stated, read James
      Madison’s Federalist #46 if you don’t believe it.

    • Paladin SF

      Do you want to be the first one through the door?

  • Mr. Chow

    Oh wow, this is one of the worst articles ever published on daily cal and that’s saying something. I’m thinking Jaskrit has never owned or even used a firearm before and thus her knowledge of guns comes from Hollywood and twisted stats from the Brady Campaign. And yet, of all the firearms I own, not one has ever magically gone off on its own volition to commit a mass shooting. Could the responsibility lie with the shooter? Go figure.

  • Good lord. We can only pray.

  • I guess when you can’t find a progressive with an English degree on the weekend to write the usual illogical, anti-gun rhetoric fed to them by the super majority of progressive-statist gun-banners in the California legislature during the gun banning season, you go to a “member of the community”…who ‘s name has no social media accounts cached by google…ya… sure… Wow… just wow.

  • pwrserge

    Sorry bro. My rights are not subject to regulation, registration, legislation, or the democratic process. If you don’t like that, feel free to move back to whatever third world hellhole your family hails from.

  • gunsandrockets

    The logic of a liberal: suicide by gun = “gun violence”


    Does that mean in Japan that suicide by rope = “rope violence”?

    After all, Japanese kill themselves with ropes twice as frequently as Americans kill themselves with guns, per capita.

  • gunsandrockets

    The utter failure of the strict gun-control laws of California to control the rate of murder or prevent mass shootings in California, is a lesson to the rest of the nation.

    But an even more important lesson to the nation, is how even strict gun-control does not satisfy the appetites of the gun-control cultists for ever harsher measures. California has pretty awful gun-control laws, and they are getting more strict every year.

  • Billca

    Mr. Shifa confuses correlation with causation in the instance of suicide. Because there are a high number of firearm suicides in some location that also has high gun ownership does not mean that firearms caused the suicide nor that some percentage would be prevented by a lack of firearms since other means may be substituted. Other countries that heavily restrict firearms have higher suicide rates than the U.S.

    Mr. Shifa is not familiar enough with the 2nd Amendment’s purpose to properly evaluate it. He claims there is not individual right to arms, but only a state’s “right” to have a militia (hint: governments have powers while people have rights). He errs in stating the purpose of the right “exclusively states that this right pertains to militias.” This is incorrect. The reference to the militia is merely one reason the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Other reasons can be given as well, like hunting, defense of self or community. Note it is the people who have the right, not the previously mentioned militia.

    While the amendment specifies the right belongs to the people further evidence of individual ownership is found in the Militia Act of (8 May) 1792. The act required that persons 18-45 be “enrolled” in the local militia and thereafter the are to provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges… The citizen was expected to purchase his own weapon and ammunition (powder & ball or paper cartridges) and provide other equipment at his own expense.

    Arms were important. Important enough that the first section of the act specified that citizens providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same
    exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

    There’s more that Mr. Shifa gets wrong, of course. But starting with a flawed understanding of the Second Amendment and who the holder of the right is fatally dooms his Op-Ed piece.

  • gunsandrockets

    How interesting that our friend here want to refight the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    There is a reason that Amendment is part of those first ten Amendments, better known as The Bill Of Rights!

    The continued nonsensical attempts to nullify the power of the 2nd Amendment by claiming it is nothing more than a ‘right of States to have their own military force’ is not only contradicted by the language of the constitution itself, it also leads to plainly absurd conclusions, like Texas should have the right to it’s own State controlled force of nuclear weapon armed bombers.

    But get used to hearing more of this propaganda. Hillary is campaigning on cracking down on the NRA and increasing restrictions on public ownership of firearms through stricter gun-control laws. Notably Hillary has said the U.S. Supreme Court “got it wrong” when it upheld the 2nd Amendment in the 2008 landmark decision regarding the case of Washington D.C. v Heller.

  • gunsandrockets

    The logic of a liberal: Ban all legal guns, in the hope that that will somehow stop the illegal guns.

    Less than 1/6 of 1% of all the guns in the United States are used in any kind of crime. And less than 1 out of every 3,000 guns in the United States are used in a murder.

  • Billca

    There are approximately 126 million legal gun owners who own around 300 million firearms in the U.S. along with anywhere from 15 to 450 billion rounds of ammunition.

    Seriously, if legal gun ownership was a problem, you’d know it.

    Obama is right about one thing when he says the majority of gun owners use guns responsibly. That’s attested to the fact that with 300 million of them less than .003% are used in homicides and less than .01% are used to kill anyone – including suicides. That means 99.99% of guns are owned and used safely every year.

  • spencer60

    Wow, what a confused mess this piece is.

    Right from the start it’s wrong. There are roughly 300 million guns in the US, not gun owners. That number is around 100 million according to the Dept. of Justice.

    Needless to say, the rest of this rant goes downhill fast from there.

  • *yawn* The usual ignorance and baloney.

  • DanH

    No. Next issue.

  • Chris

    Liberals like to hear themselves talk. American citizens will never
    give up their Rights. Nor should they.

  • Uberhoo

    The silliest diatribe I’ve read in ages; every paragraph has untruths it’s hard to pick just one;
    But I’m game, so to quote “human beings still feel intense emotions such as raging anger or
    occasional depression. Human beings are impulsive and will act in the moment” according to the author they should be denied access to firearms. But this conveniently ignores the multitude of rights enjoyed by a free society and effectively argues that a human is guilty (of future potential offense) until proven innocent. By the way, he’s ignoring that correlation has no relationship to causation, e.g. because you own a gun does not make one more homicidal or suicidal.

  • willone

    I got as far as “guns should be banned altogether from citizens and police forces” and realized there was no sense reading more. If you were to reset the time back 100 years we would see our America where there is essentially no gun control . Full auto machine guns perfectly legal at your local hardware store. Dynamite too. Children could buy and use guns. Its not the easy availability guns that is at fault So don’t buy into all of the rhetoric and become ignorant of history by avoiding this truth. It’s not the Guns …they have always been here and always will, 350 million Guns today. What we have is a continuing People problem.

  • Clifford Ishii

    I claim the natural right to self defense. Are you going to repeal that also? And because of that natural right I will carry a Jo staff absent a gun.

  • SuperChilidogs .

    The author needs a basic junior high civics lesson… To learn, maybe, the distinction between the prefatory clause and the operative clause of constitutional amendments. Who are “the People”??

    • Madcap_Magician

      I’d settle for a basic high school English lesson. Critical thinking would be a bonus. The author makes no arguments, only bald-faced assertions that rely on begging the question or oversimplifying a complex argument that he or she clearly doesn’t understand.

  • Kronsteen

    Former Chief Justice Warren Burger is always quoted by liberals who want to ban guns. Fact, Justice Burger never wrote an opinion on a 2nd Amendment related case in his entire life. Whenever you hear someone say otherwise they are either lying or misinformed.

  • Paladin

    What a load of SHIFASHIT…

  • Anonymous

    Keep dreaming, gun grabber. We’re not giving up our rights, our guns or our opposition to your poorly thought-out, dishonest attack on liberty.

  • Sam

    Another opinion that plays fast and lose with the facts. How about this fact for every crime committed with a gun there are conservatively 10 crimes that are stopped.

  • timbroweraz

    molon labe!

  • Sho Rembo

    Firearm ownership up, violent crime down. Explain.

  • Toblerone

    That’s a fantastic idea. Wow I wish someone had thought of this before – let’s outlaw guns so nobody, even the police have them, then no one will ever get shot or killed. As long as we can keep criminals from figuring out if they can somehow manage to get their hands on some illegal guns that they will have a huge advantage over law abiding citizens and even the police this will definitely work! And once we pull this off we should then disarm all of the world’s armies and we can fight wars with tasers and pepper spray too. Or maybe we can just use water ballons and silly string instead. Wouldn’t that make war so much more fun?

  • whitney slater

    Jaskrit Bhalla Shifa states, “This is because easy access to firearms leads to an increase in mass shootings and general violence as well as decreased safety of the public.”

    Blaming an inanimate object on the actions of others demonstrate this authors failure to realize the true problems source and recognize personal responsibility. Replace the word “firearms” with alcohol, automobiles, baseball bats or hammers. The problem is “violence” in general and as such the object used is inconsequential.

    @Jaskirit Bhalla Shifa
    In response to the terminally ignorant,
    I’d like to explore the idea that we regulate cars like we do guns.

    To buy or operate a standard car, one will have to be 18 years old. Under that
    age, adult supervision will be mandatory. This means the adult must be in the
    vehicle with the underage driver.

    To buy a sports car, you will have to be 21. A “Sports car” will be
    defined as any combination of any two of the following: 2 doors instead of 4,
    spoked rims not requiring hubcaps, aerodynamic effects such as spoilers or air
    dams, a wheelbase under 100 inches, a manual transmission, a curb weight under
    3000 lbs, fiberglass or other non-metal construction, or painted logos.

    For every purchase, you will have to fill out a questionnaire confirming you’re
    a US citizen, do not use drugs or abuse alcohol, have never had a conviction
    for alcohol related incidents or reckless driving. Lying on this form will be
    punishable by 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

    New cars will only be purchased from Federal Automobile Licensees who must
    provide fingerprints, proof of character, secure storage for all vehicles, and
    who must call the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles to verify your information
    before purchase. They may approve or decline or delay the sale. If they
    decline, you may appeal the decision in writing to a review board. If they
    delay, it becomes an approval automatically after 10 days. However, the dealer
    may decline to complete such a sale in case of later problems.

    Some vehicle law convictions will
    result in loss of your driving privileges forever. This includes reckless
    operation, drunk driving, an incorrect bumper height or attachment, or the
    wrong type of exhaust. Collisions may also result in permanent loss of driving,
    if injury occurs and negligence is proven. In addition, any felony conviction
    of any kind–even tax evasion–will mean permanent loss of your driving
    privileges. In these cases, it will even be illegal to ride or sit in a
    friend’s car.

    There is also discussion of prohibiting brightly colored vehicles. Vehicles are
    transportation, not toys, and should not be marketed in a way that suggests
    they are intended for casual use. It is important that everyone be aware of the
    dangerous nature of cars.

    In the future, we may have to consider
    large displacement engines (anything over 2.5 liters) and transmissions with
    more than three speeds as being High Performance Items to be added to the
    federal registry. There will be a window during which you can register your
    items for $2000 each, provided you meet the background check. Otherwise, you
    will have to immediately surrender them to an FAL/SOT to dispose of on your
    behalf. Operating an unlicensed HPV after this date will result in confiscation
    and destruction of the vehicle, and the 10/$10,000 punishment.

    Eventually, we need to move away from the notion that owning and operating a
    vehicle is a right and entitlement, and limit it to people with a proven, bona
    fide professional need. There are plenty of trains and buses for normal people.
    This is how most civilized nations are moving and is not a violation of your
    right to travel.

  • ShadrachSmith

    And one more thing: “America’s present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration.” WGH

  • ml_Oath

    This anti gun screed must hold the record for total and complete nonsense

    • gunsandrockets

      No kidding. From the very first sentence…

      “Approximately 270 million people in the United States own firearms.”??!!

      I wish.

      If that many Americans owned guns we wouldn’t even be hearing this debate anymore. It would get laughed off as much as an appeal by a member of the KKK for bringing back government enforced racial segregation.

      The number of firearms in American hands probably numbers anywhere from 300 to 400 million. But the number of gun owners is probably closer to 50 million.

  • yardbird1947

    One in twenty Texans have Concealed Handgun Permits. They walk among us every day. They are the polite ones.

  • lspanker

    Even if there were a rational argument for stricter gun control laws (one the author hasn’t offered here), how would you plan to implement it when we lack the political will to police our own 2000+ mile land border with a third world country that is involved for all practical purposes in a civil war with narcoterrorist groups? We can’t even keep people from coming in here illegally, so how are we going to stop guns, which are much smaller and far easier to transport and conceal?

  • Hal P.

    “interpretations of the Second Amendment of the Constitution”

    Only a Interpretation when you do not agree with what it states..

    “The Second Amendment was originally created to address the fact that members of militias had the right to bear arms, not the general public”

    You also need to do your home work, which by your opinion you have not.

    The militias is “ALL” of the people

  • ttboy2004

    I saw this and it is so well written i had to re-post it.

    Let’s take a quick look at the FACTS.

    The US Ranks #1 in Gun ownership in 218 Countries listed at 90 guns per 100 residents.

    The US Ranks 111th out of the 218 for per capita Homicides with 4.7 Homicides per 100,000 people. (note: Not all Homicides are Firearm related, and 60% of firearms deaths are suicides.)

    No 1. Is Honduras. A socialist gun control country, with 90 Homicides per 100,000 people

    The Democratically Controlled cities with strict Gun Control Laws rank as follows for Homicides per 100,000 people:

    1. Detroit 54.6 2. New Orleans 53.2 3. St Louis 35.5 4. Baltimore 34.9 5. Newark 34.4 per 6. Oakland 31.8 per 7. Stockton 23.7 8. Kansas City 22.6 9. Philadelphia 21.5 10. Cleveland 21.3

    Now let’s look at that Gun Crazy town of Plano, TX, where virtually everyone has a firearm of some type. The Homicide rate per 100,000 is 0.4.

    So is the problem really guns? Or the people holding them? According to the FBI Website almost ALL violent crime happens in pockets of cities with a population of greater than 250,000 with high minority populations. Facts and Logic dictate that we DO NOT have a “Gun” Problem. We have cultural problem in the inner cities of America. Which are almost EXCLUSIVELY run by the Democratic Party

    • gunsandrockets

      To be fair some of those high homicide cities are in States with pretty relaxed gun-control laws. It isn’t strict gun-control laws those cities have in common, it is another truth which one dares not speak of in polite society.

      I prefer comparing States rather than Cities.

      Comparing various U.S. States, comparing their homicide rates, gun control laws, and other factors is pretty revealing. At worst you can easily prove that gun-control laws have NO significant influence on murder rates per capita. For example, drug ridden and public welfare dependent Kentucky which has very light gun control laws has a lower rate of homicide than California which has the strictest gun-control laws of any State. Texas, which is almost an identical match in many aspects for California including homicide rates, is among the states with the least strict gun control laws.

  • ttboy2004

    Democrats are the cause of GUN VIOLENCE IN THIS COUNTRY

    – Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Reg­istered Democrat and Muslim.

    – Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter

    – Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.

    – James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occu­py guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.

    – Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.

    – Andrew J. Stack, flew plane into IRS building in Texas – Leftist Democrat

    – James J. Lee who was the “green activist”/ leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.

    – Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.

    – Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.

    – Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.

    – Bill Ayers, Weather Underground bomber – Leftist Democrat.

    – Lee Harvey Oswald, Socialist, Communist and Democrat – killed Kennedy…

    Why are no conservative NRA members involved in mass shootings?

    Curious, isn’t it? So I was thinking, maybe we should just make it illegal for Democrats to buy guns?

    Problem solved. I think that is a fair solution. After all. it is for the children.

  • ttboy2004

    The top 15 causes of death,in the United States in order, are:

    Heart disease – 611,105

    Malignant neoplasms (cancer) – 584,881

    Chronic lower respiratory diseases – 149,205

    Accidents (unintentional injuries) – 130,557

    Cerebrovascular diseases (I don’t even know what that means) – 128,978

    Alzheimer’s – 84,767

    Diabetes – 75,578

    Flu and pneumonia – 56,979

    Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (sounds like a metal band) – 47,112

    Suicide – 41,149

    Septicemia (I think this is an alien race on Star Trek) – 38,156

    Liver disease & cirrhosis – 36,427

    Hypertension – 30,770

    Parkinson’s – 25,196

    Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids 18,579

    Firearms is not even on the list

    • ePoch 270

      Cerebrovascular diseases = strokes

  • ttboy2004

    The Gun grabbers would have you believe that if you submit to the registration of your firearms it would reduce crime. They tell you that if you register your guns, you could still use them for hunting and self-defense. History shows otherwise. It is a fact that every single nation that has required the registration of firearms has soon confiscated those firearms, leaving their citizens defenseless.

    In 1911 Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

    In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents were arrested and executed.

    In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were killed by the state.

    In 1935 China established gun control. Between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and murdered by the Communists.

    In 1956 Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million “educated” people (about 1/3 of the entire population!) were executed by the Reds.

    In 1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981 over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed, unable to defend themselves.

    In 1970 the Ugandan dictator decreed gun control. During the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were murdered.

    Over 56 million people have died, unable to defend themselves, because of gun control in the last century alone.

  • MrApple

    What the Nation ACTUALLY needs to do:
    1. Enforce laws already on the books.
    2. Make it so crimes where a firearm/weapon is used garner more punishment.
    3. Abolish “Gun Free Zones”.
    4. Keep violent criminals in jail. Stop plea bargaining and throw the book at these people.
    5. Put “Gun Ed” in schools to teach firearm safety.
    6. End the War on Drugs and severely punish gang activity.

  • ruckus

    typical commifornia misinformational libral crap. the militia is the people and there is a comma separating the 2nd amendment into to very important parts. first part a well regulated militia being necessary for free state, (meaning state militias have a right to bare arms) the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.(the second part is us,the citizen) stop twisting the 2nd to fit your crap ideas.

  • ShadrachSmith

    Where you start out largely determines where you end up. If you start with the natural right of self defense, and you see law as the collective expression of natural rights, you arrive at the government obligation to maintain the individual right for citizens to own guns.

    If you see citizens as a resource of the state, then citizens should be disarmed to better control them.

    • MrApple

      The State is there to serve me and NOT the other way around.

  • pawneefork

    “If nobody in the United States owned a gun, including authority figures such as policemen, there truly would not be any valid reason for one to feel the need to own one themselves.” Well… there’s the little problem of 200 lb men raping 115 lb women, crimes against the elderly, multiple attacker against the solitary innocent, etc., and the fact that [short of magic] there will never be ‘no’ guns in America. There’s a saying about disarmament: “Those who turn their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don’t.” And that would be the best case. Californian’s fantasies to the contrary, men are inherently evil and removing The Equalizer just shifts the fight to another class of weapon, and a new group of predators.

    • lspanker

      As they say, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away…

  • gdogs

    Sorry, but the author’s entire argument regarding militias is easily countered by simply reading the US Militia code. The people are the militia, end of argument. Tell me gun grabbers, why do you believe that the Bill of Rights pertains to all citizens in every instance except the 2nd? The one thing I’ll commend Shifa on is the openness of the opinion to want to ban guns altogether. In doing so you prove the gun right’s supporters case against any new gun laws. Now if the gun grabber politicians would be as honest we could finally put these calls for “sensible gun laws” to bed. It isn’t about sensible, it is about taking guns away from citizens – one step at a time.

    • Mark Talmont

      But note that he completely ignored the impracticality of confiscation. Ban ammo? The best gun salesman in history took care of that with the obvious attempt to monopolize bullets, as a result nobody has been able to keep ammo on the shelf for years. When they started banning the large-sized clips, every on-line dealer immediately sold out of all the regular-sized too.

      When you combine this with the near-non-enforcement of the immigration laws, we’re like a spring-loaded Beirut or Baghdad just ready for the adequate trip-wire. Do you suppose this is what they had in mind?