Every gun nut I’ve seen likes to foam at the mouth and ramble incoherently about how if they don’t have guns, the government can take away their freedoms. They all pretend to be patriotic little heroes who wrap themselves in flags and eat breakfast with Jesus every morning. If you grill them really hard they’ll begin to rant about the constitution and ab0ut how democracy will somehow fall apart if they don’t have a fully automatic weapon which fires armor-piercing hollow-point bullets. If you keep at it, they just intensify their nonsensical flag waving tirade and use the phrase “REAL Americans” and they stress the “REAL” part, because they think that if you are opposed to a private citizen owning an H-bomb, that somehow you are a communist traitor. They also know that this sort of brute force rhetoric will either get people to sheepishly agree, or be silent.

I'm loath to use big words when the readers might be gun nuts, but in this case it is unavoidable.

Regression analysis

It is a statistical technique used in the physical and social sciences to determine correlation between a dependent variable (e.g., "gun deaths per thousand people") and one or more independent variables (e.g., "gun control severity", "political stability", "racial homogeneity", "poverty", "college graduation rate", even "number of tatoo parlors per capita"). I'm not even going to attempt to explain multivariate anaylsis.

Read this (dumb) statement:

Boston has the toughest gun laws of any major city, and the fewest gun deaths*. Miami, Dallas and New Orleans have lax gun laws and, collectively, three times the gun deaths of Boston. Therefore, lax gun laws result in more gun deaths.

Read this (even dumber) statement:

Chicago has tough gun laws yet the gun himicide rate there is among the highest in the country. Therefore, gun control does not work.

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Sometimes you have to put on your big boy pants and dig into questions like this with the right analytical tools. And if you come at it with a bias (like the NRA does, like the gut nuts do) you are doing yourself and everybody else a disservice.

* CDC study 2006-8. Best 5: Boston, San Jose, Providence, New York, Hartford. Worst 5: New Orleans, Detroit, Las Vegas, Miami, Baltimore.

Background checks for private sales not happening. Will be fillbustered in the Senate and has 0 chance of passing the house. Gun grabbering whiners don't leave your homes. Hide under your beds. There are guns out there.

n reality these gun nuts are hypocritical pussies who aren’t fooling anyone with half a brain capable of rational thought. They don’t give a flying @!$%# about freedom. When the Patriot Act was going through congress did these spineless pussies grow some backbone and try to stop it? Did they try to keep GWB from signing it? Of course they didn’t. They saluted their rebel flags and listened to Lynyrd Skynard while cleaning their goddamn rifles. They don’t care if you take their freedoms, so long as you don’t touch their guns. They don’t want their guns to protect their freedoms or anybody else’s freedoms. They want their guns to protect their guns.

Salsa swim back across to Mexico. They don't allow private citizens to own guns.

Salsa and Bullethead finally have a chance for employment in Pissant Ostumbla's new Gun Confiscation Agency. Continuously hiring Gun Grabber grade 17, $42,500 to start. Dressed in a Hugo Chavez military uniform, beret, and body armor will go house to house in West Virginia, Arkansas and Texas confiscating firearms. Life and medical insurance are included. Retirement is within 48 hours at Arlington national Cemetary.

Eric 1964

I was speaking in general terms for the benefit of the brain dead regarding selective fire weapons. A class 3 license is required, and good luck getting one in most places.

If you are the reasonable sort, you may be wondering where do these people come from!? The gun-loving nutjobs on this and other sites.

We wondered too, here at the American Psychiatric Association (APA), so we put together a working group to investigate.

We interviewed 1,200 gun owners to find 100 that fit the profile: lack of independent thinking, strong tendency to believe conspiracies, and frequent posters to internet sites. These 100 we put through a battery of tests. Here's what we found:

A certain moral ambiguity. In most areas, could not distinguish between right and wrong, fact from fiction.

Relative to the general population, 50 times more likely to believe in the latest conspiracy: moon landing was fake, Obama was not born in the USA, Global Warming is a Eco-terrorist plot, Holocaust was made up, gun violence is unrelated to guns. Sixty of the 100 had a copy of "Zombie Survival Guide" in their home.

Ninety-five claimed to be Christian but 90 of them could not remember the last time they went to church.

Watched on secret camera, they made frequent posts to conspiracy sites, and pro-gun sites. Most had an NRA or other pro-gun site open, so they could cut and paste diatribes and trite sayings. In every case, each had multiple identities and regularly posted responses to their own posts, echoing the ideas, or congratulating themselves on the sagacity of their ideas. For example:

DumbGunNut: Cars kill people. Ya gonna ban cars?

DumberGunNut: Great point fella

/irony

@charlesosa

Charles Sosa

Yea there is the past of 70 years and the past of a few months. I think ima be more worried about what has happened recently,

Yea republicans did good in 2010 but got whacked in 2012 all across the bored but you feel 2010 stats are more accurate than 2012. Obama's approval rating is higher than any republican and polls show that people are losing respect for republicans. It all explains their attempt to change voting rule, redraw districts and continue their efforts to suppress votes

@charlie

Yea that is why the majority of the incumbent democrats feel Oblah blah is a detriment to their reelection chance in 2014.Oh right dufus I thought it was the Congress as a whole that has the low approval rating. I guess I just can't get by a guy who hunts deer with a .22 caliber rifle might as well throw darts at them loser. And hell yes I want you to publish all of your facts about the republicans being the minority who do you think is the majority in the house in 2010 and again in 2012. Sorry deer slayer the people are smart enough to know this president cannot be trusted. And while we are on the subject the Southern Christian Leadership in a press release equates Gun registration with people control and they ask that all people rise up black white Hispanic and contact your congress man/woman asking them not to support this law. So you can see the American people are not stupid about this President.

Why lie?

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia significantly tightened their gun control, banning rapid fire rifles (semi-automatics), adopting strict licensing rules for purchase, use and storage. In the 18 years before the law, Australia had 13 mass shootings - but none in the 14 years since.

Also:

An extensive gun buyback program took 600,000 guns off the street.

The firearm homicide rate in Australia declined from 0.37 deaths per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.13 in 2010, a drop of 64%.

Over the same period, the firearm suicide rate per 100,000 declined from 2.15 deaths to 0.73, a drop of 66%.

All other gun related crime and violence is down sharply.

So Gun Control in this particular country, with its particular culture, in this particular time, worked. Pro-gun people can (and do) argue that what works in Australia will not necessarily work here. Absolutely valid argument.

So why lie?

The NRA claimed in 2000 that violent crimes had increased in Australia since the introduction of new laws. The federal Attorney General Daryl Williams proved that the NRA falsifying government statistics. The NRA relented, apologized, and removed any reference to Australia from its website. For all of 6 months.

To this day you can still find myths and lies and distortions on pro-gun sites, instead of the simple truth: Gun control worked, but Australia is different.

That's not so hard to swallow.

So why lie?

Google this for much more: Faking waves: How the NRA and pro-gun Americans abuse Australian crime stats

And, who is going to decide the level of mental illness that disqualifies you from gun ownership? Autism?

Depression? PTSD? Insomnia? What if you are cured? Getting on the list is easy, getting off it would be a bitch.

Gabrielle Giffords husband can pass a background check...

Mark Kelly, the husband of former Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was recently seen buying an AR-15 rifle in Tucson. Since his wife's shooting, the former astronaut has been an advocate for increased gun control measures. Facing criticism around the sighting, Kelly appeared on CNN Monday to explain that he bought the gun to make a point about background checks, and claims he will turn the A-15 rifle over to Tucson police. A bill pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee would be ban ownership of the weapon.

A new video released by conservative activist Jason Mattera will surely have gun rights advocates up in arms. In an exchange with Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) that was caught on camera last month but only released Monday, the Democratic politician spoke openly about her gun control views, noting that current proposals are only the beginning.

Perhaps the most contentious portion of the dialogue, which purportedly took place at a women's rights rally, is the section in which she seems to indicate that a much larger push against firearms could inevitably take aim at handguns.

At the beginning of the exchange, Mattera identifies himself but tells Schakowsky that he "appreciated her remarks" (he does not indicate his conservative worldview and she appears not to recognize him). Considering these tactics, his introduction potentially gained her trust, leading the congresswoman to candidly share her views. He also repeatedly addressed her using "we" and it appears as though Schakowsky doesn't realize she's being recorded.

"I was wondering, is it time we have a serious conversation not just about assault rifles, but about handguns as well?," Mattera asked.

"Well, that's why if we have universal background checks, that will effect every single kind of weapon," she replied. "The Brady Campaign thinks that of all the things that have been suggested, this may actually be the thing that does the most to prevent gun violence."

The congressional leader went on to say that there is a "moment of opportunity" and that political leaders are "going to push as hard as we can and as far as we can." When Mattera then noted that most gun deaths are the result of handguns and questioned why addressing those type of firearms isn't currently on the table, Schakowsky was candid, later adding that she's personally opposed to handguns.

"We're not going to be able to win that — not now," she said. "But background checks I think are going to, you know, address any kind of weapon."

Mattera, again, pushed handguns as a point of conversation, noting that a full-throttle ban could never be secured, considering the Second Amendment's current wording.

"I don't know. I don't know that we can't," Schakowsky said, going on to note that some municipalities in her district have banned handguns, seemingly driving home the point that there is support among select cohorts for more restrictive measures in this arena. "I don't think it's precluded."

It should be noted that Mattera used a number of misleading tactics in speaking with Schakowsky. In addition to telling her that he appreciated her words, he also used "we" when discussing the chances of achieving a handgun ban (i.e. "We'll never get a handgun ban with the Second Amendment as stated"). These measures were seemingly used to gain her trust and to make a foray into the conversation. We should also note the video is edited.

Since its inception, TheBlaze has maintained that reporters — especially conservative ones — should not rely upon these mechanisms for retrieving information, as they are misleading tools that do not allow for an ethical and robust pursuit for truth. That said, we do feel a responsibility to report on controversial comments made by public figures.

Bob in Boston

Isn't the cdc the center for disease control??. The State of Illinois has the toughest gun laws in the land ande is the reining champ on murder by gun. They are the only state in the Union to violate the constitution of the 2nd amendment. Boston is not even close to them on gun control.

This research is based upon the most
recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon
availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years
that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of
gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically
diverse places in which such data is available.

Many aspects of the gun control issue are
best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys,[1] but the accuracy of such
surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that
are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating.[2] Thus, Just Facts uses such
data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner
workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations
of the results.

Particularly, when statistics are
involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does
not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to
minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content.
Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to
illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just
Facts' Standards of Credibility.

General
Facts

* Firearms are generally classified into
three broad types: (1) handguns, (2) rifles, and (3) shotguns.[3] Rifles and shotguns are both
considered "long guns."

* A semi-automatic firearm fires one
bullet each time the trigger is pulled, ejects the shell of the fired bullet,
and automatically loads another bullet for the next pull of the trigger.
A fully automatic firearm (sometimes called a "machine gun") fires
multiple bullets with the single pull of the trigger.[4]

Ownership

* As of 2009, the United States has a
population of 307 million people.[5]

* Based on production data from firearm
manufacturers,[6] there are
roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010.
Of these, about 100 million are handguns.[7]

* Based upon surveys, the following are
estimates of private firearm ownership in the U.S. as of 2010:

Households With a
Gun

Adults Owning a Gun

Adults Owning a
Handgun

Percentage

40-45%

30-34%

17-19%

Number

47-53 million

70-80 million

40-45
million

[8]

* A 2005 nationwide Gallup poll of 1,012
adults found the following levels of firearm ownership:

Category

Percentage
Owning

a
Firearm

Households

42%

Individuals

30%

Male

47%

Female

13%

White

33%

Nonwhite

18%

Republican

41%

Independent

27%

Democrat

23%

[9]

* In the same poll, gun owners stated
they own firearms for the following reasons:

Protection Against Crime

67%

Target Shooting

66%

Hunting

58%

[10]

Crime and
Self-Defense

* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed
in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed
with firearms.[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977
households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households
had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they
thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used
a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000
such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police
work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S.
Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the
United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies,
sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or
8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study
published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to
defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977
households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households
had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of
property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this
amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military
service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to
frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times
per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11
state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off,
shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to
commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a
gun"

• 69% personally knew other
criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed
victim"[22]

* Click here to see why the following
commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: "In
homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more
likely to occur than in homes without guns."

└ Vulnerability to Violent
Crime

* At the current homicide rate, roughly
one in every 240 Americans will be murdered.[23]

* A U.S. Justice Department study based
on crime data from 1974-1985 found:

• 42% of Americans will be
the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course
of their lives

• 83% of Americans will be
the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime

• 52% of Americans will be
the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once[24]

* A 1997 survey of more than 18,000
prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of
State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing
the crime."[25]

└ Criminal Justice
System

* Nationwide in 2008, law enforcement
agencies reported that 55% of aggravated assaults, 27% of robberies, 40% of
rapes, and 64% of murders that were reported to police resulted in an alleged
offender being arrested and turned over for prosecution.[26] [27]

* Currently, for every 12 aggravated
assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders committed in the United
States, approximately one person is sentenced to prison for committing such a
crime.[28] [29] [30]

* A 2002 U.S. Justice Department study of
272,111 felons released from state prisons in 1994 found that within three years
of their release:

• at least 67.5% had been
arrested for committing a new offense

• at least 21.6% had been
arrested for committing a new violent offense

• these former inmates had
been charged with committing at least 2,871 new homicides, 2,444 new rapes,
3,151 other new sexual assaults, 2,362 new kidnappings, 21,245 new robberies,
54,604 new assaults, and 13,854 other new violent crimes[31]

* Of 1,662 murders committed in New York
City during 2003-2005, more than 90% were committed by people with criminal
records.[32]

└ Washington, DC

* In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City
Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns
and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2)
rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger
lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.[33] [34]

* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme
Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional.[35]

[36]

* During the years in which the D.C.
handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate
averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder
rate averaged 11% lower.[37]

└ Britain

* In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring
civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to
purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To obtain this certificate,
the applicant had to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to be "satisfied"
that the applicant had "good reason for requiring such a certificate" and did
not pose a "danger to the public safety or to the peace." The certificate had to
specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant
could purchase and keep.[38]

* In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law
stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district
police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required
that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all
firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.[39]

* In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring
civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More
than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily
surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms
certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally
owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.[40]

† Homicide data
is published according to the years in which the police initially reported the
offenses as homicides, which are not always the same years in which the
incidents took place.

‡ Large
anomalies unrelated to guns:

2000: 58 Chinese people suffocated to death in a shipping
container en route to the UK

2002: 172 homicides reported when Dr. Harold Shipman was
exposed for killing his patients

2003: 20 cockle pickers drowned resulting in manslaughter
charges

2005: 52 people were killed in the July 7th London
subway/bus bombings

[41]

* Not counting the above-listed
anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since
the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the
1997 handgun ban.[42]

└ Chicago

* In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted
a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for
those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law
also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or
owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended
to require annual re-registration.[43] [44] [45]

* In the wake of Chicago's handgun ban,
at least five suburbs surrounding Chicago instituted similar handgun bans. When
the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban in June
2008, at least four of these suburbs repealed their bans.[46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

* In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled (5-4) that Chicago's ban is unconstitutional.[51]

[52]

* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun
ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law
took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.[53]

[54]

* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun
ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged
about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]

* In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder
victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.[56]

Background Checks and Criminals' Sources of
Guns

* Under federal law:

• It is illegal and
punishable by up to 10 years in prison for the following people to receive,
possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition:

someone convicted of or under indictment for a felony
punishable by more than one year in prison, someone convicted of a misdemeanor
punishable by more than two years in prison, a fugitive from justice, an
unlawful user of any controlled substance, someone who has been ruled as
mentally defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal
alien, someone dishonorably discharged from the military, someone who has
renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, someone subject to certain restraining
orders, or someone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.[57] [58] [59] [60]

• It is illegal and
punishable by up to 10 years in prison to sell or transfer any firearm or
ammunition to someone while "knowing" or having "reasonable cause to believe"
this person falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above.[61] [62]

• It is illegal to "engage
in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms" without a
federal license to do so.[63]
[64] [65]

• It is illegal for any
federally licensed firearms business to sell or transfer any firearm without
first conducting a background check to see if the buyer/recipient falls into any
of the prohibited categories listed above.[66] [67]

• It is illegal for anyone
except a federally licensed firearms business to sell, buy, trade, or transfer a
firearm across state lines.[68]

* Under federal law, private individuals
are not required to a conduct a background check before selling or transferring
a firearm to someone who lives in the same state, but it is illegal and
punishable by up to 10 years in prison for a private individual to sell or
transfer a firearm while "knowing" or having "reasonable cause to believe" that
the recipient falls into one of the prohibited categories above.[69] [70]

* Some states such as California require
background checks for all firearms transactions, including those conducted
between private individuals.[71] [72] [73]

└ Denials

* In the 10-year period from November 30,
1998 to December 31, 2008, about 96 million background checks for gun purchases
were processed through the federal background check system. Of these,
approximately 681,000 or about 1% were denied.[74] [75]

* During 2002 and 2003, out of 17 million
background checks resulting in 120,000 denials, the federal government
prosecuted 154 people (about one-tenth of 1% of the denials).[76] [77]

* According to federal agents interviewed
in a 2004 U.S. Justice Department investigation, the "vast majority" of denials
under the federal background check system are issued to people who are not "a
danger to the public because the prohibiting factors are often minor or based on
incidents that occurred many years in the past." As examples of such, agents
stated that denials have been issued due to a 1941 felony conviction for
stealing a pig and a 1969 felony conviction for stealing hubcaps.[78] [79]

* The same investigation audited 200
background check denials and found that 8% of denied applicants were not
prohibited from lawfully possessing a firearm.[80]

* During 2008, applicants appealed about
19% of the 70,725 background check denials issued that year. Of these, about 23%
were later overturned and the applications approved.[81]

└
Allowances

* As of 2010, federal law does not
prohibit members of terrorist organizations from purchasing or possessing
firearms or explosives.[82]

* Between February 2004 and February
2010, 1,225 firearm and three explosives background checks for people on
terrorist watch lists were processed through the federal background check
system. Of these, 91% of the firearm transactions and 100% of the explosives
transactions were allowed.[83]

* Under federal law, individuals who have
been convicted of a felony offense that would typically prohibit them from
possessing firearms can lawfully possess firearms if their civil rights are
restored by the requisite government entities.[84]

* As of 2002, 15 states automatically
restore the firearm rights of convicts upon their release from prison or
completion of parole, and 6 other states automatically restore the firearm
rights of juvenile convicts upon their release from prison or completion of
parole. In 2004, the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of
Justice wrote that this system

may result in a paradoxical situation in
which someone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is
permanently barred from owning a firearm, while someone who kills his spouse has
his firearm rights restored after serving his sentence.[85]

└
Enforcement

* To undergo a background check,
prospective gun buyers are required by federal regulations to present
"photo-identification issued by a government entity."[86]

* Using fake driver's licenses bearing
fictitious names, investigators with the Government Accountability Office had a
100% success rate buying firearms in five states that met the minimum
requirements of the federal background check system.[87] [88] A 2001 report of this
investigation states that the federal background check system "does not
positively identify purchasers of firearms," and thus, people using fake IDs are
not flagged by the system.[89]

└ Gun Shows

* "A gun show is an exhibition or
gathering where guns, gun parts, ammunition, gun accessories, and literature are
displayed, bought, sold, traded, and discussed."[90]

* Roughly 2,000-5,200 gun shows take
place in the United States each year.[91]

* Gun shows "provide a venue for the sale
and exchange of firearms by federal firearms licensees (FFLs).... Such shows
also are a venue for private sellers who buy and sell firearms for their
personal collections or as a hobby. In these situations, the sellers are not
required to have a federal firearms license. Although federal firearms laws
apply to both FFLs and private sellers at gun shows, private sellers, unlike
FFLs, are under no legal obligation to ask purchasers whether they are legally
eligible to buy guns or to verify purchasers' legal status through background
checks...."[92]

* In the three-year period from October
2003 through September 2006, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)
conducted 202 operations at 195 gun shows, leading to 121 arrests and 83
convictions (with some cases still pending as of June 2007).[93]

* A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey
of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a
firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the
firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a
retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family
or friends.[94]

Right-to-Carry Laws

* Right-to-carry laws permit individuals
who meet certain "minimally restrictive" criteria (such as completion of a
background check and gun safety course) to carry concealed firearms in most
public places.[95] Concealed
carry holders must also meet the minimum federal requirements for gun ownership
as detailed above.

* Each state has its own laws regarding
right-to-carry and generally falls into one of three main categories:

1) "shall-issue" states,
where concealed carry permits are issued to all qualified applicants

2) "may-issue" states, where
applicants must often present a reason for carrying a firearm to an issuing
authority, who then decides based on his or her discretion whether the applicant
will receive a permit

3) "no-issue" states, where
concealed carry is generally forbidden

* As of January 2012:

• 40 states are
shall-issue:

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Colorado

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New
Hampshire

New
Mexico

North
Carolina

North
Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode
Island

South
Carolina

South
Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West
Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

[96]

NOTE: Alaska,
Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming allow lawful firearm owners to carry concealed
firearms without a permit. All other shall-issue states require firearm owners
to obtain a permit to carry concealed firearms.[97]

• 9 states are
may-issue:

Alabama

California

Connecticut

Delaware

Hawaii

Maryland

Massachusetts

New
Jersey

New
York

[99]

NOTE: May-issue
states vary significantly in the implementation of their laws. Some, such as
Connecticut,[100] act
effectively as shall-issue states, while others, such as New Jersey, act
effectively as no-issue states.[101]

• 1 state is no-issue:
Illinois [102]

* Click here to see why the following
commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: In
right-to-carry states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the
U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower.

└
Florida

* On October 1, 1987, Florida's
right-to-carry law became effective.[103]

* This law requires that concealed carry
licensees be 21 years of age or older, have clean criminal/mental health
records, and complete a firearms safety/training course.[104]

* As of July 31, 2010, Florida has issued
1,825,143 permits and has 746,430 active licensees,[105] constituting roughly 5.4%
of the state's population that is 21 years of age or older.[106]

[107]

* Since the outset of the Florida
right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was
before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.[108]

* From the outset of the Florida
right-to-carry law through July 31, 2010, Florida has revoked 5,674 or 0.3% of
all issued permits. Of these:

• 522 permits were revoked
for crimes committed prior to licensure

• 4,955 permits were revoked
for crimes committed after licensure, of which 168 involved the usage of a
firearm.[109]

└ Texas

* In January 1996, Texas's right-to-carry
law became effective.[110]

* This law requires that concealed carry
licensees be at least 21 years of age (or 18 years of age if a member or veteran
of the U.S. armed forces), have clean criminal/mental health records, and
complete a handgun proficiency course.[111]

* In 2009, Texas had 402,914 active
licensees,[112] constituting
roughly 2.4% of the state's population that is 21 years of age or older.[113]

[114]

* Since the outset of the Texas
right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was
before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower.[115]

└
Michigan

* On July 1, 2001, Michigan's
right-to-carry law became effective.[116]

* This law requires that concealed carry
licensees be at least 18 years of age (or 21 years of age if purchasing a
handgun from a licensed dealer), have clean criminal/mental health records, and
pass a written firearms safety test.[117]

[118]

* Since the outset of the Michigan
right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was
before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 2% lower.[119]

Accidents

└ Fatal

* In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm
accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents
that year.[120]

[121]

* Fatal firearm accidents in 2007 by age
groups:

Age
Group

Fatal Firearm Accidents

Raw number

Portion of fatal accidents

from all causes

<1
yrs

1

0.1%

1-4 yrs

18

1.1%

5-9 yrs

20

2.1%

10-14
yrs

26

2.1%

15-24
yrs

155

1.0%

25-34
yrs

94

0.6%

35-44
yrs

91

0.5%

45-54
yrs

82

0.4%

55-64
yrs

57

0.5%

65+ yrs

69

0.2%

[122]

└ Non-Fatal

* In 2007, there were roughly 15,698
emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents,[123] constituting 0.05% of 27.7
million emergency room visits for non-fatal accidents that year.[124]

* These emergency room visits for
non-fatal firearm accidents resulted in 5,045 hospitalizations,[125] constituting 0.4% of 1.4
million non-fatal accident hospitalizations that year.[126]

[127]

└ Harm vs.
Benefit

* In D.C. v Heller, the 2008
Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington's D.C.'s handgun ban, Justice
Stephen Breyer authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices John
Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The opinion states:

First, consider the facts as the
legislature saw them when it adopted the District statute. As stated by the
local council committee that recommended its adoption, the major substantive
goal of the District's handgun restriction is "to reduce the potentiality for
gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths from occurring within the District of
Columbia." ...

... [A]ccording to the committee, "[f]or
every intruder stopped by a homeowner with a firearm, there are 4 gun-related
accidents within the home."[128]

* This committee report cites no source
or evidence for this statistic.[129]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns
to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times
per year.[130]

* According to the CDC, there were about
18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit
during 2001[131] (the
earliest year such data is available from the CDC[132]). This is roughly 27 times
lower than the CDC's 1994 estimate for the number of times Americans use guns to
frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes.[133]

└ Safety

* Five critical rules of gun safety from
the NRA and other sources:

1) Always keep the gun
pointed in a safe direction (whether loaded or unloaded).

2) Always keep your finger
off the trigger until ready to shoot.

3) Always keep the gun
unloaded until ready to shoot.

4) Be aware of what is
behind your target.

5) When handling firearms,
never use alcohol or any drug that might impair your awareness or judgment
(including prescription drugs).[134]

Politics

└ Interest
Groups

* From the 1990 election cycle through
August 22, 2010, the following political contributions were made by gun rights
and gun control interest groups to federal candidates:

Total

Contributions

Donations to

Democrats

Donations to

Republicans

Percent

to Dems

Percent to

Repubs

Gun
Rights

$22,467,579

$3,231,405

$19,195,400

14%

85%

Gun
Control

$1,888,886

$1,776,310

$112,326

94%

6%

[135] [136]

* In the 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, and 2000
election cycles, neither gun rights nor gun control interest groups were among
the top 50 interest groups donating to incumbent members of Congress.[137]

* In the 2008 election cycle, gun rights
groups donated $2,397,743 to federal candidates,[138] equating to about 1% of the money donated by lawyers/law
firms.[139]

* In the 2008, election cycle, gun
control groups donated $57,919 to federal candidates, equating to about 2% of
the money donated by gun rights groups.[140]

└ Party
Platforms

* The 2008 Republican Party Platform
voices support for the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in
D.C. v Heller, which overturned Washington's D.C.'s handgun ban. The
Platform calls for "the next president to appoint judges who will similarly
respect the Constitution."[141]

* The 2008 Democratic Party Platform
voices support for the Second Amendment, states that the "right to own firearms
is subject to reasonable regulation," and calls for "closing the gun show
loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault
weapons ban."[142]

└ Politicians

* The President of the United States
appoints judges to the Supreme Court. These appointments must be approved by a
majority of the Senate.[143]
Senate rules allow for a "filibuster," in which a vote to approve a judge can be
blocked unless unless three-fifths of the senators (typically 60 out of 100)
agree to let it take place.[144] [145]

* Once seated, federal judges serve for
life unless they voluntarily resign or are removed through impeachment, which
requires a majority vote of the House of Representatives and a two-thirds vote
in the Senate.[146]

* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme
Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that Washington's D.C.'s handgun ban was
unconstitutional.[147] Both
of the Justices appointed by Democrats voted to uphold the ban, and five of the
seven Justices appointed by Republicans voted to strike it down.[148]

* Of the five Justices who voted to
strike down the D.C. handgun ban, Barack Obama voted against the nomination of
two of them and identified two of the others as judges he would not have
nominated.[149] [150] [151] Of the four justices who
voted to uphold the handgun ban, John McCain identified all of them as judges he
would not have nominated.[152]

* In May 2009, President Obama announced
Sonya Sotomayor as his first nominee to the Supreme Court.[153] She was confirmed in a
68-31 Senate vote, with 100% of Democrats voting for her confirmation and 78% of
Republicans voting against it.[154]

* Within a year of being confirmed to the
Supreme Court,[155] Sotomayor
joined in a dissenting opinion declaring that Chicago's handgun ban was
constitutional, that "the use of arms for private self-defense does not warrant
federal constitutional protection from state regulation," and that the Framers
of the Constitution "did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a
private right of armed self-defense."[156]

* In May 2010, Obama announced his second
nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan.[157] As a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood
Marshall, Kagan wrote a memo recommending Marshall deny hearing an appeal from a
man who was convicted of violating Washington, D.C.'s gun laws. She wrote in the
memo:

[The man's] sole contention is that the
District of Columbia's firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to
"keep and bear arms." I'm not sympathetic.[158]

* Kagan was confirmed to the Supreme
Court by the Senate in a 63-37 vote, with 98% of Democrats voting for her
confirmation and 88% of Republicans voting against it.[159]

Constitution

* In the Bill of Rights, the Second
Amendment to the Constitution reads:

A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms shall not be infringed.[160]

* Gun control proponents have argued and
some federal courts have ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to
individual citizens of the United States but only to members of militias, which,
they assert, are now the state National Guard units.[161] [162] In 2002, a federal appeals
court panel ruled that "the people" only "have the right to bear arms in the
service of the state."[163]

* Gun rights proponents have argued and
some federal courts have ruled that the Second Amendment recognizes "an
individual right to keep and bear arms."[164] In 2001, a federal appeals court panel ruled that the
Second Amendment "protects the right of individuals, including those not then
actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or
training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms...."[165]

* James Madison was the primary author of
the Bill of Rights,[166] is
known as the "Father of the Constitution" for his central role in its
formation,[167] and was one
of three authors of the Federalist Papers, a group of essays published in
newspapers and books to explain and lobby for ratification of the
Constitution.[168] [169]

* In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison
addressed the concern that a standing federal army might conduct a coup to take
over the nation. He argued that this was implausible because, based on the
country's population at the time, a federal standing army couldn't field more
than 25,000-30,000 men. He then wrote:

To these would be opposed a militia
amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered
by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and
united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

Besides the advantage of being armed,
which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the
existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by
which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government
of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the
several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources
will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.[170]

└ D.C. v
Heller

* In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City
Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns
and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2)
rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger
lock.[171] [172]

* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme
Court, in a 5-4 ruling known as D.C. v Heller, struck down this law as
unconstitutional.[173]

* Excerpts from the majority ruling
(Justice Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito):

The District's total ban on handgun
possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms"
that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.
Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated
constitutional rights, this prohibition ... would fail constitutional
muster.

Similarly, the requirement that any
lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it
impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense
and is hence unconstitutional.

The Second Amendment is naturally
divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.
The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
shall not be infringed."

* Excerpts from a minority dissent
(Justice Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer):

[T]he words "the people" in the Second
Amendment refer back to the object announced in the Amendment's preamble. They
remind us that it is the collective action of individuals having a duty to serve
in the militia that the text directly protects and, perhaps more importantly,
that the ultimate purpose of the Amendment was to protect the States' share of
the divided sovereignty created by the
Constitution.

As used in the Second Amendment, the
words "the people" do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass
use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well-regulated
militia.

* Excerpt from a minority dissent
(Justice Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg):

[The Framers were] unlikely then to have
thought of a right to keep loaded handguns in homes to confront intruders in
urban settings as central. And the subsequent development of modern urban
police departments, by diminishing the need to keep loaded guns nearby in case
of intruders, would have moved any such right even further away from the heart
of the amendment's more basic protective
ends.

* The Bill of Rights includes two
Amendments other than the Second that use the phrase "right of the
people":

Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances."[174]

Amendment 4: "The right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[175]

* In D.C. v Heller, the Supreme
Court Justices debated the meaning of the phrase "right of the people" in the
Second Amendment. Below are excerpts of this debate:

• Majority Opinion (Justice
Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito):

The unamended Constitution and the Bill
of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times... The Ninth
Amendment uses very similar terminology.... All three of these instances
unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
...

... Nowhere else in the Constitution does
a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual
right.

What is more, in all six other provisions
of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to
all members of the political community, not an unspecified
subset.

• Dissenting Opinion
(Justice Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer):

The Court also overlooks the
significance of the way the Framers used the phrase "the people" in these
constitutional provisions. In the First Amendment, no words define the class of
individuals entitled to speak, to publish, or to worship; in that Amendment it
is only the right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances, that is described as a right of "the people." These
rights contemplate collective action. While the right peaceably to assemble
protects the individual rights of those persons participating in the assembly,
its concern is with action engaged in by members of a group, rather than any
single individual. Likewise, although the act of petitioning the Government is a
right that can be exercised by individuals, it is primarily collective in
nature. For if they are to be effective, petitions must involve groups of
individuals acting in concert. ...

As used in the Fourth Amendment, "the
people" describes the class of persons protected from unreasonable searches and
seizures by Government officials. It is true that the Fourth Amendment describes
a right that need not be exercised in any collective sense. But that observation
does not settle the meaning of the phrase "the people" when used in the Second
Amendment.

• Majority Opinion (Justice
Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito):

Justice Stevens is of course
correct ... that the right to assemble cannot be exercised alone, but it is
still an individual right, and not one conditioned upon membership in some
defined "assembly," as he contends the right to bear arms is conditioned upon
membership in a defined militia. And Justice Stevens is dead wrong to
think that the right to petition is "primarily collective in nature."
Ibid. See McDonald v. Smith, 472 U. S. 479, 482-484 (1985)
(describing historical origins of right to
petition).

└ McDonald v
Chicago

* In an 1833 Supreme Court case known as
Barron v Baltimore, the Court ruled that the rights of the people in the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights only had to be respected by the federal
government and could be infringed by state governments.[176]

* During the aftermath of the Civil War
in 1868, the United States adopted the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the
first section of which reads:

... No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws. ...[177]

* Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan served
on the committee that drafted the 14th Amendment, and he introduced it on the
floor of the Senate. In this speech, he stated that that the "great object" of
the first section of the amendment is "to restrain the power of the States and
compel them at all times to respect" the "personal rights guaranteed and secured
by the first eight amendments of the Constitution" including "the right to keep
and to bear arms...."[178]

* In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted
a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for
those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law
also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or
owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended
to require annual re-registration.[179] [180]
[181]

* On June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled (5-4) that this ban is unconstitutional.[182]

* Excerpt from the majority ruling
(Justice Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and

Thomas):

In sum, it is clear that the Framers and
ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms
among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered
liberty.

* Excerpt from a concurring opinion
(Justice Thomas):

[An 1876 decision by the Supreme Court]
holding that blacks could look only to state governments for protection of their
right to keep and bear arms enabled private forces, often with the assistance of
local governments, to subjugate the newly freed slaves and their descendants
through a wave of private violence designed to drive blacks from the voting
booth and force them into peonage, an effective return to slavery. Without
federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these
militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror
against the very people the Fourteenth Amendment had just made
citizens.

* Excerpt from a minority dissent
(Justice Breyer, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor):

[T]he use of arms for private
self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state
regulation.

* Excerpt from a minority dissent
(Justice Stevens):

[T]he strength of the individual's
liberty interests and the State's regulatory interests must always be assessed
and compared.

While the gun debate has been raging in Washington ever since the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in mid-December, the one thing that has been conspicuously absent from the conversation is veterans' accessibility to guns. No one inside the Beltway appeared willing to broach the topic and risk offending America's 22 million former servicemen and women.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, January 24, 2013, to introduce legislation on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)

But that all changed on Thursday when, during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on gun control, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) rejected an amendment to her assault-weapons ban that would exempt veterans proposed by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

Feinstein explained: "The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder), which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it's not clear how the seller or transferer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. I think you have to—if you're going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally, don't have access to this kind of weapon."

Not surprisingly, these comments have ignited a firestorm of angry responses that have spread across social media and the conservative and pro-gun blogosphere.

On the Constitutional Conservatives website, one post said Feinstein "needs to go to prison over this matter—treason! This woman is despicable … They're just using PTSD and/or mental illness as an excuse to deny veterans their God-given Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms."

On the Second Amendment Check page on Facebook, one woman said Feinstein "needs to be carried out of the Senate in a strait jacket and real soon, the stupid old senile worthless idiot!"

Feinstein, a staunch advocate of gun control who at one time carried a concealed weapon herself, is the first national pol to raise the issue. Some are questioning the political wisdom of her position, given the fact that nearly 2 million veterans reside in her state.

And it certainly doesn't help her cause that her remarks reveal a fundamental and troubling misunderstanding of PTSD, which is by no means a "new phenomenon" or "a product of the Iraq War." PTSD is a relatively recent clinical designation that in the case of veterans refers to the psychological impacts of combat, which have been around for as long as mankind has waged war. In the past it's been called everything from shell shock to battle fatigue.

Still, were Feinstein's comments really that offensive, outrageous.], and irresponsible? Or were they legitimate questions about veterans' access to guns?

Dr. Andrea Macari, a clinical psychologist and assistant professor of psychology at Suffolk County Community College in New York, who specializes in PTSD and suicide, says the biggest issue with veterans and PTSD is they get the treatment they need and deserve.

"I don't want to stigmatize mental illness or our brave veterans, but the reality is that after they come back from war, they often do not get the proper treatment and follow-up for their PTSD, and as a consequence they can suffer badly with paranoia, flashbacks, morbid depression, and substance abuse," says Macari. "The potential for the misuse of weapons is there."

Macari says Feinstein's comments "may not have been politically smart, but they were smart in terms of public health. PTSD patients, veteran or not, generally are not homicidal. The bigger problem is suicide. The media focus in the gun debate is on homicides, but suicides are more common than homicides, and guns obviously play a major role in this."

Veterans are in fact killing themselves, most often with guns, at an epidemic rate: 22 times a day in 2010, according to a recently released study from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

While that number includes many much older veterans, about one in three of the veterans who've fought in our post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD, which is described by the Department of Defense as "an anxiety disorder caused by witnessing or experiencing a traumatic event."

Still, were Feinstein's comments really that offensive, outrageous and irresponsible? Or were they legitimate questions about veterans' access to guns?

Mental health experts differ on whether those who suffer PTSD pose a greater threat to themselves or others. But several studies conclude that there is not a strong link between PTSD and gun violence.

"To pick PTSD and highlight it in the way it's been played out in the media is a gross distortion and contrary to what we know," Matthew Friedman, director of the VA's national center, told The Washington Post last year.

However, studies also suggest that veterans with PTSD are two to three times more likely to physically abuse their wives and girlfriends than those who have not been diagnosed, and three times as likely to get into a physical fight when they attend college.

These events could also be prompted by a variety of other stress-related factors, including unemployment, substance abuse, homelessness, and the increasingly long wait times many veterans now face when seeking their disability and pension claims.

Retired Lt. Col John Cook, a combat veteran who spent five years in Afghanistan overseeing the training of the Afghan National Police, says he is "certainly no liberal," but he shares Feinstein's concerns about veterans and gun ownership and thinks people are overreacting to what she said.

"She (Feinstein) may have been guilty of poor choice of words, but I didn't find anything she said all that outrageous," he says. "The truth is, PTSD is very real. Our veterans have a much higher suicide rate than the general public. I see no debate here. The suicide rate among active-duty members is also at an all-time high, and they kill themselves with issued weapons. While this puts me in the somewhat uncomfortable position of actually agreeing with Senator Feinstein, I really have no issue with the thrust of what she was saying, as I understand it."

Cook says veterans should have "no special status when it comes to owning guns than any other citizen. Anyone with an impaired mental or emotional condition should not own a gun."

Currently, the VA appoints fiduciaries to manage disability benefits of veterans who are declared "incompetent." When that happens, the VA automatically enters that veteran's name in the background-check system.

But hundreds of thousands of veterans with PTSD who have not been declared "incompetent" are still allowed to buy and own a gun, even if their PTSD is identified as severe.

This issue briefly surfaced in the Senate in December when Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) wanted veterans who've been deemed "mentally incompetent" to have their cases adjudicated by a judge rather than by the VA. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) objected.

For the most part, up until Feinstein made her comments on Thursday, the only discussion taking place about veterans and guns were on chat sites (Reddit) and several conservative sites and blogs (The New American, Red Flag News, Infowars).

The conservative blogosphere has for the past several weeks been stirring up fears among veterans by suggesting that a letter being sent out by the VA is telling veterans that they are prohibited from owning or purchasing guns.

Michael Connelly, a constitutional attorney, wrote on Red Flag News, "The men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied."

But one conservative blogger dismissed Connelly's diatribe. In a recent post entitled, "Don't believe the hype on the VA letter summarily denying vets gun rights," Bob Owen called Connelly's comments "misleading at best, and purposeful fear-mongering at worst. This (VA) provision doesn't apply to someone just because they went into combat, or if they have some level of PTSD, or if they have a head injury. This generally applies to folks that are seriously mentally compromised."

Perhaps the most ironic element in the current gun debate is that while so many of the opponents of Feinstein's weapons ban insist the mental-health issue is not being adequately addressed, apparently no one other than Feinstein is ready to include veterans in that mental-health discussion.

In defense of his amendment to exempt veterans from the assault-weapons ban, Cornyn said, "Unfortunately this legislation focuses not on the perilous intersection of mental illness and guns, but on cosmetic features of certain firearms."

Meantime, Macari says the most important thing to take away from the debate that Feinstein initiated is that society needs to take better care of veterans. "As a country, we must help our veterans heal from PTSD," she says. "We have very effective treatments. We need to do whatever we can to help these men and women."

You all can argue as much as you want but to try to tell private gun owners that they have to do a backround check to sell a gun privately is when you'll see the gun owners rise up and defy the government in masses. Also if you have to do a backround check then the government will know you own such and such a weapon. A slow process towards the government knowing everything about everybody where weapons are concerned.

i wonder how many people know about the history of the first gun laws implemented in our country. do you all realize that the first gun laws passed in our country where racist, and based on discrimination.

The NRA of my youth was a well-respected organization, an advocate for hunters and hunting, and for gun safety. Why did they shift to being an organization infamous for making stuff up, for lying to Congress, the epitome of sleaze, a whore for the gun manufacturers? After all, the contributions the organization gets from gun manufacturers is (allegedly) less than 5% of their budget.

I've seen three theories:

1. Culture warriors. Organizations like this must remain in-tune with their supporters. Yes, NRA members used to be hunters and gun enthusiasts across the political spectrum. NRA members became increasingly partisan, as did the rest of America. No big surprise. There are still tons of hunters who are Democrats, but as the NRA followed its members to the right, the Democrats dropped their financial support, and then the mainstream Republicans did as well. As the membership gelled into the 1 in 20 gun owners who are rabid, right-wing nut jobs, the NRA followed.

2. Sex, Drugs and Money. In the political world, contributions of big money bring good access. The money doesn't buy you votes but, for a $10K contribution to his PAC---just an example---you get to sit down with the congressman and make your case. For a $10K contribution directly to the pol, cash in small bills, you get lots more. But if you really want to own a poll, spend that same $10K on his vice. He would much rather you buy him the cocaine, or provide the girls (or the boys), or better yet have them at his disposal during a fact-finding trip to Thailand or the Bahamas. This is what the gun manufacturers have done, some say, for NRA executives and board members.

3. Another NRA lie? Could it be that the 5% figure is another NRA lie? From 2004 to 2010, the group's revenue from fundraising---including gifts from gun makers who benefit from its political activism---grew twice as fast as its income from members' dues, according to NRA tax returns. This included: Smith & Wesson in 2011 donated $1+ million, the Beretta Group contributed $2 million, Sturm, Ruger & Company tied its donations directly to gun sales, and raised $1.25 million.

The truth? Why the NRA became whores? We may never know, not for sure.

Maybe the GOP should try winning an election and leave policy alone.....

@bobinboston

This is the real statistics about your post #86

The Times Embarrasses Itself on Guns–Again!

It’s too bad the members of the New York Times editorial board don’t sign their editorials. If they did, we could ridicule them by name. The Times, as an institution, has chosen to place ideology above accuracy. That decision was on display yesterday when the paper editorialized–how many times is it now, one wonders?–against guns. The headline sums up the paper’s point: “In Other Countries, Laws Are Strict and Work.” America, in the view of the Times, is the ugly stepchild among the world’s nations, at least when its unique history and culture come into play.

Like other shootings before it, the Newtown, Conn., tragedy has reawakened America to its national fixation with firearms. No country in the world has more guns per capita, with some 300 million civilian firearms now in circulation, or nearly one for every adult.

What is it about the Times and arithmetic? As Tom Maguire points out, 300 million guns equals more than one per adult. Which could reasonably cause one to ask how so many people can handle so many firearms so safely.

Experts from the Harvard School of Public Health, using data from 26 developed countries, have shown that wherever there are more firearms, there are more homicides. In the case of the United States, exponentially more: the American murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries, which have much tougher laws controlling private ownership of guns.

The editorial’s link to the Harvard study takes the reader to a one-paragraph summary, so I can’t comment on that report. But the paper’s claim that “the American murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries” is absurd. Again, the Times seems to have a problem with numbers: didn’t the editorialists wonder whether that extreme claim could possibly be true?

In fact, the homicide rate in the U.S. is higher than in most high-income countries, but there is no country that has a rate anywhere near 1/15 of ours. To begin with, the Times must not consider Russia a wealthy country, because Russia’s homicide rate is four times that of the U.S., with 1/10 the rate of gun ownership. Peaceful countries like England, France, Canada and Switzerland typically have homicide rates around one-quarter of ours. So the principal claim that the Times makes in its editorial is simply false.

The international numbers tell us something else: there is no relationship between rates of gun ownership and homicide. Countries like Russia and South Africa have murder rates that dwarf ours, with a tiny fraction of the gun ownership. Countries that have relatively high levels of gun ownership, like Switzerland, Italy, Canada and Norway, also have very low homicide rates. There just isn’t any correlation, as the linked article demonstrates with statistical precision.

The Times continues by offering Australia as a gun control success story:

There’s another important difference between this country and the rest of the world. Other nations have suffered similar rampages, but they have reacted quickly to impose new and stricter gun laws.

Australia is an excellent example. In 1996, a “pathetic social misfit,” as a judge described the lone gunman, killed 35 people with a spray of bullets from semiautomatic weapons. Within weeks, the Australian government was working on gun reform laws that banned assault weapons and shotguns, tightened licensing and financed gun amnesty and buyback programs.

At the time, the prime minister, John Howard, said, “We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.” The laws have worked. The American Journal of Law and Economics reported in 2010 that firearm homicides in Australia dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006. In the 18 years before the 1996 laws, there were 13 gun massacres resulting in 102 deaths, according to Harvard researchers, with none in that category since.

Let’s put aside the fact that semiautomatic weapons don’t “spray bullets.” They fire one bullet each time you pull the trigger, like a revolver. It is true that gun homicides have declined in Australia since 1995–as they have, for that matter, in the U.S. But that isn’t really the question, is it? Presumably the point of gun control is not to force killers to use knives and baseball bats; rather, it is to reduce the overall homicide rate. Judged by that standard, Australia hasn’t been especially successful.

This chart, published by the Australian government, shows the number of homicides from 1993 through 2007. Note that while the number has declined, that decline didn’t begin until long after Australia cracked down on gun ownership, and has not been very impressive. In fact, the homicide rate in the U.S. has declined more steeply, as we will see momentarily:

The Times editorialists continue:

Similarly, after 16 children and their teacher were killed by a gunman in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, the British government banned all private ownership of automatic weapons and virtually all handguns. Those changes gave Britain some of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world on top of already strict rules. Hours of exhaustive paperwork are required if anyone wants to own even a shotgun or rifle for hunting. The result has been a decline in murders involving firearms.

Note that qualifying language: “a decline in murders involving firearms.” How has the U.K. performed overall with respect to homicide? This chart comes from the British government and shows homicides in England and Wales from 1960 through 2010:

Note that the homicide rate did not fall after the government’s adoption of draconian gun control, although it has dropped in the last few years, as have such rates in most countries. (The peak in 2002/2003 is attributable mostly to 172 homicides attributed to Dr. Harold Shipman.)

So adoption of harsh gun laws that likely would be unconstitutional in the U.S. did little or nothing to improve homicide rates in either Australia or the U.K. The next question is, how were homicide rates trending over the same time period in the U.S.? This chart comes from the Department of Justice. It shows the U.S. homicide rate per 100,000 population from 1950 to 2010. Note that from the mid-1990s to the present, the homicide rate in the U.S. has declined at a significantly better rate than either Australia or the United Kingdom:

Maybe the Brits and Aussies should study our gun laws to get some pointers on how to bring down the crime rate. Nothing scares criminals like armed “victims” who–oops!–aren’t victims after all.

The Times concludes:

As Mayor Michael Bloomberg stressed on Monday while ratcheting up his national antigun campaign, “We are the only industrialized country that has this problem. In the whole world, the only one.”

Michael Bloomberg raises an interesting question: how does an idiot become a billionaire? But that is a topic for another day. I am not sure what problem he thinks is unique to the U.S.; surely not the problem of murder. But there is one factor that distinguishes the U.S. from most, if not all, of the other wealthy countries, and that accounts more than anything else for our higher murder rate: we have a far larger minority population.

The Times refers to homicides in other “wealthy” countries, but fails to mention that there are many nations whose murder rates dwarf ours. In most of Africa, homicide rates are sky-high, as much as five to ten times America’s rate. The homicide rate in Brazil is around five times that of the U.S. And here in the United States, according to the Department of Justice, the murder rate among African-Americans is almost eight times the murder rate among whites. This is the main factor that explains why our homicide rate is higher than that in other wealthy countries that have lots of guns, like Switzerland.

So if the Times really cared about crime, as opposed to making a political point about guns, it wouldn’t be hard to figure out where to focus. But at the Times, the paper’s political agenda always takes priority over the facts.

Say What?-809562

I did dummy check out 85.2 lol

Your right to free speech doesn't permit you to incite violence against me,

CORRECT

just as your right to own a firearm doesn't permit you to carry an UZI into a playground,

With all of those innocents around I cant think of a better place to have one ever try to stop some whack job with a few harsh words? 125 grain bullets are much more effective.

nor does it permit a mentally deranged sociopath to own an assault rifle with a 30-round magazine.

Already illegal for them to own any firearm enforce the law.

Murder rates by state (Per 100,000 pop)

#1.DC 21.9 #2. LA 11.2 #3. MIS 8.0 #4. NM 7.5 #5. MD 6.8 SC 6.8 #6. AL 6.3 #7. MI 6.2 AZ 6.2 #8. MI 6.1 # 9. TN 5.8 #10. IL 5.6 GA 5.6 #11. OK 5.5 AK 5.5 #12. NC 5.3 #13. NV 5.2 FL 5.2 #14. PN 5.0 #15. CA 4.8 IN 4.8 #16. DL 4.5 #17. OH 4.4 TX 4.4 #18. NJ 4.3 WV 4.3 #19. NY 4.0 AL 4.0 #20. KN 3.8 21. VA 3.7 #22. CN 3.6 NE 3.6 #23. KN 3.5 ND 3.5 #24. WY 3.2 #25. CO 2.9 #26. MAS 2.8 MO 2.8 #27. SD 2.5 #28. WS 2.4 WA 2.4 #29. ID 2.3 #30. OR. 2.1 #31. MA 2.0 #32. UT 1.9 #33. IO 1.5 #34. MN 1.4 #35. RI 1.3 VT 1.3 NH 1.3 # 36. HI 1.2

Stats from the 2011 UCR

What we see here is that there is no correlation between gun laws lax or strict in overall murder rates. For instance NY and AL share the same rate even though the two states have very different gun laws. We can therefore surmise that reducing murder rates is not a matter of gun laws but rather a matter of society working to address the root causes of crime.

Legalism will destroy initiative and eliminate compassion; trust, loyalty, honor, love, humility, and other virtues can never be legislated. (Yamaoka Tesshu on changes to Japan at the beginning of the Meji period.)

Time after time, after time we see my old gop wrap the lode stone of protecting the big corporations around their necks. They keep protecting Goliath, forgetting at their own peril, that the young boy, David, took Goliath, and ultimately them down.

I say that the GOP are the modern Philistines who come the control and squelch, and according to Ryan, let the old and ill be at peril. I, for one, am looking for fist sized hard rocks to load in the sling shot. May the tight fisted, unyielding fall. I am so looking forward to 2014. My area is safe for voting, I am looking for somewhere to volunteer, possibly Kentucky.

By the way, I own my own company, am well educated, and vote liberal. Lord, the people on this thread who think all "libtards" are on food stamps and unemployed, fall on their own ignorance (they likely also think the earth is flat and dinosaurs lived with man). May the sun always rise over our great nation.