On Gun Violence and the Second Amendment

America has a problem with violence, and specifically gun violence. This is a fact, not an opinion, and is confirmed with a glance at the statistics, backed up as well by abundant anecdotal evidence. On any given day or week I can cite the latest example of the most publicized gun shooting or campus massacre. This week, for example, three Muslim students studying dentistry at the University of North Carolina were shot in the head execution-style by a gun-loving lunatic and “second amendment rights advocate” apparently because of an argument about a parking space. It’s hard to see how the presence of guns in situations like these do not escalate arguments into tragedies. For every absurdly awful example we hear about like this, there are dozens more happening the same week that do not even appear on the news. Gun deaths, for the first time ever, have just passed car accidents as the single most common cause of death in America. There have been at least 107 school shootings since the 2012 massacre at a Newtown, Connecticut elementary school (source here). There is, on average, one mass shooting incident a week in America, and this type of killing is only represents a small percentage of the overall number of gun killings. America is by far the most violent of the developed and rich countries, and is one of the most violent even among all countries. There are so many gun deaths that they are literally impossible to keep track of. After the Newtown massacre, the online magazine Slate attempted a thorough crowd-sourced project to keep track of every single gun death in America in real-time. Not only did it prove overwhelming, but they quit after tracking over 11,000 gun deaths in a year, which are only about one third of the estimated number. Including not only murders but also suicides and accidental shootings, there are 30,000 gun-related deaths in America per year, an astronomical number which is highest in the world by a long distance. Are we supposed to assume that it is a completely unrelated fact that America also has the highest number of guns, and guns per capita, in the world–somewhere around 300 million guns in a population of 310 million–almost one gun per every man, woman, and child in the third most populated country in the world. We have often heard the dismissal of such figures by gun activists and lobbyists with quaint slogans like “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” That such a facile line could gain traction and still carry weight with many people shows the depth of the gun problem in America. To those who love guns and defend the right to bear arms, I would encourage you to hear me out. After all, the violence that plagues America is most likely to happen to those who have guns (as this other article in Slate also shows).

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is commonly believed to mean that every individual has the right to own any and all type of firearm he so desires. As we know, this law was written in the late 1700s in a new country with a dangerous frontier and a weak central government, and where the latest firearm technology was the long rifle. It is not difficult to understand that the maintenance of personal firearms was allowed for defense against Indians and also to ease the financial strain on the small federal government which did not even have a standing army yet and would hope that state and local militias could procure their own equipment at their own expense. Anyone who thinks that the right to bear arms can somehow protect individuals against government tyranny, one of the main interpretations of the 2nd amendment, is living in the past. The differences between 1790s America and 2015 America are many, but they include the the presence of well-armed local and state police, National Guards, the most well-equipped military in the world, and a countless variety of federal intelligence, spy, and investigative agencies. No citizen can hope to have a fighting chance against such an array of centralized force of arms, and I think we have to assume that America is fairly secure in its borders and its democratic system of government; it is this that has to be appealed to for grievances and rights, not the fact that you carry a rifle or handgun. Anyone who thinks that the short line of text which calls for a “well-regulated militia” to mean, in the 21st century, the limitless right to stockpile highly lethal rapid-fire rifles with armor-piercing bullets and concealed handguns with enormous magazines probably missed the point. Even if I agreed that an endless supply of guns and bullets were necessary for self-defense against criminals or a potentially tyrannical government (which I don’t), I would still at least hope for some serious limits and controls on who can buy guns and where. No such controls exist on the federal level, and each state has different laws and regulations, few of which are very strict (and if one’s state has stricter regulations, by chance, there is no obstacle whatever to going across the state lines or using the internet to get any weapons you want and need).

It is much easier to get a gun than a driving license, for example. One may argue that cars kill people too, and even in greater numbers (well, until last year when guns overtook them), so they should be regulated more. I am not arguing against regulations for cars and driving licenses — I’m perfectly happy with how things currently stand in that area; I am, however, arguing for more regulations and checks for guns. While the sole purpose of cars is a means of transport (which just happen to kill many people in accidents during normal use), the sole purpose of guns is to fire high velocity bits of metal into other things, living and non-living, to kill and destroy them. That is quite a significant difference of purpose, and negates the argument about how “people kill people” or how a variety of other things are also used to kill people, intentional or not (such as knives, cars, baseball bats, almost anything you can imagine); the difference, of course, is that only guns exist solely to kill people and animals, while all of the other things have other primary purposes as functional tools of some sort. I may be able to kill a person with a knife if I happen to be a murderously-inclined person, but it would be much harder to kill many people with that knife before I was stopped, unlike with high-powered guns with endless ammunition. And by the way, I happen to have many knives for cutting vegetables, opening boxes, and other dangerous daily tasks, but somehow do not feel any danger in owning these tools. Let me relate an anecdote: exactly the same day as a maniacal young boy shot and killed 26 people in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, a maniac with a knife attacked and injured 22 people in an elementary school in China. The attack in Newtown killed almost everyone who was shot, including mostly children, while in the attack in China, also involving all children, every single victim survived. This goes to show that while there will always be a certain number of crazed and murderous people around in any society, their murderous actions can be either very deadly or merely very disturbing but ultimately unsuccessful depending on the lethality of the weapons at their disposal. I think you can see that guns do, in fact, kill people. Lots of them. Nowhere as much as in America.

There are obviously good and bad aspects about any particular country, and America is no different. There are many great things about my country that I appreciate, but many things that I am uncomfortable with and ready to openly criticize, as is my right to free speech and free expression. I currently live in Italy, where my two young daughters were born. I imagine a return to living in America sometime in the future, but one thing that truly stops me in my tracks is the incredible and horrifying number of school shootings, and the apparent ubiquity of violence in general. This is not normal in a supposedly advanced, rich, and “free” society, and it does not occur anywhere in Europe or any other developed country for that matter. At this point, I can still say that it is almost impossible for me to imagine going back to an America where my children would be enrolling in schools that could be attacked by a demented lunatic at any time. It is not normal and not satisfactory. It is unconscionable that there has been no new legislation from the U.S. Congress at any time since the 2012 Newtown shooting, not to mention 13 years earlier at Columbine High School, the first school shooting that showed up on people’s radar. At least after Newtown there was a huge public outcry and some initial movement on the issue, including the president saying that things must change immediately and there can be no more Newtowns. Well, nothing has changed, and there have been over 100 more Newtowns.

Here is another point of comparison: in Australia, in 1996, there was a mass shooting spree similar to the ones that happen in America every week, and 35 people were killed. The Australian government, with pressure and support from the citizens, passed a strict gun control law immediately after that incident and there have literally been no more mass shootings since then, gun homicides have dropped 60 percent, and gun suicides have dropped 75 percent. I doubt that the Australian people feel any less free for being thus safer than their American counterparts–in fact, the new laws, regulations, and a gun buyback scheme had the support of 85 percent of Australians.

That brings me to the point of freedom. America talks a big game about freedom, but actually there is so much talk about it that the word has basically become meaningless in most cases. We hear about people who actually want freedom to limit other people’s freedom, for example. When someone talks about freedom to have guns, I think about my preferred freedom from being around people with guns. Does someone’s right to have a deadly weapon outweigh my right to not be threatened or killed by these weapons just by living nearby? That is what we are facing in America. The number of guns is so high, they are so widespread and easily obtainable by anybody, and the limits and even consequences for using them are so non-existent, that I would not feel safe returning to America. You may say, “Fine, stay in Europe, we don’t need you here.” For the moment, that is exactly what I will do. I feel no danger whatsoever of people with guns, or the possibility of school shootings, in Italy (I also have free national healthcare, but that’s another story). Anyone who wants a gun can go through the proper procedures and get one legally, usually for hunting, but the numbers are minuscule compared to America. The gun-related deaths are, unsurprisingly, also miniscule. Sometimes there are other rich countries with a high number of guns that are compared to America–Switzerland, for example, or Israel. These countries still have less than half the number of guns per 100 people than America, and they are much more regulated, or, in the unique case of Israel, used for a de facto military-police state where large numbers of conscripted soldiers walk the streets with their rifles. Even with a large number of guns per capita, these countries have a much lower incidence of gun deaths than America. So is America, in addition to being absurdly awash in guns (remember, almost one for every man, woman, and child in a country of over 300 million), also more violent and willing to use these guns than other societies? There must be a cause and effect relationship, though it is hard to tease out exactly the effects from the causes, which probably both influence each other.

Humans are imperfect and sometimes violent, but when someone becomes enraged for some reason, it is going to become much worse and have the possibility to escalate quickly into a deadly situation when there are guns readily available. Many gun owners think they will be safer, but I would argue that actually the opposite is true. A significant portion of gun-related deaths in America are due to accidental firings, even involving young children playing and killing a parent or sibling in a tragically high number of cases. There is a thought experiment in game theory called the Prisoner’s dilemma, in which two prisoners receive different sentences based on if they betray each other or remain silent. If A and B betray each other they will each serve 2 years; if A betrays B but B remains silent, A will go free and B will serve 3 years (and vice versa); if A and B both remain silent they both serve 1 year. By choosing logically in one’s self-interest the prisoner would appear to have the best chance of going free, but if both choose based only on self-interest it would actually be a worse outcome for both. The point is that cooperation and some sense of shared fortune or fate is often a better choice than pure self-interest. This relates to guns in the following way: it is commonly believed that having a gun makes one safer from harm, but if everyone believed this then the community actually becomes less safe. The more guns there are, the more chance for gun violence, as we have seen with the statistics I gave earlier. If some people make a choice to not own guns, and be apparently less safe, it will actually make the community as a whole safer. I choose to not own guns, and I think my stance does in fact support the overall safety of a community, though an individual with a gun may possibly be safer on his own.

Despite so much killing, and mass killing, why are there not new laws and restrictions on guns in America? One of the most shocking factors may be that the daily and weekly occurrence of gun crime, week after week, year after year, is often unreported, and when it is reported it has actually stopped being shocking to people. After all, humans can only take so much bad news before they inevitably start to tune it out and seek other distractions.  There was a brief point of time after Newtown in 2012 when many people were again awoken from their unconcerned slumber and the forces were aligned to actually discuss gun control in a real way and maybe even do something about it, but soon most people lost interest and the moment passed. This brings me to the firearm manufacturing industry and its powerful lobby, represented by none other than the National Rifle Association. This lobby is highly skilled at the art of forceful persuasion of politicians to not attempt any gun control law, nor even discuss it. The NRA is possibly the most powerful lobby in the country and has been relentless in stopping all attempts at making the country safer, despite increasingly crazed and heartless rhetoric from its leader Wayne LaPierre about personal freedom that would make Jefferson and Madison blush. The fact is, its not about freedom–when 30,000 people a year get killed by something we cannot say it protects freedom–but money. The arms industry is extremely profitable, to say the least, and it is obviously in their interest to insure that new customers continue to purchase new guns with no obstacles standing in the way of their profit. We see a similar thing on an even larger scale with the entire military-industrial complex, in which huge arms producers are always looking for the next war and the next huge government contract. With guns, the industry appeals to private individuals as well as state and federal agencies, police forces, and the military, which all need to constantly stay highly armed with the newest models and accessories. Local police across the country are more highly militarized than some of the army units I saw during two years in an actual combat zone in Afghanistan. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Violence leads to more violence, and the guns flow only slightly more freely than blood. In this environment, paranoia reigns and people who already have guns or consider having them will be convinced that they need to get even more before the big bad government comes to take them away and limit their freedom.

America, get yourself straightened out. This violence is not acceptable, and the people should not accept it any longer. People need to wake up and get involved. The cycle will continue until it is stopped. In the words of Johnny Cash, don’t take your guns to town, son; leave your guns at home, Bill; don’t take your guns to town.

Liked it? Take a second to support Wrath-Bearing Tree on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!

David James

David James served as a Fire Support Officer in the 173d Airborne in Afghanistan from 2005-2006 and 2007-2008. He now teaches History in Italy where he lives with his wife and twin daughters. His hobbies include reading, writing, and rock climbing. He agrees with Borges that "reading is an activity subsequent to writing: more resigned, more civil, more intellectual".

11 Comments
  1. Thank you for the comprehensive and evocative description of gun folly in America. I’ve been trying to understand why it is that I feel reasonable gun ownership is something that is good or useful, beyond the jingo, beyond the political.
    You and I served in a unit where there was a leader – I’m not going to say who that leader was – who inspired real physical dread. If not in you, certainly in me. He was not a particularly just leader, nor was he *evil* or malicious – he was just mercurial, impossible to predict. I think Alexander the Great was supposed to have this quality – he’d get drunk and if he was in a good mood would have sex with one of his buddies, and if he was in a bad mood he’d murder one of them. That was the sense I had – that some day this leader would be in a bad mood for whatever reason and would attempt to kill me with his bare hands. This was the clearest vision I had of the future – far clearer than any other potential, the idea that I would be crippled or killed by a behemoth on the rampage.

    I’m not against gun control. Obviously, “gun rights” has gone way too far. But it seems sensible to me that rational people who are not powerful in their own right should be able to own a weapon. On an individual level, this serves as a check against individual tyranny – so long as the individual is sane, and generous, and not the alternative, it seems likely that the weapons will not be used aggressively or offensively. On a broader level, it serves as a check against a psychopath gaining a monopoly over violence on a local (police) or national (military) stage. While I have a great deal of respect for the military, and for the police, I don’t think they should have a monopoly on legal firearms in our country.

    So I’ll vote with you when it comes to creating a sensible matrix for gun control that doesn’t allow for personal arsenals with tens of thousands of bullets to be stored in a bunker. We part paths at the moment gun control becomes an absolute prohibition against gun ownership.

    1. I actually am not arguing for absolute prohibition–even I’m not that naive–but stricter checks and much, much more accountability of gun ownership. I obviously have no interest in owning a gun, but I’m still a pragmatist and understand the unique history and culture of America that is not going to change so quickly. Your argument about the bad leader actually supports my point, if I understand you correctly; if he pushed you over the edge on some occasion and you were armed it is possible that it could become a lethal encounter. On the other hand if he attacked you with his bare hands, is this really the case for shooting someone? People used to fight all the time but without guns no one ever died. If he were such an aggressive person, it is also likely that he might have his own guns and then there would be no advantage you would have over him in being armed yourself. My point is that people get emotional and sometimes do stupid or violent things, or imagine doing them. Most times it stays in the imagination, but when lethal weapons are present with one or both parties it is highly likely, and the statistics show this, that there will be a shooting and possibly a death. I think the whole argument about tyranny to be a red herring these days, as I explained that no armed group will ever have nearly enough power to trade bullets with a modern government, especially one with the most advanced military in the world. If it comes to such a tyranny in any case, we will have failed at the democratic process for so long and so badly that this myriad of guns will be an afterthought.

  2. I thank you for your service to our country; first and foremost. Regardless of any disagreements or differences we may have; that does not change.
    America has a problem with violence, and specifically gun violence

    I agree in part. But given that all firearm related violent crime only makes up 8-10 % of violent crime, is it appropriate to single that out first? Perhaps we would be better off making a reduction in all violent crime.

    Gun deaths, for the first time ever, have just passed car accidents as the single most common cause of death in America

    Sorry that is a false statement. In certain states it has but that doesn’t hold true for the country as a whole.

    Which kills more Americans, guns or cars?

    Answer: Car accidents, but firearms deaths are catching up. In some states, guns do kill more people than cars—check out this map.
    from Mother Jones Magazine.

    But more importantly it doesn’t address the causes of those deaths either.

    There have been at least 101 school shootings since the 2012 massacre at a Newtown, Connecticut elementary school.

    Wow, it seems you are taking your talking points straight from the gun control groups. That number is wildly inflated with shootings that happened at night with people who didn’t even go to the school, didn’t happen during school hours, includes suicides and police shootings of criminals – hardly a telling story of violence gone wrong in the schools.

    Including not only murders but also suicides and accidental shootings, there are 30,000 gun-related deaths in America per year, an astronomical number which is highest in the world by a long distance.

    Perhaps the highest in raw numbers but that is far from the truth when looked at per Capita. America is 111th out of 218 countries in terms of homicides and ranks for below countries like Honduras on firearm related deaths. Honduras as 64 per 100K people and America is around 4.7 per 100. Even Mexico is higher than America — and they have some of the worlds strictest gun control laws.

    I would encourage you to hear me out. After all, the violence that plagues America is most likely to happen to those who have guns.

    Wait…I’m confused — we have 300,000,000 guns, in the hands of say 45,000,000 gun owners (using Census information on households and firearm ownership by households) — so since rural white Americans are most likely to own firearms; why don’t they make up the greatest number of victims of violence?

    From 1993 to 2010, males, blacks and persons ages 18 to 24 were most likely to be victims of firearm-related homicide. In 2011, the rate of nonfatal firearm violent for males (1.9 per 1,000) was not significantly different than the rate for females (1.6 per 1,000). Non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 per 1,000) and Hispanics (2.2 per 1,000) had higher rates of nonfatal firearm violence than non-Hispanic whites (1.4 per 1,000). Persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of nonfatal firearm violence (5.2 per 1,000).

    Given the ratio of population statistics; black males are more likely to be the perpetrator of violence the victim of violence far in excess of the make up of the population. I’m not trying to be racist here; just pointing out your numbers are flawed.

    I happen to have many knives for cutting vegetables, opening boxes, and other dangerous daily tasks, but somehow do not feel any danger in owning these tools.

    I own many knives also and I feel no more danger owning them then I do owning many firearms. Or I don’t feel any more danger owning firearms than i do knives. Both are inanimate objects. The person controls their uses.

    You spoke of killing with knives but you forget to mention that a few men armed with knives — of some of most impractical nature — also committed one of the worst acts of murder in history — the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

    We hear about people who actually want freedom to limit other people’s freedom, for example. When someone talks about freedom to have guns, I think about my preferred freedom from being around people with guns. Does someone’s right to have a deadly weapon outweigh my right to not be threatened or killed by these weapons just by living nearby?

    What a false analogy. First off, your freedoms as you call it a very limited when it calls for more than a negative action on my part. You have the freedom to not have guns in your home, but you do not get to tell me I can not have them in my home even if we live next door. I don’t like people named David — should I be able to keep you from visiting the country, from speaking your mind or anything else because of my feelings?

    Absolutely not. Our legal system is based on the fact that people shouldn’t be deprived of their rights UNTIL they’ve committed a crime.

    I hope you don’t want that changed.

    A significant portion of gun-related deaths in America are due to accidental firings, even involving young children playing and killing a parent or sibling in a tragically high number of cases

    BUNK !! Sorry but unless you define ‘significant’ completely different than the dictionary, what you say is patently false.

    The CDC WISQARs program shows 32,849 firearm related deaths due to homicide, justifiable homicides and suicides for 2013. In that same year 505 unintentional firearm related deaths were recorded. That is only 1.5% of all firearm related deaths.

    To put that into perspective, — here are the top 5 causes of death in 2013

    Heart disease: 611,105
    Cancer: 584,881
    Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
    Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
    Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978

    There were 18 times as many deaths due to heart disease; a mostly preventable disease.
    Not saying we shouldn’t try to save lives but making firearm related deaths

    And as far as your closing, it rings a little hypocritical to me. You are calilng on people to get involved while you stay out of the country. How is that leading by example?

    Bob S.

    1. Thanks for your thorough and civil response, Bob. I looked at my numbers again and added some of the sources, but I think we may both fall prey to the worst type of lying, which is statistics. Everyone knows they can be used to justify almost anything. For example, your numbers about other countries’ gun deaths seems misleading to me, as Mexico is basically a drug cartel war zone and Honduras is also one of the most violent places on Earth. You qualify your first ranking only by homicide, when accidental shootings and suicide obviously make up a huge part of the equation, and you could have mentioned that Americans are 20 times more likely to die from guns than in any other developed country. That speaks for itself.Your point about minority gun deaths proves my point even more, as far as I’m concerned. It is obvious that the historical and current racism of much of the American system is skewed against blacks especially (in education, policing and judicial practices), and poverty is more of a factor than the number of guns owned per capita compared to middle-class white people in the Midwest, for example. Your point about knives is totally irrelevant–don’t pretend that knives are just as dangerous as guns. As for my rights, I do in fact have a right to security according to all accepted norms of human rights, and it is hard to see such a violent and gun-soaked place as secure, in my opinion. Obviously I don’t want to change the system of due process, but we can see that that has nothing to do with how many people are killed by guns. I say accidental shootings are significantly high because of my personal value judgment–I think anything higher than a couple dozen is too high; you seem to be okay with at least 500. You also seem perfectly fine with the fact that over 30,000 people are killed by guns per year. I don’t compare these figures with health problems because they are totally different. Let’s compare them, again, with gun deaths from other countries: in Germany and England there are well under 1000 gun deaths per year; in Japan it is always under 100 per year. The basic question is do you think America is too violent, or are you happy the way things are? I am just trying to be involved in furthering the discussion because I am of the former opinion. By the way, I am not a hypocrite because I do not own guns and do not plan to, so I do lead by example. I am not actually staying away from my country, I just happen to live and work in another one at the moment. Thanks again for reading.

      1. David,
        For example, your numbers about other countries’ gun deaths seems misleading to me, as Mexico is basically a drug cartel war zone and Honduras is also one of the most violent places on Earth

        It seems you are playing fast and loose with logic. Honduras and Mexico don’t count yet America is too violent and we need to change they laws because we are too violent. HUH? How does that work again?

        Half rd of all the firearm related homicides in the country, give or take a few, are related to gang and/or drug activities. The FBI estimates estimates that 80 to 85% of all violent crime is drug or gang related. I can’t see why you dismiss Mexico for the same reasons.

        You qualify your first ranking only by homicide, when accidental shootings and suicide obviously make up a huge part of the equation, and you could have mentioned that Americans are 20 times more likely to die from guns than in any other developed country.

        So the people in Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Venezuela, etc are ‘less developed’ then we Americans? Just what makes them less ‘developed’ — do their morales need more work? Do they not learn ethics like we do?

        It is a false measure that you are trying to employ. You state that countries with strict gun control laws are better for firearm related deaths, but you won’t accept that there are very restrictive laws in many nations with very high firearm related deaths. Do I think any death is too much, yep. But is it worth loosing my liberty to save the lives?

        And make no mistake, that is what we are talking about.

        It is obvious that the historical and current racism of much of the American system is skewed against blacks especially (in education, policing and judicial practices), and poverty is more of a factor than the number of guns owned per capita compared to middle-class white people in the Midwest, for example.

        I’m not sure where racism is involved in this issue. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says:

        Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide
        victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8
        per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per
        100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)

        and

        Most murders were intraracial
        From 1980 through 2008—
         84% of white victims were killed by whites ( gure 19).
         93% of black victims were killed by blacks

        So most homicides are committed by people of the same race. What does race have to do with homicide?

        And you point that out poverty, education, etc have a role. Why not address those issues first and foremost?

        As for my rights, I do in fact have a right to security according to all accepted norms of human rights, and it is hard to see such a violent and gun-soaked place as secure, in my opinion.

        Your right to feel secure only extents to positive actions you can take. Your right to security does not mean I have to cater to it. If I feel I need to be secure by making you leave your home right next to my house, should I be able to do that? No, it is idiotic. Just like saying that I own a firearm makes you less secure therefore I shouldn’t be able to own a firearm. Idiotic.

        . I say accidental shootings are significantly high because of my personal value judgment–I think anything higher than a couple dozen is too high; you seem to be okay with at least 500. You also seem perfectly fine with the fact that over 30,000 people are killed by guns per year.

        Nice straw man argument. Are you going to ask if i’m ok with racism, sexism, genital mutilation, rape, etc next?
        No, I’m not okay with them. I’m also not okay with people lying about ‘high’ because it is their personal value judgment. Words have meaning. 2/3rds of those deaths are suicides. I would love to see that number reduced. But Japan and its suicide rate clearly shows you don’t need a firearm to kill yourself. Why not address the mental health system and get people what they need instead of trying to take away the firearms from those who didn’t kill themselves?

        The basic question is do you think America is too violent, or are you happy the way things are? I am just trying to be involved in furthering the discussion because I am of the former opinion

        I think the number is too high. I also think that gun control is not going to work, has not worked and will result in less liberty without anything to show for it.

        If gun control worked why are places like Chicago Il more murderous than Fort Worth Texas? If gun control worked, why does Japan have a higher suicide rate than America? If gun control worked – why does an ISLAND nation like Jamaica have a higher firearm homicide rate than all of America’s firearm death rate?

        Bob S.

  3. Interesting essay, although I think you have fallen victim, like most Americans, to the incorrect assumption that gun crimes are on the rise, when in reality, they have fallen drastically over the past 20 years.
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/

    America is actually getting safer in spite of the fact that there are 300 million plus guns circulating.

    I personally wouldn’t want to own a gun but I think that “gun control” laws don’t work and are naive. Gun control doesn’t work to control gun violence in the U.S. and it never will, unless guns are confiscated, which isn’t feasible. I remember reading a study by Harvard that showed that people that owned guns were 22 times more likely to hurt themselves or a family member with their gun then they were to use it for self protection. That’s one main reason that I wouldn’t own a gun.

    Guns are like drugs in a way; gun control doesn’t work just like the war on drugs hasn’t worked. Putting in more gun control laws will only affect the vast majority of responsible and legal gun owners and won’t hurt those that get guns illegally. When Chicago banned guns, criminals merely bought them illegally.

    Part of your essay I disagree with; for example, you stated that there have been “100 Newtown’s” since the shooting in Connecticut two years ago and that simply is not true. Newtown was the deadliest school shooting in American history and nothing has come close since then. Many of the school shootings, if not most, involve one or two victims that were known to the shooter.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#List_of_U.S._school_attacks

    Your daughters are probably more likely to be hurt by a shark then they are by a random school shooter. Your daughters are also much more likely to be hurt by someone CLOSE to them then they are by a stranger with a gun; a boyfriend, husband, school counselor, or religious figure is a bigger threat than a stranger will be, most likely, over the course of your daughters lives.

    1. *Correction, Newtown was the 2nd deadlist school shooting in American history, after the Virginia Tech shooting.
      In my opinion, the Newtown shooting was the worst tragedy that has happened in the United States since 9/11.

    2. Thanks for that, Brian. I appreciate your opinion that “gun control” doesn’t work, but I don’t think you totally understand what it is other than a controversial (in America) phrase. You seem to disagree with yourself with your point about criminals getting guns illegally. That is obviously what gun control is meant to control. As for Newtown, I should not have said that there have been other shootings as serious as Newtown, but I was inexpertly quoting from an article I saw about how there have been at least 107 school shootings of various types since Newtown. I am happy to hear that we actually agree about the personal danger of actually owning guns, and if you believe that Newtown was in fact the worst tragedy in years than you should also agree that gun control of some type has to be part of the solution to prevent other ones (as in my point about Australia).

  4. Wonderful essay, David, and unfortunately feels apropos right now. Anyone arguing that gun deaths are not on the rise seems to forget about the rights of children, whom we’ve brought into this world and are bound by both morality and love to protect. There seems to be no argument here, to me. People can talk in circles about protecting gun rights all they want, sounding righteous and profound to themselves (and the commenters here are admirably respectful),but the bottom line is that parents should not think their kids are going to be killed when they go to school, and spouses of teachers (who already work hard enough) should not worry that their loved one will be killed when they go to work. America has become an embarrassment to itself in this regard, worldwide, and that’s not even to mention the tragedy for families. Thank you for this essay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.