Nick- Nice try in your effort to placate often irrational gun owners and their fantasies about the usefulness of guns.
Some inconvenient truths for these folks:
1) households with guns are less safe than those without.
If you own a gun there's more chance you'll die by that gun.
Studies show it always. Makes sense.
2) the number of successful defensive use of guns is tiny by FBI measures. The right puts out phoney studies by the gun lobby (imagine that!) to show otherwise but the FBI is more credible.
3) we need guns to protect ourselves against a possible tyrannical government that might want to take them away.
Allow me to show you how dumb this idea is.
a. how does this tyrannical government come to be?
at what point do we know? there would be no possibility of countering such a trend toward tyranny with mass action on the part of our citizens? it would suddenly just happen?
how? 250 years never happened.
b. let's say we do trend this way. when do all the gun owners fight back? how do you all organize? you call a meeting and the start fighting the army of the tyrannical government? do you think this government might have more arms than you? notice how the Syrian government is killing thousands of armed citizens, mostly by air?
your Glock is not an airforce.
4) lastly, only 1/3 of Americans own guns so you'd be helping 2/3 of the people who won't be fighting with you! people not involved, mooching off your fighting!
Inconvenient for sure!
Get real.
Some inconvenient truths for these folks:
1) households with guns are less safe than those without.
If you own a gun there's more chance you'll die by that gun.
Studies show it always. Makes sense.
2) the number of successful defensive use of guns is tiny by FBI measures. The right puts out phoney studies by the gun lobby (imagine that!) to show otherwise but the FBI is more credible.
3) we need guns to protect ourselves against a possible tyrannical government that might want to take them away.
Allow me to show you how dumb this idea is.
a. how does this tyrannical government come to be?
at what point do we know? there would be no possibility of countering such a trend toward tyranny with mass action on the part of our citizens? it would suddenly just happen?
how? 250 years never happened.
b. let's say we do trend this way. when do all the gun owners fight back? how do you all organize? you call a meeting and the start fighting the army of the tyrannical government? do you think this government might have more arms than you? notice how the Syrian government is killing thousands of armed citizens, mostly by air?
your Glock is not an airforce.
4) lastly, only 1/3 of Americans own guns so you'd be helping 2/3 of the people who won't be fighting with you! people not involved, mooching off your fighting!
Inconvenient for sure!
Get real.
38
OK, let's take the whole thing from the top, in bipartisan fashion. We have a public health issue with firearms in America – no more, no less. How can we best reduce it, while maintaining our freedom? See the first installment of a three-part series at http://worksnewage.blogspot.com/2015/10/toward-bipartisan-gun-control-re..., and the next two installments on that site at http://worksnewage.blogspot.com/2015/10/toward-bipartisan-gun-control-re... and http://worksnewage.blogspot.com/2015/10/toward-bipartisan-gun-control-re....
2
>
REALLY?!
How many American citizens were killed by Tanks last year? Zero.
Your inconvenient facts logically and by deduction conclude that people should be allowed to own tanks, or maybe a submarine, jet fighter, hand grenades, flame thrower.
Or
How many POTUS's have been assassinated by 50 Caliber bullets, capable of hitting & penetrating targets at great distance, which Christie allowed to be sold in NJ via his signature a few yrs ago? Zero.
Again according to your deductive logic, the Secret Service has no justification to be terrified about these high cal bullets (which they are) as to protecting the POTUS.
OR
"[L]liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners" Really, the people walking around with guns strapped to your their waist and assault rifles are the ones antagonized?
Should I EVER see a person carrying a gun in public, I'll immediately call 911, then scream at the top of my lungs "man with a gun everybody run" and let the police workout the details as to legality about the person and the gun. And everyone should do the same. This is a non-violent tactic that should be employed to show the absurdity of insecure men with guns
Guns and the Crazy Ape are bad news. As Freud pointed out “we spring from an endless series of generations of murderers, who had the lust for killing in their blood, as perhaps, we ourselves have today.” And he added: “by our unconscious wishful impulses, we ourselves are, like primaeval man, a gang of murderers.”
REALLY?!
How many American citizens were killed by Tanks last year? Zero.
Your inconvenient facts logically and by deduction conclude that people should be allowed to own tanks, or maybe a submarine, jet fighter, hand grenades, flame thrower.
Or
How many POTUS's have been assassinated by 50 Caliber bullets, capable of hitting & penetrating targets at great distance, which Christie allowed to be sold in NJ via his signature a few yrs ago? Zero.
Again according to your deductive logic, the Secret Service has no justification to be terrified about these high cal bullets (which they are) as to protecting the POTUS.
OR
"[L]liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners" Really, the people walking around with guns strapped to your their waist and assault rifles are the ones antagonized?
Should I EVER see a person carrying a gun in public, I'll immediately call 911, then scream at the top of my lungs "man with a gun everybody run" and let the police workout the details as to legality about the person and the gun. And everyone should do the same. This is a non-violent tactic that should be employed to show the absurdity of insecure men with guns
Guns and the Crazy Ape are bad news. As Freud pointed out “we spring from an endless series of generations of murderers, who had the lust for killing in their blood, as perhaps, we ourselves have today.” And he added: “by our unconscious wishful impulses, we ourselves are, like primaeval man, a gang of murderers.”
34
“If you can keep a gun from someone at that moment of threat, that is very important,” notes Daniel W. Webster,
----------------------
A woman is not empowered unless she has a small handgun for self-defense, today more than ever with hyper-sexualized males thick on the ground. Nancy Reagan was right to suggest packing a small gun in one's purse.
----------------------
A woman is not empowered unless she has a small handgun for self-defense, today more than ever with hyper-sexualized males thick on the ground. Nancy Reagan was right to suggest packing a small gun in one's purse.
10
Guns don't kill people
BULLETS kill people.
No matter what laws or regulations are pursued, the guns are already out there, everywhere, no going back.
But it seems you CAN restrict the ammo.
Some states & localities do have stricter laws regarding ammunition, recently the Supreme Court refused to review a challenge to San Francisco's ban on hollow-point bullets:
Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco Petition for certiorari denied on June 8, 2015
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jackson-v-city-and-county-of-...
But it hardly helps if the ammo can be purchased by the shopping-cart load in Texas, no questions asked:
http://toddbensman.com/Bensman/Bullet_smuggling.html
It seems gun-control ('gun safety'?) advocates are trying to control 'arms', which are enshrined in the constitution, when in fact the active-ingredient in virtually ALL gun violence is the cartridge, the round of live-ammo, or the reloaded shell-casing.
Guns may be here to stay, but ammunition tends to degrade, or get used up in target-practice.
I'm no legal expert, but it would seem that If there were federal laws following the precedent of Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, action could be taken to restrict the flood of live ammunition that powers the tide of gunshot victims, both in the USA & in Mexico where US ammo enables a civilian warzone.
This aspect seems to go categorically unaddressed in the NYT in their admirable coverage of the gun-violence issue.
BULLETS kill people.
No matter what laws or regulations are pursued, the guns are already out there, everywhere, no going back.
But it seems you CAN restrict the ammo.
Some states & localities do have stricter laws regarding ammunition, recently the Supreme Court refused to review a challenge to San Francisco's ban on hollow-point bullets:
Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco Petition for certiorari denied on June 8, 2015
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jackson-v-city-and-county-of-...
But it hardly helps if the ammo can be purchased by the shopping-cart load in Texas, no questions asked:
http://toddbensman.com/Bensman/Bullet_smuggling.html
It seems gun-control ('gun safety'?) advocates are trying to control 'arms', which are enshrined in the constitution, when in fact the active-ingredient in virtually ALL gun violence is the cartridge, the round of live-ammo, or the reloaded shell-casing.
Guns may be here to stay, but ammunition tends to degrade, or get used up in target-practice.
I'm no legal expert, but it would seem that If there were federal laws following the precedent of Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, action could be taken to restrict the flood of live ammunition that powers the tide of gunshot victims, both in the USA & in Mexico where US ammo enables a civilian warzone.
This aspect seems to go categorically unaddressed in the NYT in their admirable coverage of the gun-violence issue.
15
Kristof ignores that the total number of households with guns declined during this period. The trend is for gun-owning families to own more guns than they used to, but for an increasing number of families to own no guns. All things being equal, you would expect a decline in gun violence with fewer households owning guns, even if the number of guns available has gone up. According to NORC, gun owning household declined from 47 percent to 31 over the past 40 years.
http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership...
http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership...
17
Nick Kristof, the Oregon farmboy/Rhodes Scholar gets it EXACTLY right
in today's column. He accepted the risk of antagonizing his natural anti-gun
constituency much as David Brooks did the other day in excoriating Ted
Cruz. Pity Kristof's sentiments today couldn't have appeared on the recent
gimmick NYT front page anti-gun editoral.
Let's work toward a solution of a grievous problem, people: way, way too
much gun violence. Require insurance. Demand background checks and
training. Stiffen penalties.
But as Kristof says, stow the sanctimony. And the brother is right on the money-- not unlike Senator Sanders or, once upon a time, Senator Gillibrand both of whom have had a considerably more permissive posture on gun ownership than is generally accepted by the majority of NYT readers.
11
Sounds good, but everyone can argue what they want with statistics. The truth is the number of dead each year, the amount of guns available, and a gun culture in the USA. These guns kill people. They also provide the machinery for drug dealers south of the border to kill people. Anyone feeling angry, sad, desperate will do one thing with a gun: use it ! Take the gun away and nothing much happens. The other peoples of the western world feel free and independent without easy access to guns. We also sleep better for ourselves and our children. Guns are not the reason the USA is a great country, just like poor health care is not the reason it is a rich nation, for some only. Come on America, you can do better. Please.
20
These "facts" don't tell the truth, they were crafted to suit a particular slant. Gun homicides may be down, although the way it's counted I quibble with, but gun deaths are up, way up. Why? The single greatest number of gun deaths are suicides. And they aren't using automatic weapons with huge magazines to do it either. It takes just one bullet and there's a super high correlation between attempt and success.
The story also leaves out that those who are most trained in death and guns figure highly among gun suicides, namely veterans.
About the seven bullet thing, you're right, I don't know much about guns and magazine size but does it matter that no magazine carries 7 bullets. What it does is limit guns with more than 6 bullets which makes entire ranges of gun makes and types illegal. Suddenly the law looks shrewd and crafty. The gun lobby only sneers laughingly because they have been foiled.
And that's just for starters. If I had the same number of characters as this article has, I could present similar arguments countering every one of these so called inconvenient facts.
The story also leaves out that those who are most trained in death and guns figure highly among gun suicides, namely veterans.
About the seven bullet thing, you're right, I don't know much about guns and magazine size but does it matter that no magazine carries 7 bullets. What it does is limit guns with more than 6 bullets which makes entire ranges of gun makes and types illegal. Suddenly the law looks shrewd and crafty. The gun lobby only sneers laughingly because they have been foiled.
And that's just for starters. If I had the same number of characters as this article has, I could present similar arguments countering every one of these so called inconvenient facts.
22
If there are to be laws that promote gun 'safety' vs. gun' control', why not control what makes guns so lethal.
Guns are dangerous because of the ammunition. Some states do have stricter laws regarding ammunition.
Recently the Supreme Court refused to review a challenge to San Francisco's ban on hollow-point bullets:
Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco Petition for certiorari denied on June 8, 2015: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jackson-v-city-and-county-of-...
But it hardly helps if the ammo can be purchased by the shopping-cart load in Texas, no questions asked:
http://toddbensman.com/Bensman/Bullet_smuggling.html
It seems gun-control ('gun safety'?) advocates are trying to control 'arms', which are enshrined in the constitution, when in fact the active-ingredient in virtually ALL gun violence is the cartridge, the round of live-ammo, or the reloaded shell-casing
Guns may be here to stay, but ammunition tends to degrade, or get used up in target-practice.
If Mr. Kristoff wants guns to be safer, why not advocate for laws restricting live ammo, such as Federal laws following the precedent of Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco?
Action could be taken to restrict the flood of unregulated live ammunition that powers the tide of gunshot victims, both in the USA & in Mexico where US ammo enables a civilian warzone.
Yet this aspect seems to go unaddressed in the NYT in their admirable coverage of the gun-violence issue.
Guns are dangerous because of the ammunition. Some states do have stricter laws regarding ammunition.
Recently the Supreme Court refused to review a challenge to San Francisco's ban on hollow-point bullets:
Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco Petition for certiorari denied on June 8, 2015: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jackson-v-city-and-county-of-...
But it hardly helps if the ammo can be purchased by the shopping-cart load in Texas, no questions asked:
http://toddbensman.com/Bensman/Bullet_smuggling.html
It seems gun-control ('gun safety'?) advocates are trying to control 'arms', which are enshrined in the constitution, when in fact the active-ingredient in virtually ALL gun violence is the cartridge, the round of live-ammo, or the reloaded shell-casing
Guns may be here to stay, but ammunition tends to degrade, or get used up in target-practice.
If Mr. Kristoff wants guns to be safer, why not advocate for laws restricting live ammo, such as Federal laws following the precedent of Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco?
Action could be taken to restrict the flood of unregulated live ammunition that powers the tide of gunshot victims, both in the USA & in Mexico where US ammo enables a civilian warzone.
Yet this aspect seems to go unaddressed in the NYT in their admirable coverage of the gun-violence issue.
2
My questions to understand why some Americans are passionate about gun rights:
1) Did you ever actually needed your guns for protection?
2) Statistically, your gun is more likely to be used in murder, suicide or accident than in protecting your family. Then why do you want to take the risk?
3) When a bad guy come after you unannounced to your kid's elementary school or your movie theater, or while you are in shower (and your guns are unloaded and locked in a safe), how are you going to defend?
4) It is most likely that if you need self-defense, you will defending yourself against other legal gun-owners. If guns are in less hands, such need for defense will also be less. Then why not reduce the number of guns in circulation?
5) Why do you believe that Second Amendment is still relevant at this age? Second Amendment talks about the right to bear arms by government-regulated Militia members. Are you a part of any Militia?
6) Do you worry about Government control? Did Government ever restrict any legitimate rights of your or your forefathers in the past 200 years?
7) Do you think that the police and 911 system are inadequate in maintaining safety even in an urban area? If 911 system is currently inadequate, why not invest on that, so that we don't need guns?
8) All other advanced Western nations have far less gun violence per capita. It is due to severe restrictions on guns by their governments. Why do you think such restrictions won't work in America in curbing gun violence?
1) Did you ever actually needed your guns for protection?
2) Statistically, your gun is more likely to be used in murder, suicide or accident than in protecting your family. Then why do you want to take the risk?
3) When a bad guy come after you unannounced to your kid's elementary school or your movie theater, or while you are in shower (and your guns are unloaded and locked in a safe), how are you going to defend?
4) It is most likely that if you need self-defense, you will defending yourself against other legal gun-owners. If guns are in less hands, such need for defense will also be less. Then why not reduce the number of guns in circulation?
5) Why do you believe that Second Amendment is still relevant at this age? Second Amendment talks about the right to bear arms by government-regulated Militia members. Are you a part of any Militia?
6) Do you worry about Government control? Did Government ever restrict any legitimate rights of your or your forefathers in the past 200 years?
7) Do you think that the police and 911 system are inadequate in maintaining safety even in an urban area? If 911 system is currently inadequate, why not invest on that, so that we don't need guns?
8) All other advanced Western nations have far less gun violence per capita. It is due to severe restrictions on guns by their governments. Why do you think such restrictions won't work in America in curbing gun violence?
12
My, my. I fear I must have inadvertently hurt the feelings of gun owners many times by expressing my opinion that the US should do what Australia so sensibly did about the excessive number of guns available in their country, and that if a constitutional amendment is required to update the antiquated second amendment, then so be it. Evidently I am not entitled to this opinion, or at least not to express it in public. What Mr Kristof does not register is that it doesn't matter how nicely one puts it, the NRA always re-interprets any call for ANY sort of gun safety as a call to ban guns, and frightens the fearful into buying yet more of them. Call for gun control or don't, they're going to say that's what's happening anyway, to keep sales up. Well, this little old lady does not want to live in a society where everyone including schoolchildren has to go around armed. That is a war zone, not a civil society. Imagine if the people who are using their cell phones while driving were also carrying guns, and tell me we would all be safer.
15
Thank you for an excellent article which will change my thinking.
I was struck, though, by the disconnect between the data on the number of Americans, and NRA members who favor basic "gun safety" measures and the behavior of Congress. It seems like a sure case of follow the money and an excellent example of our dysfunctional campaign finance system.
The real win-win possibility would be if you could convince the NRA that the best way to keep guns available is for them to become advocates, to lead, on all forms gun safety (which was the original reason the NRA was formed wasn't it?) and work cooperatively so that things like the New York gun magazine law don't happen.
I was struck, though, by the disconnect between the data on the number of Americans, and NRA members who favor basic "gun safety" measures and the behavior of Congress. It seems like a sure case of follow the money and an excellent example of our dysfunctional campaign finance system.
The real win-win possibility would be if you could convince the NRA that the best way to keep guns available is for them to become advocates, to lead, on all forms gun safety (which was the original reason the NRA was formed wasn't it?) and work cooperatively so that things like the New York gun magazine law don't happen.
4
Mr. Kristof,
You chastise liberal New York lawmakers for not realizing that "for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less." Spectacularly ignorant, you call them.
Well, this similarly uninformed reader has a few inconvenient questions for you:
Why in the world do you need a gun that holds more than seven rounds unless you are planning a massacre? Why are gun makers allowed to market such weapons to civilians? Why aren't people who own these things required to carry insurance? Why must we abide by a constitutional amendment written when there was no such thing as a magazine?
Maybe we gun control types would be a little less testy if the gun rights people didn't have all the ammo.
You chastise liberal New York lawmakers for not realizing that "for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less." Spectacularly ignorant, you call them.
Well, this similarly uninformed reader has a few inconvenient questions for you:
Why in the world do you need a gun that holds more than seven rounds unless you are planning a massacre? Why are gun makers allowed to market such weapons to civilians? Why aren't people who own these things required to carry insurance? Why must we abide by a constitutional amendment written when there was no such thing as a magazine?
Maybe we gun control types would be a little less testy if the gun rights people didn't have all the ammo.
14
Great article that included facts that were news to me. Thank you!
My problem with open-carry laws is simple. There is no use for a pistol or for an automatic weapon other than killing other people. Why does anyone want or need to keep that power a few inches from their fingers at all times?
Anyone who feels the need to keep always-within fingers-reach a tool for killing another human being, definitely has a psychological problem. Think about it? What is wrong with your mental state that you need a weapon for killing on your person when you go to the mall?
People with psychological problems would not be allowed to open-carry
Anyone who wants to open-carry has a psychological problem
No one should be allowed to open-carry
My problem with open-carry laws is simple. There is no use for a pistol or for an automatic weapon other than killing other people. Why does anyone want or need to keep that power a few inches from their fingers at all times?
Anyone who feels the need to keep always-within fingers-reach a tool for killing another human being, definitely has a psychological problem. Think about it? What is wrong with your mental state that you need a weapon for killing on your person when you go to the mall?
People with psychological problems would not be allowed to open-carry
Anyone who wants to open-carry has a psychological problem
No one should be allowed to open-carry
16
I am a gun owner, collector, shooter and reloader. I was a Marine infantryman and I have a concealed carry permit. Mr. Kristof's excellent piece requires an equally candid response.
1. I have no problem with universal background checks and a gun database. I have nothing to hide. Those who fear that the "evil" government will take away their firearms should move somewhere else. I am tired of fear politics and bogus "slippery slopes".
2. Assault rifles have one and only one purpose--killing people. The military doesn't use them for target practice or hunting wild boar. They carry them to kill the enemy. Civilians carry them to look cool and pretend to be SEALS minus BUDS and the guts to join up.
3. The .223/5.56 round is not worth the trouble to reload and is useless other than for killing people or pretending to kill paper people--silhouettes.
4. Open carry is ridiculous. You look stupid and as a bad guy the first person I'll target with my concealed weapon.
5. The NRA when I was a kid was about shooting and gun safety. The NRA today is an extreme right wing political organization doing more harm than good re: the interests of responsible gun owners.
6. The day I feel I have to have a weapon handy 24/7 to feel safe is the day I move.
7. Will better control of guns prevent all accidents and shootings--no. Will it make it easier to trace weapons and hold bad guys accountable--yes. It will also reinforce the fact that gun ownership is a serious responsibility not just a right.
1. I have no problem with universal background checks and a gun database. I have nothing to hide. Those who fear that the "evil" government will take away their firearms should move somewhere else. I am tired of fear politics and bogus "slippery slopes".
2. Assault rifles have one and only one purpose--killing people. The military doesn't use them for target practice or hunting wild boar. They carry them to kill the enemy. Civilians carry them to look cool and pretend to be SEALS minus BUDS and the guts to join up.
3. The .223/5.56 round is not worth the trouble to reload and is useless other than for killing people or pretending to kill paper people--silhouettes.
4. Open carry is ridiculous. You look stupid and as a bad guy the first person I'll target with my concealed weapon.
5. The NRA when I was a kid was about shooting and gun safety. The NRA today is an extreme right wing political organization doing more harm than good re: the interests of responsible gun owners.
6. The day I feel I have to have a weapon handy 24/7 to feel safe is the day I move.
7. Will better control of guns prevent all accidents and shootings--no. Will it make it easier to trace weapons and hold bad guys accountable--yes. It will also reinforce the fact that gun ownership is a serious responsibility not just a right.
315
Rubbish!
This is more "fair and balanced" nonsense from the NYTimes which seems to be drifting ever more rightward!
Guns are designed and manufactured to kill. What we need is a concerted effort to teach young people to eschew guns and pursue more life affirming interests!
I have known 3 people in my life who were gun lovers and trust me, they were boring and they focused on only one amendment in the constitution: The 2nd! Blah, blah, blah, "sacred right", blah, blah!
The most important statement in the Constitution is the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". So, which right is more sacred? The right of an individual to pack a pistol or the right of others to life!
However, I do agree about one thing; use the term gun "safety" in lieu of the more inflammatory "gun control"!
This is more "fair and balanced" nonsense from the NYTimes which seems to be drifting ever more rightward!
Guns are designed and manufactured to kill. What we need is a concerted effort to teach young people to eschew guns and pursue more life affirming interests!
I have known 3 people in my life who were gun lovers and trust me, they were boring and they focused on only one amendment in the constitution: The 2nd! Blah, blah, blah, "sacred right", blah, blah!
The most important statement in the Constitution is the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". So, which right is more sacred? The right of an individual to pack a pistol or the right of others to life!
However, I do agree about one thing; use the term gun "safety" in lieu of the more inflammatory "gun control"!
8
People fear the unknown. The folks clamoring for "gun control" are the most unfamiliar with guns. We train people in sex and driving in schools. Gun safety and handling should also be taught in schools starting at the youngest ages. All citizens should learn basic gun safety and handling. All citizens should learn to shoot. Inculcating a respect for firearms from the youngest ages will do the most to promote "gun safety."
In my home, there are no "toy guns." Anything that looks like a gun and/or acts like a gun is considered a gun. My kids have been learning the 4 rules of gun safety since they could speak. I take them shooting. I let them handle my guns (safely) whenever they ask about them. They know how to handle guns, how to make guns safe and how to shoot them properly. You will never see my kids do something stupid with a gun.
It is clear that "gun free zones" are a stupid dangerous disgrace. Gun free zones must be eliminated unless there are measured to guarantee that they are actually gun free (court houses, airports, etc.). Schools must permit responsible adults to defend themselves, their classrooms and their schools.
This is how to fundamentally change the game for the better. Of course, the progressive liberal Marxist Democrats just can't or won't permit themselves to comprehend it.
In my home, there are no "toy guns." Anything that looks like a gun and/or acts like a gun is considered a gun. My kids have been learning the 4 rules of gun safety since they could speak. I take them shooting. I let them handle my guns (safely) whenever they ask about them. They know how to handle guns, how to make guns safe and how to shoot them properly. You will never see my kids do something stupid with a gun.
It is clear that "gun free zones" are a stupid dangerous disgrace. Gun free zones must be eliminated unless there are measured to guarantee that they are actually gun free (court houses, airports, etc.). Schools must permit responsible adults to defend themselves, their classrooms and their schools.
This is how to fundamentally change the game for the better. Of course, the progressive liberal Marxist Democrats just can't or won't permit themselves to comprehend it.
12
"[L]iberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate."
As in front page NY Times editorials and facile comments thereon.
Well done, Mr. Kristof. Gutsy column challenging your admiring constituency. It figures: a guy who's walked across Africa doesn't
lack guts.
As in front page NY Times editorials and facile comments thereon.
Well done, Mr. Kristof. Gutsy column challenging your admiring constituency. It figures: a guy who's walked across Africa doesn't
lack guts.
11
" New Harvard research confirms a long-ago finding that 40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check. That’s crazy. Why empower criminals to arm themselves?"
Very simply Nicholas. They're criminals. They don't and won't follow a 'background check'. I'm in favor of background checks, but your logic that criminals will suddenly decide to follow the law is spectacularly laughable.
Very simply Nicholas. They're criminals. They don't and won't follow a 'background check'. I'm in favor of background checks, but your logic that criminals will suddenly decide to follow the law is spectacularly laughable.
9
Firearms are the great equalizer that allows the weak to live alongside the strong without fear. They are an especially powerful tool for women to prevent themselves from being killed, raped, or robbed by a strong aggressor. When you say "gun control" you are really talking about "people control" or more specifically "control of the law abiding," because the criminals will pay no attention to your "gun control" laws. They will simply use their guns to victimize those without firearms. Besides, we still have a Constitution, and all your grandiose ideas about gun control run head-on into that document.
19
How Lutz-like to change to 'gun safety'. How about 'gun management', or 'gun amelioration', 'gun attenuation', 'customize gun ownership'?
The important point is to always remember that guns can be a means to kill, and plan accordingly. That means people deficient in self-control with a gun are a constant danger to the common weal.
The important point is to always remember that guns can be a means to kill, and plan accordingly. That means people deficient in self-control with a gun are a constant danger to the common weal.
6
Nick's facts are indisputable but superficial. The only fact we need to learn about guns is we don't need them in the same way we don't need religions or the vertical economy. The "nones" are increasing so we're making progress discarding religions. If we could just make the same progress discarding guns all this talk of gun control, safety or whatever would become obviously irrelevant. And just imagine the consequences of razing the vertical economy. Poverty would disappear, conflict over money would end and insane elections would become unnecessary for already clearly being in the same hand basket we could begin rowing in the same direction, away from hell. http://thelastwhy.ca/poems/2012/12/13/economy.html
8
Guns are lethal weapons designed to do one thing, kill. If that is not central to the discussion, we cannot begin to address the inherent problems.
9
Nicholas, Good luck with that. As per usual, Kristof is a voice of reason, compassion and objectivity - 3 qualities that are rarer in our politics than rare earth metals. Just look at the reaction to Obama's town hall meeting - it was like he was talking to a wall. Just for starters, why would any gun owner not want a gun that only they could shoot?
4
I used to count myself among Kristof's fans. Lately he seems too eager to paint himself as superior to other "liberals." He comes off here as smug and holier-than-thou, willing to cherry-pick a few stats to placate those who oppose the control and regulation of guns. The fact is, most gun violence is perpetrated by a) males, b) with a history of alcohol abuse, c) with a history of misdemeanor crime such as assault, OWI or trespassing and d) younger than 45 years old. The most effective way to keep guns away from this rather large segment of the population is to make guns harder for EVERYONE to get. Call it fire arms safety, gun control, whatever. I call it sanity, and the rest of the developed world agrees.
8
Ever wonder why the USA does so badly in quality-of-life tests? Living in a country where guns are more important than health doesn't help.
7
I think this idea is brilliant, and if adopted, may tweak the debate in a valuable way:
"Let’s also banish the term 'gun control': the better expression is 'gun safety.'"
For years, conservatives have been much better at crafting the right words to help get what they want. Liberals (like me) often think logical explanations will sway the undecided or confused; most people don't have the intellectual ability or desire to process that information. Conservatives, smartly, have realized that finding the right one or two words—that directly stimulate that part of the brain that evokes whatever they are working for...fear, hate, devotion...is the way that really works for the masses.
It will be good for liberals to recognize this, and before they present any logic, craft the right word or two, and put those first, before any logic...
"Let’s also banish the term 'gun control': the better expression is 'gun safety.'"
For years, conservatives have been much better at crafting the right words to help get what they want. Liberals (like me) often think logical explanations will sway the undecided or confused; most people don't have the intellectual ability or desire to process that information. Conservatives, smartly, have realized that finding the right one or two words—that directly stimulate that part of the brain that evokes whatever they are working for...fear, hate, devotion...is the way that really works for the masses.
It will be good for liberals to recognize this, and before they present any logic, craft the right word or two, and put those first, before any logic...
5
Of course it is reasonable to treat firearm ownership in the same vein as driving an automobile. Take a competency test, get a background check, and then a license. Will that prevent most firearm deaths? No. But, it will prevent some. The reason is that the nature of firearm deaths are so heterogeneous.
The problem lies squarely in the current state of the Republican party which has gone off the rocker. The far-right, previously considered the "fringe", has taken ahold in many parts of the country. Moderate Republicans cannot get out of a primary and in their place comes legislators promoting extreme anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and anti-government rhetoric, AKA the Trump crowd. The issue becomes less about gun safety and more about a belief that the next step after background checks is "Obama" coming to take your firearms and your "freedom", whatever that means. The whole issue is a natural extension of the insanity of "birtherism", a deep seated paranoia that has taken root in a growing sect of the Republican party.
Bottom line, in our current political climate, gun safety is going nowhere fast.
The problem lies squarely in the current state of the Republican party which has gone off the rocker. The far-right, previously considered the "fringe", has taken ahold in many parts of the country. Moderate Republicans cannot get out of a primary and in their place comes legislators promoting extreme anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and anti-government rhetoric, AKA the Trump crowd. The issue becomes less about gun safety and more about a belief that the next step after background checks is "Obama" coming to take your firearms and your "freedom", whatever that means. The whole issue is a natural extension of the insanity of "birtherism", a deep seated paranoia that has taken root in a growing sect of the Republican party.
Bottom line, in our current political climate, gun safety is going nowhere fast.
7
I own guns. I hunt, when I have the opportunity. I think the NRA is insane.
Mr. Kristoff quotes statistics, but the NRA/GOP had made it illegal to study the true effects of gun violence. They don't want us to know the truth.
The only way to get effective gun control is to counter the absurd pro-gun reading of the Second Amendment. They would have us believe the framers of the Bill of Rights were just kidding when they mentioned "a well regulated militia", and that "bear arms" doesn't mean "go to war", as it has for centuries, but rather "march in to a saloon with a loaded gun on your hip".
Mr. Kristoff quotes statistics, but the NRA/GOP had made it illegal to study the true effects of gun violence. They don't want us to know the truth.
The only way to get effective gun control is to counter the absurd pro-gun reading of the Second Amendment. They would have us believe the framers of the Bill of Rights were just kidding when they mentioned "a well regulated militia", and that "bear arms" doesn't mean "go to war", as it has for centuries, but rather "march in to a saloon with a loaded gun on your hip".
15
Did I not read in this very same newspaper that this week a father shot to death his fourteen year old son thinking that he was an intruder? Two thirds of us do not have guns and most of us are for gun control, not just gun safety. We need to move to a new age, free from the culture of guns and people who use them to take over National Wildlife Sanctuaries.
11
Mr. Kristof: Your attempt to mock Liberals falls flat. When you say: "A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less."
In an attempt to show ignorance, you just show your own ignorance of the intent of the law, which was to limit the use of assault rifles to kill people. Everyone who has ever watched TV knows handguns carry 6 bullets and that assault rifles are more far effective than 6-shooters in taking out school children.
In an attempt to show ignorance, you just show your own ignorance of the intent of the law, which was to limit the use of assault rifles to kill people. Everyone who has ever watched TV knows handguns carry 6 bullets and that assault rifles are more far effective than 6-shooters in taking out school children.
7
What about the oft mentioned statistics about gun murders going up 25% in Missouri and 40% down in Connecticut? Are they wrong or misleading
4
No one ever talks about the rights of non gun owners. The constitution also guarantees all of us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I really do not like walking around, going to a movie, sending my kids to school thinking which person coming near me has a gun. When I drive I know people in other cars have passed a test and have a license to drive and have insurance in the event they cause someone a financial loss. Should a gun not have just as much control?
11
The cat is out of the bag. Unfortunately there appears no going back on the poorly worded and misinterpreted Second Amendment. So now what? There are just too many guns out there. Let's try a nation wide no- questions-asked gun redemption program. You bring in a gun and you get an hansom "finders fee." My guess is that a junkie will bring in a gun and trade it for the cash for a fix.
3
I worry about a bad guy shooting me or someone close to me, probably with my own gun, but as long as I don't shoot myself or someone else by accident, or let myself get shot by accident, I'm ahead. I shot my first firearm inside the home, a deer rifle, when I was five years old. It was not easy to fire that rifle, but with persistence and patience, I got it done. No one was hurt and the bullet is still embedded in the wall of the house where my grandparents lived.
I shot my second firearm in the home when I was twelve. This was a pistol, an automatic. The bullet passed between my legs and embedded in the floor. When a relative was seventeen, he dropped a pistol and caught it by the trigger. The bullet passed through his calf, and when the doctor probed it in and out with disinfectant, without anesthetic, he learned about gun safety. Pistols are much more dangerous than long guns as the front end waves around very easily - the holder of the pistol often blithely unaware it is pointing it at a person. Triggers are very sensitive on many pistols. I knew a guy who was shot at an indoor pistol range, and he never knew who shot him. And remember, if bird hunting, don't shoot your foot with your shotgun. A policeman told me, "If it is safety you are looking for, get a dog."
I shot my second firearm in the home when I was twelve. This was a pistol, an automatic. The bullet passed between my legs and embedded in the floor. When a relative was seventeen, he dropped a pistol and caught it by the trigger. The bullet passed through his calf, and when the doctor probed it in and out with disinfectant, without anesthetic, he learned about gun safety. Pistols are much more dangerous than long guns as the front end waves around very easily - the holder of the pistol often blithely unaware it is pointing it at a person. Triggers are very sensitive on many pistols. I knew a guy who was shot at an indoor pistol range, and he never knew who shot him. And remember, if bird hunting, don't shoot your foot with your shotgun. A policeman told me, "If it is safety you are looking for, get a dog."
10
Less guns mean less violence and accidental firings.
The trouble with gunsters is that they want unlimited guns on demand with open carry 24/7. They even resent background checks, proclaiming themselves "law abiding," as if a fatuous assertion is enough.
The trouble with gunsters is that they want unlimited guns on demand with open carry 24/7. They even resent background checks, proclaiming themselves "law abiding," as if a fatuous assertion is enough.
8
Difficult facts for liberals and difficult for socialists. Singular and timely for this American as I read the following: 'when I pulled the trigger I did not hear the bang or feel the kick-one never does when a shock goes home. In that instant, in too short a time. one would have thought for even the bullet to get there, a mysterious, terrible change had come over the elephant. He neither stirred nor fell, but every line of his body had altered. He looked suddenly stricken, shrunken, immensely old, as though the frightful impact of the bullet had paralysed him without knocking him down'.
I may not agree with all of the writings of Orwell, but I remain shell-shocked, and he vowed never to be made to feel a coward again by the roaring crowd.
I may not agree with all of the writings of Orwell, but I remain shell-shocked, and he vowed never to be made to feel a coward again by the roaring crowd.
6
We liberals?
Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Liberals are not some monolithic group regarding gun laws.
I do not object to carry permits under the following requirements:
1 Compete a Psychiatric evaluation before issue of a permit with an exam every other year. Same for a eye exam from a qualified Doctor of Optometry or an Opthomologist. If you are crazy or blind you should not carry a gun.
2 Pay an annual tax on every firearm you own and every round of ammunition you stockpile. Registration and tracking of ammo will be mandatory.
3 Carry liability insurance for yourself and your weapons. You will be held liable for injury, death and property damage that result from your firearms.
4 Full criminal background check, fingerprinting, DNA sample and drug testing will be required to secure and renew your permit to own and your permit to carry.
5 New criminal and civil charges for negligence in securing or negligent discharge of a firearm.
I have to insure my car, get an eye exam, take a driver's test, pay taxes and register my vehicles. Why should owners of firearms be any different. They should also be subject to property taxes.
Agree to this and qualify and you can have your permit. And I am proud to call myself a Progressive.
Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Liberals are not some monolithic group regarding gun laws.
I do not object to carry permits under the following requirements:
1 Compete a Psychiatric evaluation before issue of a permit with an exam every other year. Same for a eye exam from a qualified Doctor of Optometry or an Opthomologist. If you are crazy or blind you should not carry a gun.
2 Pay an annual tax on every firearm you own and every round of ammunition you stockpile. Registration and tracking of ammo will be mandatory.
3 Carry liability insurance for yourself and your weapons. You will be held liable for injury, death and property damage that result from your firearms.
4 Full criminal background check, fingerprinting, DNA sample and drug testing will be required to secure and renew your permit to own and your permit to carry.
5 New criminal and civil charges for negligence in securing or negligent discharge of a firearm.
I have to insure my car, get an eye exam, take a driver's test, pay taxes and register my vehicles. Why should owners of firearms be any different. They should also be subject to property taxes.
Agree to this and qualify and you can have your permit. And I am proud to call myself a Progressive.
17
Mr. Kristof,
You refer to a questionable law passed in New York which deals or dealt with magazines and bullets. Since this is the first I've heard of it, my (first) response is "fair enough." You preceded that statement with "supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed..." Am I to deduce that you mean the local governments that have made laws such as these, or the individual constituents?
If you mean the former and you know every governor, etc., from each state well enough to say that, so be it and again, fair enough. If you mean the liberal constituents from each state, I'd like to know how helpful you really think such a sweeping, and frankly disparaging tone is supposed to facilitate discussion for those of us who're at least trying to listen?
Not helpful, Mr. Kristof. Not helpful at all.
1-17-16@12:09 am est
You refer to a questionable law passed in New York which deals or dealt with magazines and bullets. Since this is the first I've heard of it, my (first) response is "fair enough." You preceded that statement with "supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed..." Am I to deduce that you mean the local governments that have made laws such as these, or the individual constituents?
If you mean the former and you know every governor, etc., from each state well enough to say that, so be it and again, fair enough. If you mean the liberal constituents from each state, I'd like to know how helpful you really think such a sweeping, and frankly disparaging tone is supposed to facilitate discussion for those of us who're at least trying to listen?
Not helpful, Mr. Kristof. Not helpful at all.
1-17-16@12:09 am est
5
Once again Mr. Kristof, like many liberals, ignores Northern Ireland, where the country went from carnage to tranquility. You are far safer today in Belfast than any American city, even the ones we think of as safe. What lessons should we learn from that success. There was a change in policing to deescalate the friction between the factions. There was also a major effort to disarm the bad guys. Why is it that stop-and-frisk is so objectionable in New York City, when in Belfast establishing army checkpoints became and accepted practice?
2
Mr. Kristof forgot to mention the most inconvenient gun fact of all. That we are a less violent country than Japan, although nobody in Japan owns a gun. The reason is that 2/3 of gun violence are suicides which liberals like to include to inflate gun violence. Given that Japan has about double the suicide rate of America, which makes 4/3 assuming Japan has 0 homicides. So Japan is 33% more violent than America!
Kristof asked for facts and I gave him simple elementary school math for liberals. If you know your math, you don't even need to know anything about guns or that there is such thing as the NRA. In fact, you better don't because you are always so extremely off the mark that the NRA throws a party every time Obama mentions the word guns.
Kristof asked for facts and I gave him simple elementary school math for liberals. If you know your math, you don't even need to know anything about guns or that there is such thing as the NRA. In fact, you better don't because you are always so extremely off the mark that the NRA throws a party every time Obama mentions the word guns.
5
Kristof: "If the left can drop the sanctimony . . . "
There's nothing the least bit sanctimonious about pointing out the obvious: No other advanced country in the world has anything like the gun violence problem the U.S. has. And, yes, all those other countries have much stricter restrictions on gun ownership and, as a result, far fewer guns.
NK does himself and his readers a disservice when he tries to establish his objectivity by pandering to cheap stereotypes like the "supercilious, condescending" liberal.
A liberal who forcefully defends his views is no more condescending than the conservative who argues vehemently for his. Enough, already.
There's nothing the least bit sanctimonious about pointing out the obvious: No other advanced country in the world has anything like the gun violence problem the U.S. has. And, yes, all those other countries have much stricter restrictions on gun ownership and, as a result, far fewer guns.
NK does himself and his readers a disservice when he tries to establish his objectivity by pandering to cheap stereotypes like the "supercilious, condescending" liberal.
A liberal who forcefully defends his views is no more condescending than the conservative who argues vehemently for his. Enough, already.
12
Compromise, understanding the differences on this issue that exist in rural and urban life, would help. No?
3
How refreshing. A balanced acknowledgment of the validity of two critical arguments on either side of a charged debate - that gun violence is a huge problem, and that in some cases, liberals' causal theories and attempts to mitigate it through regulation have failed. The right-left shouting match has accomplished little, and though I firmly believe the NRA is full of it, and more regulation is in order, it's so important to practice humility and let rigorous empiricism guide our decisions. In a time of demagogues and ideologues, we desperately need more of this.
Bravo, Mr. Kristoff.
Bravo, Mr. Kristoff.
3
Americans have a fetish for guns. Other American fetishes come and go, rise and fall, receive the usual capitalistic advertising campaign, and then fade away for the newer and latest fetishes.
The difference with the gun fetish is that it doesn't go away and that it is fed by fear. Fear sells even better than sex and is renewed every time there is a terroristic attack, a mass murder, or a threat by the President to take the guns away.
There is nothing more dangerous than a frightened individual holding a gun pointed at you. Try to take the gun away and you will get shot. Try to take away the one thing that makes someone feel more safe and in control, and the gun holder will fight you to the death, your death.
Is there some way Americans can be made to feel so safe that they won't need guns? Only if we can remove fear as a selling point to satisfy a fetish.
The difference with the gun fetish is that it doesn't go away and that it is fed by fear. Fear sells even better than sex and is renewed every time there is a terroristic attack, a mass murder, or a threat by the President to take the guns away.
There is nothing more dangerous than a frightened individual holding a gun pointed at you. Try to take the gun away and you will get shot. Try to take away the one thing that makes someone feel more safe and in control, and the gun holder will fight you to the death, your death.
Is there some way Americans can be made to feel so safe that they won't need guns? Only if we can remove fear as a selling point to satisfy a fetish.
8
Mr Kristof, I live in Texas (the gun capitol of America).
I do not think it is unreasonable to place responsibility back on the people who own guns. If their weapon is stolen and used in a crime, they should have to bear some of the responsibility. If they use their weapon improperly and someone gets hurt, they should be held accountable.
What we have has devolved into a situation that some gun owners believe that they have a SPECIAL right above everyone else's safety, sense of civility and right to redress in case of damages.
I do not think my expectations are "demeaning". I think the position of the opposition is unreasonable and overbearing. Living in a big city with lots of people and other people's property around you carries different needs than someone living out in the middle of a rural county. No one SANE is going to hunt pigeons and squirrels in the middle of my residential block with a M-4. If there are people who wish to play cowboy, they can join the military or the police and receive proper training before being released among the public.
In no other sphere of discussion is there is this expectation that there are no limits upon one's behavior.
I do not think it is unreasonable to place responsibility back on the people who own guns. If their weapon is stolen and used in a crime, they should have to bear some of the responsibility. If they use their weapon improperly and someone gets hurt, they should be held accountable.
What we have has devolved into a situation that some gun owners believe that they have a SPECIAL right above everyone else's safety, sense of civility and right to redress in case of damages.
I do not think my expectations are "demeaning". I think the position of the opposition is unreasonable and overbearing. Living in a big city with lots of people and other people's property around you carries different needs than someone living out in the middle of a rural county. No one SANE is going to hunt pigeons and squirrels in the middle of my residential block with a M-4. If there are people who wish to play cowboy, they can join the military or the police and receive proper training before being released among the public.
In no other sphere of discussion is there is this expectation that there are no limits upon one's behavior.
110
Liberals are almost always supercilious and condescending.
This is especially true of liberals living in cities that are perceived as being more enlightened.
I know this because most people would call me a liberal and I lived for many years in the rarefied atmosphere of New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, where I looked down my nose with great satisfaction at those I deemed backwater idiots.
I still disagree with the views of these people. But I have finally learned that condescension may feel good but it's a stone cold loser as a strategy for winning arguments and elections.
There's not an ounce of condescension in Bernie Sanders, you
This is especially true of liberals living in cities that are perceived as being more enlightened.
I know this because most people would call me a liberal and I lived for many years in the rarefied atmosphere of New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, where I looked down my nose with great satisfaction at those I deemed backwater idiots.
I still disagree with the views of these people. But I have finally learned that condescension may feel good but it's a stone cold loser as a strategy for winning arguments and elections.
There's not an ounce of condescension in Bernie Sanders, you
2
A sensible article with good information - too bad few of the NRA-types will read it, and of those, most probably won't buy it.
A barrier to Mr. Kristoff's recommendations is the lies that are seemingly ubiquitous that Obama and all liberals want to take away everybody's guns. I recently had a conversation with 2 people of above=average intelligence who heatedly told me that Obama's secret goal is confiscation, and next thing you know....
Kristoff has put the case as evenhandedly as can be hoped for. If only it could make a dent.
A barrier to Mr. Kristoff's recommendations is the lies that are seemingly ubiquitous that Obama and all liberals want to take away everybody's guns. I recently had a conversation with 2 people of above=average intelligence who heatedly told me that Obama's secret goal is confiscation, and next thing you know....
Kristoff has put the case as evenhandedly as can be hoped for. If only it could make a dent.
4
Point take.
It is always good to remind ourselves that confrontational politics doesn't help anyone win people to their POV but supercilious, condescending and rude is the tone of political discourse today. Sticking your finger up people's noses gives the speaker or the writer more media traction. Trash talk is so much easier than well-researched, thoughtful pieces on what really matters.
This is a much larger problem that guns and butter.
Your thoughts for today are much appreciated. Keep on truckin'
It is always good to remind ourselves that confrontational politics doesn't help anyone win people to their POV but supercilious, condescending and rude is the tone of political discourse today. Sticking your finger up people's noses gives the speaker or the writer more media traction. Trash talk is so much easier than well-researched, thoughtful pieces on what really matters.
This is a much larger problem that guns and butter.
Your thoughts for today are much appreciated. Keep on truckin'
3
"same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half."
A 3 year killed by playing with his father's gun is just as dead as one killed by flying bullets in a drive by murder.
A 3 year killed by playing with his father's gun is just as dead as one killed by flying bullets in a drive by murder.
5
Finally, a rational column about gun control. Mr. Kristof has seen the light. Stop talking to gun owners as if they are uneducated Neanderthals. You end the discussion immediately with ill informed condescending statements.
Admit the failings of the so called “Assault Weapon” ban. Admit that gun homicides are actually down, while the amount of guns in circulation has increased almost exponentially since the early 90s.
As well, if you are going to expect gun owners to even listen to you,show you are really informed about gun technology and language. E.g., modern consumer rifles use magazines, not clips. “Assault Weapon “ is a made up term started in the early 90s to incite anti-gunners. Yes, it may look scary, but it's no more or less lethal than any modern hunting rifles.
I'm a rarity, at least in public discourse self-disclosure . I'm a left-of-center center Democrat and a law abiding gun owner. A supporter of the Second Amendment. A Life Member of the NRA, a Certified Instructor, who like a majority of NRA members do not blindly support the NRA party line. I support universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and some other proposals labeled “common sense”.
Talk to us respectively and don't shut the conversation down immediately with statements that sound to us like your real agenda is to incrementally implement gun seizure as we have seen in the UK, Australia, and all of Europe.
The burden of proof about your real agenda is on you.
Admit the failings of the so called “Assault Weapon” ban. Admit that gun homicides are actually down, while the amount of guns in circulation has increased almost exponentially since the early 90s.
As well, if you are going to expect gun owners to even listen to you,show you are really informed about gun technology and language. E.g., modern consumer rifles use magazines, not clips. “Assault Weapon “ is a made up term started in the early 90s to incite anti-gunners. Yes, it may look scary, but it's no more or less lethal than any modern hunting rifles.
I'm a rarity, at least in public discourse self-disclosure . I'm a left-of-center center Democrat and a law abiding gun owner. A supporter of the Second Amendment. A Life Member of the NRA, a Certified Instructor, who like a majority of NRA members do not blindly support the NRA party line. I support universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and some other proposals labeled “common sense”.
Talk to us respectively and don't shut the conversation down immediately with statements that sound to us like your real agenda is to incrementally implement gun seizure as we have seen in the UK, Australia, and all of Europe.
The burden of proof about your real agenda is on you.
57
"... New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less..."
OK, that's good for a laugh, I suppose. However the fact that I am "spectacularly uninformed" about how guns are made or the characteristics of a certain firearm does not mean that I am therefore not entitled to my opinion and to press for good regulations to be passed. And why does the NRA get a pass when its mission is to make sure its members are and remain spectacularly uninformed.
I'll tell you what: I'll drop the sanctimonious attitude as soon as you stop being obstructionist. Let's see who blinks first.
OK, that's good for a laugh, I suppose. However the fact that I am "spectacularly uninformed" about how guns are made or the characteristics of a certain firearm does not mean that I am therefore not entitled to my opinion and to press for good regulations to be passed. And why does the NRA get a pass when its mission is to make sure its members are and remain spectacularly uninformed.
I'll tell you what: I'll drop the sanctimonious attitude as soon as you stop being obstructionist. Let's see who blinks first.
42
The tricky part is that the second amendment was designed as the last bulwark against tyranny...so that an armed populace could resist a potentially tyrannical government.
Gun safety is one thing. Restricting access to the guns that provide that final line of defense against tyranny is another.
To millions of Americans, 1000 gun deaths a day would still be preferable to 320 million people living in tyranny.
So if you want to reduce gun deaths, you have to be careful that the steps you want to take don't (and even don't look like) they reduce the people's ability to resist govt in the last resort.
Gun safety is one thing. Restricting access to the guns that provide that final line of defense against tyranny is another.
To millions of Americans, 1000 gun deaths a day would still be preferable to 320 million people living in tyranny.
So if you want to reduce gun deaths, you have to be careful that the steps you want to take don't (and even don't look like) they reduce the people's ability to resist govt in the last resort.
4
Want to save thousands of lives per year? Raise the age of tobacco purchase to 21 and save tens of thousands. 1300 die per day from tobacco but anti-gun folks rail about guns.
2
There are many countries that have comparable gun ownership levels to the United States, but a lower murder rate. A much harder question than whether or not to ban guns is why United States citizens are so murderous.
5
I think you forgot to mention that people with automatic weapons are not involved in two-way battles in the street. They are walking into churches, restaurants, and work places, and shooting down dozens of innocents, who do not have guns. I'm disappointed in you, Mr. Kristof. You know what the real issue is.
7
Another inconvenient truth that would be useful for people to know is that even if one omits the gun homicides from total homicide statistics in the US, the US still has a much higher homicide rate that almost all other developed countries. That's right, the US has a higher non-gun-homicide rate than most other countries' TOTAL homicide rates. To me, this means we should be focusing much more on the "violence problem" instead of what some view as the "gun violence problem." Unless someone can rationally argue that gun homicides are worse than non-gun homicides, it seems that much of our discussion and efforts are misplaced.
6
Amazingly fair article. Well done!
One of the most important statements here: "So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association." I'd go along with that but I'd drop the "inadvertently" and substitute "stupidly." The gone-control army rushes into battle shooting themselves in their left foot while empowering their enemy. Not the best way to fight a battle! Sometimes I think my liberal friends think they have won a battle just by fussing about an issue. Here they don't. They simply make the NRA grow stronger. I guess you'd have to call me a liberal, but I am terribly nervous about governmental control in any field. Sex, religion, speech, thought, assembly, you name it. Persecution of people joining the Communist Party in the 1950s bothered me on several levels. Ditto people joining ISIS groups today. I even respect my friends who join the Republican Party and don't believe they should be arrested for doing so! I guess it's all my secret libertarian tendencies showing through. But even my libertarianism is nuanced: I do see the need for some control, some structure. But please, when trying to heal the body politic, try to avoid doing more harm than good. Whenever in doubt, err on the side of freedom.
1
Yes, there are more guns today than in the past. But what you don't mention is that they are owned by a smaller percentage of people than in the past. What we see with guns is the same thing we see with all other possessions in the US: we all have much more of everything. The family that once had one or two rifles or shotguns now have a small arsenal. People who owned hunting guns now also own handguns. It's a whole lot easier kill yourself or others with those than it was with the guns most people used to own.
As for the world of constant carry: it's creating a whole new class of gun crimes by the terminally cowardly and stupid. When you carry a gun on you or in a purse, you allow for the very real possibility that you will shoot yourself in the butt while you are on the toilet or that a child will find that gun and try it out. And please don't discount the weekly toll of dumber than dirt shooters who kill their family members who come home late.
What has also happened is that just owning all that weaponry seems to make people more fearful. I know lots of people who have guns and lots who don't and the paranoia level among the gun owners is way higher than among the nonowners. Tthe kind of people who own guns and scare me the most is that particular subset of gun owners--the fearlful--are constantly worrying about the "bad guys" who are always after them and their guns. They may not be Adam Lanza insane but they are likely to shoot first and think later.
As for the world of constant carry: it's creating a whole new class of gun crimes by the terminally cowardly and stupid. When you carry a gun on you or in a purse, you allow for the very real possibility that you will shoot yourself in the butt while you are on the toilet or that a child will find that gun and try it out. And please don't discount the weekly toll of dumber than dirt shooters who kill their family members who come home late.
What has also happened is that just owning all that weaponry seems to make people more fearful. I know lots of people who have guns and lots who don't and the paranoia level among the gun owners is way higher than among the nonowners. Tthe kind of people who own guns and scare me the most is that particular subset of gun owners--the fearlful--are constantly worrying about the "bad guys" who are always after them and their guns. They may not be Adam Lanza insane but they are likely to shoot first and think later.
9
We dont' have a gun problem in the US -- we have an angry male problem. Or more specifically, an angry young male problem. How many media stories do we read about women who return to the workplace where they were fired, and shoot it up? Where are all the women who shoot up schools, movie theatres? How many women hunt down their ex-partner to murder them in angry rage at being dumped? And what about all those female gang members, terrorizing their neighborhoods, shooting up other women in other gangs? Or the many female robbers, pointing guns at people on the street, robbing them? Do we need more gun laws to control all these out of control women?
We have a problem -- and it's not guns, it's men. By and large, it's young men without direction, and angry.
Women with guns (and many women own guns) -- not a problem, background check laws or lack thereof.
What are the huge majority of women doing right that so many men can't manage to do, for the life of them?
We have a problem -- and it's not guns, it's men. By and large, it's young men without direction, and angry.
Women with guns (and many women own guns) -- not a problem, background check laws or lack thereof.
What are the huge majority of women doing right that so many men can't manage to do, for the life of them?
5
One of the canards used by gun-enthusiasts is often this militia against government tyranny.
Ammon Bundy & his gang would have us believe ranchers are being subject to state tyranny because a couple of them burned federal grazing land in an argument with authorities, started a wildfire, & got thrown in jail for arson.
They are protesting NOT through nonviolent civil disobedience, but by armed threat of violent insurrection.
So my question to all these pro-gun activists, (including apparently Mr. Kristoff) is:
Should a gang of gun-bristling cowboys get to use their guns to stage an armed insurgency if they don't get their way?
Will they continue to be allowed to use their 'uninfringed' right to bear arms in order to stage an occupation powered by the threat of a firefight?
Once the insurgency flames out, will these militia-members be allowed to 'keep & bear arms' as if shutting down & occupying a wildlife refuge is a 2nd amendment right, or will each & every armed occupant of that compound be arrested for the blatant threat of gun violence, charged, and if convicted of the felonies of which they are obviously guilty, banned under existing gun laws from ever possessing firearms again?
And if the Bundy Bunch are threatening aggressive gun violence against law-enforcement, WHY are they being allowed to resupply?
Is this the 'enforcement' of gun 'laws' Mr. Kristoff & the gun-enthusiasts believe is adequate? Is this their idea of a 'well-regulated militia'??
Ammon Bundy & his gang would have us believe ranchers are being subject to state tyranny because a couple of them burned federal grazing land in an argument with authorities, started a wildfire, & got thrown in jail for arson.
They are protesting NOT through nonviolent civil disobedience, but by armed threat of violent insurrection.
So my question to all these pro-gun activists, (including apparently Mr. Kristoff) is:
Should a gang of gun-bristling cowboys get to use their guns to stage an armed insurgency if they don't get their way?
Will they continue to be allowed to use their 'uninfringed' right to bear arms in order to stage an occupation powered by the threat of a firefight?
Once the insurgency flames out, will these militia-members be allowed to 'keep & bear arms' as if shutting down & occupying a wildlife refuge is a 2nd amendment right, or will each & every armed occupant of that compound be arrested for the blatant threat of gun violence, charged, and if convicted of the felonies of which they are obviously guilty, banned under existing gun laws from ever possessing firearms again?
And if the Bundy Bunch are threatening aggressive gun violence against law-enforcement, WHY are they being allowed to resupply?
Is this the 'enforcement' of gun 'laws' Mr. Kristoff & the gun-enthusiasts believe is adequate? Is this their idea of a 'well-regulated militia'??
9
Some inconvenient facts in rebuttal to this column. I could list many more.
The majority of gun deaths are by suicide, not murder. Curb gun sales and suicide rates will drop too.
http://www.courant.com/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-guns-suicides-connecticu...
In Missouri. fewer gub restrictions and more killings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/health/in-missouri-fewer-gun-restricti...
America's gun laws, how the rest of the world compares.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/worldwide-gun-c...
The majority of gun deaths are by suicide, not murder. Curb gun sales and suicide rates will drop too.
http://www.courant.com/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-guns-suicides-connecticu...
In Missouri. fewer gub restrictions and more killings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/health/in-missouri-fewer-gun-restricti...
America's gun laws, how the rest of the world compares.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/worldwide-gun-c...
2
The NRA, ALEC and the Supreme Court fired the first shots. D.C. vs. Heller, was the conservative court's carpet bombing of guns on the American public. The racist fears in this country stoked the unimaginable rush to buy millions of guns during President Obama's presidency using the NRA, ALEC and gun manufacturers trope that Obama was coming for your guns.
Mr. Kristof, it wasn't liberals that cut of research into guns, it wasn't liberals that refused smart technology for guns. And it wasn't liberals that sought to carry their guns into every public place in America. And it wasn't liberals who threw their hands up after each horrible mass shooting that said, "Oh well"
Here's the real inconvenient truth, we remain a violent nation with more guns and weapons than every other country. Millions of Americans would like to see us move away from a war economy to a peace time economy. Let's turn guns into plowshares.
Mr. Kristof, it wasn't liberals that cut of research into guns, it wasn't liberals that refused smart technology for guns. And it wasn't liberals that sought to carry their guns into every public place in America. And it wasn't liberals who threw their hands up after each horrible mass shooting that said, "Oh well"
Here's the real inconvenient truth, we remain a violent nation with more guns and weapons than every other country. Millions of Americans would like to see us move away from a war economy to a peace time economy. Let's turn guns into plowshares.
8
One of the things I like about Nick Kristof is his willingness to put facts ahead of personal position, and statistical evidence trumps belief and opinion. Whether re-framing the argument for "gun safety" rather than "gun control" will work is dubious. Both sides are unable to trust the other.
The NRA has opposed even the most sensible limits. So when a man strides through Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, America's biggest, in Atlanta, with an AR-15 type assault weapon with a load 100 round magazine, escorting his daughter up to the security check, the NRA and Georgia law is OK with that. Though when a group of Black Panthers did something similar in the late 60s, (also legally) Conservative demi-god Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping gun control act within days!
When even the most logical and sensible controls, like convicted violent criminals and ex-lovers with restraint orders, are STILL able to legally buy guns, you just have to wonder...
It reminds me of the anti-abortion crowd who are against things that reduce pregnancy and therefore the need for abortion, ie BC and its best proponent, Planned Parenthood. The anger and rage trump logic.
Yes, I know people who own guns, and most of them are NOT crazies like Ammon Bundy, though most, but not all, are Conservative. I can say though that the few I've known who carried a hand gun in public (as opposed to on their own property) and weren't LEOs were the type I wouldn't trust with a water pistol.
The NRA has opposed even the most sensible limits. So when a man strides through Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, America's biggest, in Atlanta, with an AR-15 type assault weapon with a load 100 round magazine, escorting his daughter up to the security check, the NRA and Georgia law is OK with that. Though when a group of Black Panthers did something similar in the late 60s, (also legally) Conservative demi-god Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping gun control act within days!
When even the most logical and sensible controls, like convicted violent criminals and ex-lovers with restraint orders, are STILL able to legally buy guns, you just have to wonder...
It reminds me of the anti-abortion crowd who are against things that reduce pregnancy and therefore the need for abortion, ie BC and its best proponent, Planned Parenthood. The anger and rage trump logic.
Yes, I know people who own guns, and most of them are NOT crazies like Ammon Bundy, though most, but not all, are Conservative. I can say though that the few I've known who carried a hand gun in public (as opposed to on their own property) and weren't LEOs were the type I wouldn't trust with a water pistol.
4
There are just two things I don't understand about gun owners:
1. If they are correct that gun violence has actually decreased over the years, then why do so many feel the need to carry them, especially in places like Texas?
2. If the gun owners are correct in fearing that they MUST have guns to protect themselves against criminals and wackos, they why are they so opposed to more background checks at gun shows?
The fact is, logic and statistics have very little to do with gun culture in the US. It has much more to do masculinity. Most people have handguns for the same reasons suburban types in Florida own massive 4-wheel-drive trucks: it makes them feel like real men.
1. If they are correct that gun violence has actually decreased over the years, then why do so many feel the need to carry them, especially in places like Texas?
2. If the gun owners are correct in fearing that they MUST have guns to protect themselves against criminals and wackos, they why are they so opposed to more background checks at gun shows?
The fact is, logic and statistics have very little to do with gun culture in the US. It has much more to do masculinity. Most people have handguns for the same reasons suburban types in Florida own massive 4-wheel-drive trucks: it makes them feel like real men.
10
In the mid 1990s, the murder rate in New York City was a staggering 14.5 per 100,000 persons.
It is now 4.0 per 100,000. How did this this drastic change, in the New York Times' own back yard. come about?
Not through gun control, the city had plenty of that already. It was through criminal control, either the "broken windows" policing practices of Mayor Giuliani or the demographic change the "Freakonomics" writers credit to legalized abortion.
Whichever theory you accept, it was criminal control not gun control which brought the murder rate down.
And before you decide that NYC's strict gun control helped, even today certain police precincts in the city have murder rates of up to 20 per 100,000, almost five times the national average. So the strict gun control doesn't seem to help in areas where criminal activity is the highest.
Travel north two counties to Putnam, which has less strict gun laws than NYC as well as a culture of gun ownership and hunting, and you find a county where the murder rate, for the last three years, has been 0 per 100,000.
It is now 4.0 per 100,000. How did this this drastic change, in the New York Times' own back yard. come about?
Not through gun control, the city had plenty of that already. It was through criminal control, either the "broken windows" policing practices of Mayor Giuliani or the demographic change the "Freakonomics" writers credit to legalized abortion.
Whichever theory you accept, it was criminal control not gun control which brought the murder rate down.
And before you decide that NYC's strict gun control helped, even today certain police precincts in the city have murder rates of up to 20 per 100,000, almost five times the national average. So the strict gun control doesn't seem to help in areas where criminal activity is the highest.
Travel north two counties to Putnam, which has less strict gun laws than NYC as well as a culture of gun ownership and hunting, and you find a county where the murder rate, for the last three years, has been 0 per 100,000.
5
Kristof’s collection of facts is inconvenient both for the Pro-Gun side and for the Pro-Control side. A 50% increase in gun ownership with no corresponding increase in gun homicides is inconvenient for Pro-Control partisans, but the 50% increase by itself is inconvenient for the Pro-Gun partisans, because it precludes any real worry about the health of the Second Amendment.
Despite evidence inconvenient for both narratives and broad agreement on some measures, the Great American Gun Fight persists. It's easy to point to the gun industry and the NRA, but also consider this: In both the Pro-Gun and Pro-Control camps, there are professionals who make a living on the issue, partisans who win status and visibility on the issue, and many citizens for whom the Gun Fight provides a basis for solidarity. At the same time, we human beings have a maddening capacity to produce genuine, sincere thoughts and feelings that happen to be consistent with our motives (called “motivated cognition”), consistent with the identities we forge for ourselves (called “identity-protective cognition”) and consistent with our valued affiliations (called “cultural cognition”).
In this case, what set of facts COULD diminish the Great American Gun Fight? How about this one fact: We, the People of the United States are stuck with each other, and the world will not stand still while we fight.
Despite evidence inconvenient for both narratives and broad agreement on some measures, the Great American Gun Fight persists. It's easy to point to the gun industry and the NRA, but also consider this: In both the Pro-Gun and Pro-Control camps, there are professionals who make a living on the issue, partisans who win status and visibility on the issue, and many citizens for whom the Gun Fight provides a basis for solidarity. At the same time, we human beings have a maddening capacity to produce genuine, sincere thoughts and feelings that happen to be consistent with our motives (called “motivated cognition”), consistent with the identities we forge for ourselves (called “identity-protective cognition”) and consistent with our valued affiliations (called “cultural cognition”).
In this case, what set of facts COULD diminish the Great American Gun Fight? How about this one fact: We, the People of the United States are stuck with each other, and the world will not stand still while we fight.
3
As long as the GOP is owned by the NRA, there's no chance our country will act smarter.
3
Mr. Kristof; I am a long time admirer of your writings and like what you are saying in this piece. I just need to add my opinion which obviates the real impetus for government objection to citizens possessing guns, any gun/guns. They fear armed uprising "of the people, for the people" and wish to reduce the possibility of "we the people" (you and I) being able to successfully overturn their political abuses. Pure an simple, sir.
3
I think the most inconvenient fact for all Americans is that American gun laws and the right to bear arms is the greatest protection America has in preventing people like myself from exercising freedom of speech.
Liberals and leftist of a certain age still remember our antidote to the hate mongers on the right and remember Alan Berg who was rewarded with a bullet in his driveway back in 1984. While we believe in freedom of speech the gun lobby will tell you freedom of speech has its limits and speaking of freedom and democracy is outside those limits. Going into a watering hole in Red America and saying good things about the President or even implying he is not a Muslim is outside those limits and looking at this weeks news saying what New York values are meant to imply is beyond the limits of free speech.
Liberals and leftist of a certain age still remember our antidote to the hate mongers on the right and remember Alan Berg who was rewarded with a bullet in his driveway back in 1984. While we believe in freedom of speech the gun lobby will tell you freedom of speech has its limits and speaking of freedom and democracy is outside those limits. Going into a watering hole in Red America and saying good things about the President or even implying he is not a Muslim is outside those limits and looking at this weeks news saying what New York values are meant to imply is beyond the limits of free speech.
6
From my understanding, states that have more regulation than less have fewer gun deaths.
3
"assault weapons account for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes"
But what percent of gun deaths are caused by assault weapons? How much automated fire power is actually needed to kill a deer? How many small children per minute can be wiped out by a killer with a hand gun, as opposed to dead kids per minute by a semi automatic weapon made for the battlefield? I agree it would be impossible to remove millions of guns from Americans, so pass laws to control access to bullets. I have a perfectly good Polaroid camera that I am fond of and have a right to own. I can leave it to my grandkids, I can hang it on the wall, smack a burglar upside the head with it, I can open-carry that sucker to church, bar or supermarket...but try finding film for it.
But what percent of gun deaths are caused by assault weapons? How much automated fire power is actually needed to kill a deer? How many small children per minute can be wiped out by a killer with a hand gun, as opposed to dead kids per minute by a semi automatic weapon made for the battlefield? I agree it would be impossible to remove millions of guns from Americans, so pass laws to control access to bullets. I have a perfectly good Polaroid camera that I am fond of and have a right to own. I can leave it to my grandkids, I can hang it on the wall, smack a burglar upside the head with it, I can open-carry that sucker to church, bar or supermarket...but try finding film for it.
2
Are there statistics showing that guns acquired without background checks are more likely to be involved in gun violence, gun deaths and gun suicides? Would any background check law apply to the sale or gift of a gun between individuals? Any work-around might neutralize a poorly written law as easily as it would a poorly enforced one.
2
Thank you for this. The vast, vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding peaceful citizens who are doing nothing wrong. The NRA shouts like lunatics, it's true, but the anti-gun side postures and hand-waves without really knowing what they're talking about. Disarming and insulting friends and neighbors (true! you don't know who owns guns!) does nothing to stop psycopaths from shooting up schools or gang-bangers from shooting one another. This problem IS amenable to research and evidence. It's time to really analyze it, and address the problems at their roots instead of blindly shouting at one another.
6
Proposed gun control measures won’t work for three reasons: (1) More than 60 percent of gun deaths are suicides. A person can commit suicide more easily with a small handgun than with an assault rifle and the number of rounds in the magazine doesn’t matter. About 50 percent of suicide are committed with firearms, but deprived of guns, many would turn to other methods. (2) Only about 0.002 percent of the more than 300 million guns owned by American are used in homicides, and many of these are stolen or purchased illegally. No gun law is going to stop felons from obtaining guns or get the “right” 0.002 percent of guns off the streets. 3) According to the 2014 FBI Uniform Crime Report, firearms were used in 8,124, or 67.9 percent, of the nation’s 11,961 murders during 2014. About 32 percent of murder victims were stabbed, beaten, kicked or stomped to death. But depriving homicidal people of guns wouldn’t reduce homicides by 67.9 percent because there would be an increase in the number of people stabbed, beaten, kicked or stomped to death. And if guns vanished, high-tech wizards would quickly produce new and perhaps more lethal gadgets to replace guns. Our only solution is to create a less homicidal and less suicidal society.
9
Fr. Larry Hansen tells his youth story -- I'll tell mine.
I was raised by my grandparents -- retired Captain in Navy and wife; both born in 1896. They don't make 'em that way any more. My grandfather had grown up on a poor farm in South Carolina, both of them gone through the Depression and WW II.
When I was 9 my grandfather decided I needed a gun -- to him a boy's necessity of growing up. He gave me a Japanese Arisaka rifle -- he had brought several back from the battles in the Pacific. This is a "real gun;" a bolt-action soldier's weapon of WW II. He chose it over the M1 Garand (of which we had several) because it is lighter, but at 9 I could not safely shoot it standing. And I knew what the gun could do, never did anything stupid with it.
Mike, the next door neighbor kid, was two years younger. He was jealous, and his parents promised him a gun on his 9th birthday. When it came around they gave him a BB gun, I was there. Within minutes of opening it, with his parents watching -- he aimed the gun at me, pulled the trigger, the BB hit me in my forehead. Off to the clinic we went to get it dug out. They took the BB gun away.
As Mike grew into a teenager it became clear that "something is really wrong with this kid." He died before his 21st birthday, with a gun, in circumstances I won't detail here.
Many gun advocates are like me an Fr. Larry Hansen: but you must not ignore the ones who aren't.
I was raised by my grandparents -- retired Captain in Navy and wife; both born in 1896. They don't make 'em that way any more. My grandfather had grown up on a poor farm in South Carolina, both of them gone through the Depression and WW II.
When I was 9 my grandfather decided I needed a gun -- to him a boy's necessity of growing up. He gave me a Japanese Arisaka rifle -- he had brought several back from the battles in the Pacific. This is a "real gun;" a bolt-action soldier's weapon of WW II. He chose it over the M1 Garand (of which we had several) because it is lighter, but at 9 I could not safely shoot it standing. And I knew what the gun could do, never did anything stupid with it.
Mike, the next door neighbor kid, was two years younger. He was jealous, and his parents promised him a gun on his 9th birthday. When it came around they gave him a BB gun, I was there. Within minutes of opening it, with his parents watching -- he aimed the gun at me, pulled the trigger, the BB hit me in my forehead. Off to the clinic we went to get it dug out. They took the BB gun away.
As Mike grew into a teenager it became clear that "something is really wrong with this kid." He died before his 21st birthday, with a gun, in circumstances I won't detail here.
Many gun advocates are like me an Fr. Larry Hansen: but you must not ignore the ones who aren't.
101
Perhaps we are condescending towards conservatives because they deserve it. The crime rates in other countries with stronger gun control is proof enough that BANNING most weapons is an effective way to reduce gun violence. We do have the issue of there being such a large number of guns out there, and it will take a long time to get the gun nuts to turn them in, but it is not impossible. And no, criminals will not be the only ones with guns at that point. The police will still have them. It will also make a cops life easier by not having to play "guess who the bad guy with a gun is". If you are not law enforcement, a member of a "well regulated militia" (military), or a person with a licensed hunting rifle in the woods hunting, you don't need a gun.
79
About 2/3rds of the 33,000 Americans who die from gun shot every year are suicides. That is the ultimate inconvenient gun fact.
3
With the exception of rifles used for hunting, all other guns are made for one thing only & that is shooting a person. Take a poll at your favorite gun retailer and they will tell you people are afraid of other people & that's why they buy guns. Of course as a gunseller they are more than happy to capitalize on that fear. Watch TV News, watch your newspapers, I do & it's perfectly clear that in many, if not most crimes, the bottom line is if there was no gun there would be no crime. It's not complicated & anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. Please don't wait until one of your own becomes the victim either at the hand of another or themselves to urge your congressman & your community to act to make the world, our homeland, a safer place.
4
According to Wikipedia NRA membership was about 5 million in 2013. I have no doubt that there are a lot of NRA members. However, my anti-NRA boss came to a staff meeting once and started off by showing everyone his unsolicited free "NRA Membership" that he had just received in the mail. Everyone laughed. Then I told them about my two separate unsolicited free NRA Memberships I received the previous week, one using my middle initial and one without.
So when the NRA boasts about their ranks we should all be a bit skeptical.
So when the NRA boasts about their ranks we should all be a bit skeptical.
7
Here is the ultimate inconvenient fact concerning the effectiveness of gun regulation. In Japan, where access to guns requires training and periodic mental and physical exams, there were a total of 3 gun related homicides for the entire country, in one year. That same year in the US, there were 12,000 gun homicides.
Case closed..........
Case closed..........
8
Personally, I would like to see all guns banned, but I'm acutely aware of the impossibility of that ever happening in the US. I have started using the term "responsible gun ownership". Reasonable goals could include applying the same standards to gun ownership as we do to cars. I discussed this with my cousin, a gun advocate and she agreed. If I had started the conversation advocating for gun control we would have gotten nowhere.
I agree with the author that we need to rethink our tactics.
I agree with the author that we need to rethink our tactics.
5
Liberals also tend to leave out the following pro-gun arguments: There are over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year in the US (from the USDOJ), there is absolutely no correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun murder across countries (sample size 107 countries), and strict gun laws in countries like Australia have had no impact on the number of gun murders. The anti-gun rhetoric has gotten more terrifying in recent years, with Obama and Hillary openly starting that people on terrorist watch lists should not be allowed to own guns, in violation of the 2nd, 6th, and 14th Amendments. Obama even tried to pass such a law, though fortunately it was shot down.
4
Btw -- the country's most prominent (by far) advocate of modest gun safety laws -- President Obama -- doesn't speak like one of these "glib, sanctimonious liberals" Kristof scolds (whoever they are)... Obama speaks reasonably and passionately, appealing to common sense and the common good. Yet his efforts are mocked, vilified, and twisted beyond recognition by the right... who hold most the power and leverage in this debate. And yet somehow Kristof thinks the left's "sanctimony" is on equal ground with the right's "obstructionism" in keeping America's "gun battles" so "ideological"? (...or even more to blame, as half this column is spent attacking these unnamed "liberals"?)
10
"40 % of gun purchases are done without a background check". Are you counting sales on the black market? IF there's no background check or record of the sale how did you get that statistic? Criminals, by their very nature, do not submit to background checks.
4
Kristof is correct, that for the vast majority of liberal gun banners, they antagonize law abiding gun owners and are completely ignorant of the guns they wish to control.
Using the word "gun safety" is not helping. The NRA is the largest gun safety organization in the world. It does more to educate and train people on safe handling than any other.
With only about 500 accidental deaths per year, firearms are amazingly safe. Far safer than your backyard swimming pool or even your stairway.
Safety and security are not they same. They require very different approaches.
If the liberals want to make headway, stop talking about gun control and start talking about criminal control.
Using the word "gun safety" is not helping. The NRA is the largest gun safety organization in the world. It does more to educate and train people on safe handling than any other.
With only about 500 accidental deaths per year, firearms are amazingly safe. Far safer than your backyard swimming pool or even your stairway.
Safety and security are not they same. They require very different approaches.
If the liberals want to make headway, stop talking about gun control and start talking about criminal control.
8
Child access prevention laws should be enacted and the responsibility should be 100% on gun owners to decide how best to keep their firearms out of the hands of children. No specific requirements like trigger locks or safes, just strict laws that if a child accesses your gun and shoots them self or someone else or commits a crime, you are civilly and criminally liable. This law would have no effect on responsible gun owners since they already do this.
3
Any argument that does not begin with, "After we have repealed the 2nd amendment..." is just wasted breath.
2
Isn't there a law, foisted upon us by the GOP, that prohibits the federal government from spending money on researching gun violence? Wouldn't it be nice if those of us interested in gun safety could convince our elected officials to overturn that law? Harvard has a lot of money for research. The Feds would have more. Of course, what climate change denial has taught us is that all the evidence in the world might not amount to a hill of beans in some quarters. I grew up with people for whom guns were as natural as shoes. One of them turned his house into a veritable arsenal. He ended up committing suicide with one of his many guns. I don't know how you turn that mentality around. It's all very well to talk about responsible, law abiding gun owners, but when you're depressed or angry, the cat is out of the bag. Killing yourself or someone else with a gun is so damned easy.
9
More than 30,000 people die from guns in this country every year. The Violence Policy Center reported that in 2014 more people died from guns than traffic accidents in 21 states.
The first thing to do is STOP illegal gun trafficking. If part of that is requiring universal background checks, then let's do it.
As a resident of New York City I don't want to impose my attitudes about guns on people upstate or in Texas. Local cultural differences should be respected, but Americans need to answer the question: are you really safer if you have a gun? For me the answer is no. If you have a gun and you think the other guy has a gun, you have to shoot first. Otherwise you could be dead. That's why Amadou Diallo and Tamir Rice are dead. Highly trained police officers had to shoot because they thought they were facing a gun. They were wrong, but that's the risk you take if you have a gun.
I've been held up at gunpoint. If I had a gun it could have ended up a bloody mess with one or both of us dead. Instead it took seconds for me to give up my money and walk away. It's the job of the police to catch that armed robber.
If you open carry you have death on your hip. That's not safety. It's intimidation.
The first thing to do is STOP illegal gun trafficking. If part of that is requiring universal background checks, then let's do it.
As a resident of New York City I don't want to impose my attitudes about guns on people upstate or in Texas. Local cultural differences should be respected, but Americans need to answer the question: are you really safer if you have a gun? For me the answer is no. If you have a gun and you think the other guy has a gun, you have to shoot first. Otherwise you could be dead. That's why Amadou Diallo and Tamir Rice are dead. Highly trained police officers had to shoot because they thought they were facing a gun. They were wrong, but that's the risk you take if you have a gun.
I've been held up at gunpoint. If I had a gun it could have ended up a bloody mess with one or both of us dead. Instead it took seconds for me to give up my money and walk away. It's the job of the police to catch that armed robber.
If you open carry you have death on your hip. That's not safety. It's intimidation.
10
This is a surprisingly foolish post. Yes, many gun control advocates don't know enough about guns, but rather than helping draft a workable law the gun rights people bury the arguments in a pile of minutiae.
5
A gun makes you judge, jury and executioner without a second thought. Nobody has a right to that. It's unconstitutional.
6
Kristof wrote a pretty good article in my opinion. Okay, let's get smarter and see what works based on the evidence. Assault weapons are 'only' used in 2% of crimes, but I suspect approaching 100% of mass killings. How do we cut that 2% number and take the 'mass' out of mass killings? Ban all detachable magazines from all firearms of any kind sold in America. That would also give armed citizens and any police nearby a fighting chance. Why are flintlocks, for example, much, much less risky than AR-15's ? You know the answer.
4
The reason most given for having guns in the home is to protect it. I have asked many gun owners if they have ever had to use their weapons for that purpose & the answer is always no. I see it as a pitiful excuse to have an arsenal at hand.
9
So I have a question. Is there open carry at Republican Debates?
18
Saying that "guns don't kill people, people do" is like saying "trains don't get people from Stamford to Manhattan in (hopefully) about 45 minutes, people do" or "stoves don't make food hot so you can eat it, people do". Guns are very efficient machines intended to do what no person can possibly do on his or her own - place pointed pieces of metal into and sometimes through the body of another human being almost instantaneously. Show me a person who can do that without a gun and I will listen to the rest of the gun lovers' arguments.
8
The real reason that the writer wants to change from "gun control" to "gun safety" is that control gets too close to the truth and he knows that the truth hurts his cause.
There is an individual right to keep and bear arms. If you want to restrict that, the burden on you is to demonstrate that the restrictions you propose would have a demonstrable impact on a specific problem/compelling government interest you wish to address. Almost the entirety of the gun control wish list would have no Impact whatsoever on gun crime. However, if you could demonstrate a positive impact, the measure would still have to be the least restrictive means of accomplishing that goal. So the challenge is - propose what you want to do and explain exactly how it will solve the problem you suggest it will address. You can't. Instead you immediately devolve into emotional claims and vague suggestions of reasonableness. It is your inability/refusal to make and DEFEND your proposals which Second Amendment advocates do not trust b
There is an individual right to keep and bear arms. If you want to restrict that, the burden on you is to demonstrate that the restrictions you propose would have a demonstrable impact on a specific problem/compelling government interest you wish to address. Almost the entirety of the gun control wish list would have no Impact whatsoever on gun crime. However, if you could demonstrate a positive impact, the measure would still have to be the least restrictive means of accomplishing that goal. So the challenge is - propose what you want to do and explain exactly how it will solve the problem you suggest it will address. You can't. Instead you immediately devolve into emotional claims and vague suggestions of reasonableness. It is your inability/refusal to make and DEFEND your proposals which Second Amendment advocates do not trust b
5
Maybe some of these "inconvenient facts" exist because politicians, who write the gun control laws, are accommodating the NRA, weapons manufacturers, and other economically interested parties.
5
The only reason to open carry is to intimidate other people. They need that sign of power warning people not to fool with me because I can kill you.
9
How about taking the guns from gangsters in the inner city by stop and frisk
5
I find the notion that we should let facts on gun violence determine our policies on gun ownership personally offensive… Do not let facts cloud the important issue! Guns don't kill people - people with guns kill people!!!
2
Perhaps we should have liability insurance requirement for gun ownership - like we have for cars. It would be one way to impose accountability on gun ownership.
Too bad the "MythBuster's" show is in its last season. It would have been interesting to have played out some of the prominent mass shooting scenarios using paintball weapons to see if the carnage is higher or lower when everyone has guns to what actually happened where no one had a gun. I do not fully buy the idea that people with guns shooting back in a theater or music hall or cafe, would have reduced the death toll as Trump and others claim. But until it is tested, who knows for sure?
Too bad the "MythBuster's" show is in its last season. It would have been interesting to have played out some of the prominent mass shooting scenarios using paintball weapons to see if the carnage is higher or lower when everyone has guns to what actually happened where no one had a gun. I do not fully buy the idea that people with guns shooting back in a theater or music hall or cafe, would have reduced the death toll as Trump and others claim. But until it is tested, who knows for sure?
3
I commend you for admitting some of the facts that cut against liberal dogma, but you are still succumbing to some fallacious reasoning regarding gun statistics. The number of “gun deaths” is not an important statistics. Unless you are counting and comparing all violent deaths, then you are not serious about looking at the problem rationally. For example, as you know, most gun deaths are due to suicide. If you are citing gun suicide rates and ignoring all non-gun suicides, you are not serious about confronting the problem. Japan, for example, has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, but has a much higher suicide rate than the United States. What is the correlation between gun restrictions and suicide rates among the different states? The fact that you avoid this the most obvious question tells me that you have an agenda other than reducing violent deaths and suicides.
8
Several comments here offer nothing more than the demonization of white men.
A bit of a reality check: Baltimore, according to the Baltimore Sun, now has the highest per capita murder rate in its history. And the dead, and their killers, are overwhelmingly black males, usually young.
A bit of a reality check: Baltimore, according to the Baltimore Sun, now has the highest per capita murder rate in its history. And the dead, and their killers, are overwhelmingly black males, usually young.
5
All this is right on, but first you have to stop the congressional ban on funding research on gun violence.
3
We should all be working together to TAKE guns away from gangs, criminals, mentally ill, drunks and domestic abusers. Target the people who cause the problem and violence, which comprise only 0.01 % of gun owners.
Passing more laws will NOT stop criminals, mentally depressed, drunks, spousal abusers, or terrorists from getting guns .
If democrats and gun control advocates like Kristof and Obama wants to really deal with the issue, he must target the cause of the problems, not the implements. Remember this inconvenient truth : 99.99 % of guns are legally owned and their owners never hurt anyone . Passing more laws to target these owners is mentally deficient and ignoring the real problem .
Passing more laws will NOT stop criminals, mentally depressed, drunks, spousal abusers, or terrorists from getting guns .
If democrats and gun control advocates like Kristof and Obama wants to really deal with the issue, he must target the cause of the problems, not the implements. Remember this inconvenient truth : 99.99 % of guns are legally owned and their owners never hurt anyone . Passing more laws to target these owners is mentally deficient and ignoring the real problem .
4
Mr. Kristoff, You were doing well until you equated all the 40 percent of firearms in the U.S. with criminal empowerment.
Firearms are durable goods and stores of value. A well-cared for gun will last forever and retain value. Because of this, guns are passed down through generations of families. You can be sure that the 40% of guns acquired without a background check will grow as this present generation which owns 300 million firearms passes them and their value to the next.
Firearms are durable goods and stores of value. A well-cared for gun will last forever and retain value. Because of this, guns are passed down through generations of families. You can be sure that the 40% of guns acquired without a background check will grow as this present generation which owns 300 million firearms passes them and their value to the next.
4
How can the gun control/safety discussion be fact based when Congress prohibits the CDC from gathering the facts? This is not a fair debate -- on one side, people want our obscene gun murder rate decreased (limit the discussion to changes in our gun murder rate is misleading -- one cannot ignore the reality that our rate far exceeds that in other nations). On the other side, manufacturers and their NRA paid mouthpiece are making money, and insure that the debate is limited to false emotional calls, not the facts. Yes, that is an inconvenient gun fact for the gun lobby.
7
What's inconvenient for America, and not just liberals, are the 30,000+ dead bodies created by shootings every year, even if it is a reduction in our historical self-perpetrated carnage. They're a bloody mess. They also point to a certain fraud about our mythology about how great a nation, how great a people we are; for Washington's sake what do the guy in the blue shirt and the girl to his right need such a large selection of guns at their disposal? Who and what are they so afraid of that they need these gats, do they fear their fellow Americans? Or just the Communists? Muslims? Mexicans? Blacks? Redskins? Liberals?
The NYT had an article earlier today on how white Hollywood is, and it's a valid point. Hollywood in general beside being a fabricator of a feel-good white mythology for America has been a long time propaganda machine for American elites both political and corporate, since at least post WWII, The movie-makers have been running interference for Eisenhower's warned about military-industrial cabal, his warning of their usurping American democracy. This is why Hollywood rarely makes insightful movies about American reality, about the daily atrocities and damage guns do to American citizens and their lives. If Hollywood dealt with reality and did not perpetrated fantasy, they'd get the news out to the American public how the cities of Chicago and Cleveland for example has been committing human rights violations against American citizens, including unarmed children.
The NYT had an article earlier today on how white Hollywood is, and it's a valid point. Hollywood in general beside being a fabricator of a feel-good white mythology for America has been a long time propaganda machine for American elites both political and corporate, since at least post WWII, The movie-makers have been running interference for Eisenhower's warned about military-industrial cabal, his warning of their usurping American democracy. This is why Hollywood rarely makes insightful movies about American reality, about the daily atrocities and damage guns do to American citizens and their lives. If Hollywood dealt with reality and did not perpetrated fantasy, they'd get the news out to the American public how the cities of Chicago and Cleveland for example has been committing human rights violations against American citizens, including unarmed children.
2
If any one thinks that 310,000 deaths in ten years (the equivalent of 5 Iraq war casualties) is a sign of the glibness of liberals, go ahead and think so.
As per the study on the assault weapons showing that its earlier prohibition did not reduce deaths, it does not consider that the use of such weapons for killing people is increasing. Excepting hunting rifles, nothing will ever convince me that society is better off with millions of people packing guns, no matter who is doing the killing.
As per the study on the assault weapons showing that its earlier prohibition did not reduce deaths, it does not consider that the use of such weapons for killing people is increasing. Excepting hunting rifles, nothing will ever convince me that society is better off with millions of people packing guns, no matter who is doing the killing.
5
just an elegantly simple and simply elegant, accessible and appealing argument. and especially compelling coming from a journalist usually seen as inextricably bound to a deeply liberal ethos. bend an ambitious republican congressman's ear, letting him or her know that gun safety is a quintessentially apolitical pursuit, because - in its absence - more innocent people die - period. if you're really pro-life, if you truly value families and accept that pointless deaths by the ten-of-thousands annually betrays something sinister and, as importantly, incompatible with an authentic, functioning democracy.
4
The vast majority of gun murders are with handguns. I have not been able to find statistics on the type of gun used in suicides (which account for the majority of gun deaths), but I would bet that handguns are the majority there also. Handguns are not a useful weapon in militias, nor would they be much use in a revolution, so there is no Constitutional justification for a right to own handguns. The overall death rate will simply not be reduced much until handguns are much rarer. Background and sanity checks will have little effect as long as people have an unquestioned right to own handguns. There are so many floating around that getting one is easy regardless of laws.
4
Inconvenient fact for gun owners, most deaths from guns are of the gun owners, 20k suicides per year
2
As someone who does not possess a gun, I'm simply going to avoid, socially and otherwise, those of you who do.
7
I just read the top 20 Recommended comments here. All but 1 or 2 support modest steps to improve gun safety and reduce violence. Not one suggested banning or confiscating all guns. (One said no one needs assault weapons, and one suggested banning all but hunting rifles as a way to push the pro-gun side to compromise).
Mr. Kristof bends himself into a pretzel trying to be fair to the gun rights crowd. There is nothing the gun safety side can say to convince gun-lovers that we aren't going to take away their guns.
Pres. Obama said absolutely nothing about gun control until Newtown. He has never advocated anything more than some regulations to reduce gun violence. Yet gun sales soared and the gunners insist he wants to take their guns away.
The failure to enact national gun safety laws, and the continued gun violence, rests entirely on the pro-gun side.
Mr. Kristof bends himself into a pretzel trying to be fair to the gun rights crowd. There is nothing the gun safety side can say to convince gun-lovers that we aren't going to take away their guns.
Pres. Obama said absolutely nothing about gun control until Newtown. He has never advocated anything more than some regulations to reduce gun violence. Yet gun sales soared and the gunners insist he wants to take their guns away.
The failure to enact national gun safety laws, and the continued gun violence, rests entirely on the pro-gun side.
10
Liberals also lose gun owners by refusing to even speak about "stop & frisk" in American urban centers. Those same urban centers account for more than a majority of gun deaths each year and the slaughter is greatest among young black and Hispanic males who obtain guns illegally.
In other words, the greatest slaughters are not in Newton, Conn., but in the South Bronx and Chicago's South Side.
When will the liberals begin a conversation directed solely at those on-going centers of death instead of painting all gun owners with the broad brush of the next mentally ill loner?
In other words, the greatest slaughters are not in Newton, Conn., but in the South Bronx and Chicago's South Side.
When will the liberals begin a conversation directed solely at those on-going centers of death instead of painting all gun owners with the broad brush of the next mentally ill loner?
9
One of the most pragmatic views I've heard voiced about the uniquely American dilemma of guns. Yes, safety is the way to go as the right to bear arms does not exclude concerns with safety.
2
Mr. Kristof: Is it that unreasonable to question why people need to have the right to own a handgun? What are we protecting ourselves against, exactly? Why do we think it so bad that folks can't get a magazine with more than 7 bullets? The argument that it is a Constitutional Right doesn't answer my questions- the second amendment talks about arms, which also include tanks and nuclear weapons, and I don't think we allow the sale of those to law abiding members of the public. Most everyone does draw the line somewhere.
I guess I'm one of the condescending liberals.
I guess I'm one of the condescending liberals.
6
I can answer. Gun owners are protecting people from armed criminals. I have never owned a gun. My area is 98% white and crime free.
1
Suppose we start with denying gun purchases to anyone on the TSA no-fly list? If Homeland Security thinks a person is not safe to fly on an airliner then I think they ought not be able to buy a gun. Just saying ...
2
"We spend billions of dollars tackling terrorism, which killed 229 Americans worldwide from 2005 through 2014, according to the State Department. In the same 10 years, including suicides, some 310,000 Americans died from guns.
So of course we should try to reduce this carnage. But we need a new strategy, a public health approach that treats guns as we do cars — taking evidence-based steps to make them safer."
This piece by Mr. Kristof and Mr. Obama's opinion piece last week both argue that gun safety should borrow strategies taken for the car. Here is an inconvenient traffic violence fact for liberals and conservatives: between 2005 and 2014, 360,000 Americans died in motor vehicle deaths, not counting the secondary acute and chronic deaths from motor vehicles (e.g., air pollution). This is 50,000 more than those who died from gun-related deaths over the same 10-year period that both men purport we should borrow industry safety strategies from. While some car-related safety strategies have resulted in a decline in deaths (e.g., seat belts and air bags), the root causes (e.g., speed, roadway design, and land use patterns) are only beginning to be addressed in some communities. Let's hope that the gun safety strategists can address root causes, as Mr. Kristof starts to address towards the end of this piece.
So of course we should try to reduce this carnage. But we need a new strategy, a public health approach that treats guns as we do cars — taking evidence-based steps to make them safer."
This piece by Mr. Kristof and Mr. Obama's opinion piece last week both argue that gun safety should borrow strategies taken for the car. Here is an inconvenient traffic violence fact for liberals and conservatives: between 2005 and 2014, 360,000 Americans died in motor vehicle deaths, not counting the secondary acute and chronic deaths from motor vehicles (e.g., air pollution). This is 50,000 more than those who died from gun-related deaths over the same 10-year period that both men purport we should borrow industry safety strategies from. While some car-related safety strategies have resulted in a decline in deaths (e.g., seat belts and air bags), the root causes (e.g., speed, roadway design, and land use patterns) are only beginning to be addressed in some communities. Let's hope that the gun safety strategists can address root causes, as Mr. Kristof starts to address towards the end of this piece.
2
While I appreciate the spirit of dialect and compromise in Kristof's column, I still think what most of us debate about guns comes down to which rights we want to limit.
We can certainly construct laws that would make private gun ownership more difficult, and probably reduce deaths and injuries--and also impinge on the rights of people who want to own guns.
We could also construct laws that impede other rights. If some significant number of murders follow the breakup of intimate relationships, how about a mandated cooling off period, with one or both parties under strict supervision? Likewise, if someone exhibits suicidal tendencies, perhaps we can require them to relinquish their independence. And to prevent copy cat murders (and suicides), we could severely restrict what the media are allowed to report. Finally, and more tenuous, should we prohibit gun use or display in films and TV?
What rights that you cherish are you ready to give up?
We can certainly construct laws that would make private gun ownership more difficult, and probably reduce deaths and injuries--and also impinge on the rights of people who want to own guns.
We could also construct laws that impede other rights. If some significant number of murders follow the breakup of intimate relationships, how about a mandated cooling off period, with one or both parties under strict supervision? Likewise, if someone exhibits suicidal tendencies, perhaps we can require them to relinquish their independence. And to prevent copy cat murders (and suicides), we could severely restrict what the media are allowed to report. Finally, and more tenuous, should we prohibit gun use or display in films and TV?
What rights that you cherish are you ready to give up?
4
"People respond to incentives, although not necessarily in ways that are predictable or manifest. Therefore, one of the most powerful laws in the universe is the law of unintended consequences." -From the book "SuperFreakonomics"
Regarding mass killers and terrorists:
Remember the Boston Marathon bombers? They killed with pressure-cooker bombs that were triggered by a device used in remote control toys.
Make it impossible for mass killers and terrorists to use guns, and they will use bombs.
Make it impossible for mass killers and terrorists to use bombs -- which is unlikely -- and they will likely use toxic gas.
Allow everyone to carry concealed weapons, and mass killers and terrorists will use bombs and/or toxic gas to hurl as they drive by or run by.
If only "smart" guns suddenly became available in the U.S, a black market for traditional guns might soon spring up. Just as there are illegal drug dealers and runners, there would likely be gun runners coming from or through, say, Mexico to sell to criminals and others who would either keep them for their own use or re-sell them to anyone who wants them. Remember, too, that 3D printers, as I've read, may be able to create operable guns out of plastic.
Each time a gun law is proposed, try to think like a mass killer or a terrorist determined to kill. Only by trying to put ourselves in these killers' minds, I believe, can we best recognize unintended consequences and find our best solutions.
Regarding mass killers and terrorists:
Remember the Boston Marathon bombers? They killed with pressure-cooker bombs that were triggered by a device used in remote control toys.
Make it impossible for mass killers and terrorists to use guns, and they will use bombs.
Make it impossible for mass killers and terrorists to use bombs -- which is unlikely -- and they will likely use toxic gas.
Allow everyone to carry concealed weapons, and mass killers and terrorists will use bombs and/or toxic gas to hurl as they drive by or run by.
If only "smart" guns suddenly became available in the U.S, a black market for traditional guns might soon spring up. Just as there are illegal drug dealers and runners, there would likely be gun runners coming from or through, say, Mexico to sell to criminals and others who would either keep them for their own use or re-sell them to anyone who wants them. Remember, too, that 3D printers, as I've read, may be able to create operable guns out of plastic.
Each time a gun law is proposed, try to think like a mass killer or a terrorist determined to kill. Only by trying to put ourselves in these killers' minds, I believe, can we best recognize unintended consequences and find our best solutions.
4
Some points:
1) What most of us fear is becoming the victim of a homicide so I suggest that the suicide statistics, while concerning, should be eliminated from the discussion.
2) It seems we're all over the place re mass shootings, but the seemingly random, public events where some individual kills innocent people, are rare. According to the LA Times, these type of events accounted for 289 deaths in the 10 years prior to July 2015. That's 289 too many, but at during the same period over 130k people were murdered in the US.
3) The anti-gun crowd seems to have targeted -- as the poster boy gun villain they carry in their head --- some white guy who drives a pickup, has a zillion guns and the 2nd amendment tattooed on his arm. However, the perpetrators of most shootings/gun murders are inner city Blacks (per FBI)-- both in absolute and proportional (% of population) terms. They are not law abiding citizens who would turn from a life of crime if only we had tighter gun laws.
4) The non Hispanic White murder rate is comparable to European countries despite the higher gun ownership here.
5) No mental health test exists that can identify people likely to commit mass shootings.
6) Smart gun technology isn't there. It has to be 100% reliable, and no tech devices are.
7) Proponents of gun control laws claim they don't want to take away guns. Well, a lot of these comments suggest otherwise. There is a large segment of progressives who simply hate guns.
1) What most of us fear is becoming the victim of a homicide so I suggest that the suicide statistics, while concerning, should be eliminated from the discussion.
2) It seems we're all over the place re mass shootings, but the seemingly random, public events where some individual kills innocent people, are rare. According to the LA Times, these type of events accounted for 289 deaths in the 10 years prior to July 2015. That's 289 too many, but at during the same period over 130k people were murdered in the US.
3) The anti-gun crowd seems to have targeted -- as the poster boy gun villain they carry in their head --- some white guy who drives a pickup, has a zillion guns and the 2nd amendment tattooed on his arm. However, the perpetrators of most shootings/gun murders are inner city Blacks (per FBI)-- both in absolute and proportional (% of population) terms. They are not law abiding citizens who would turn from a life of crime if only we had tighter gun laws.
4) The non Hispanic White murder rate is comparable to European countries despite the higher gun ownership here.
5) No mental health test exists that can identify people likely to commit mass shootings.
6) Smart gun technology isn't there. It has to be 100% reliable, and no tech devices are.
7) Proponents of gun control laws claim they don't want to take away guns. Well, a lot of these comments suggest otherwise. There is a large segment of progressives who simply hate guns.
12
The yawning piece missing in this discussion is the role of the media in gun violence. Huh??? you ask? Note that in Austria, the rate of suicide by commuter train dropped dramatically when the stories were taken off the front page and put on a back page. In our own region, suicide by jumping from the Skyway bridge, by local custom, is not splashed across the front page. It makes back page news. In our world, massacres not only get front page news, they get days and days of talking heads. The cable news folks monitor viewership. Their ad rates depend on it. When the public interest wanes, they move on to other things. In other words, when the commercial value of dramatizing massacres and murders declines, reporting dries up.
Guns are used for massacres but the emotional state of the murderer is the key and a potential murder's state of mind appears to crave going out in a blaze, otherwise known as suicide by cop.
Solution: stop making these events persisting front page news. TV reporters, agree among yourselves to avoid the drama. Geesh, you folks flock to these sites with trucks and out of breath morbid excitement. STOP, please.
Sure, I wish guns would go away. They won't. I want more background checks but what do we do when a gun owner who passed a background check has a mental status alteration? Most important seems to be to dissipate the perverse rewards to the mentally ill and emotionally distressed for engaging in violent behavior.
Change is way overdue.
Guns are used for massacres but the emotional state of the murderer is the key and a potential murder's state of mind appears to crave going out in a blaze, otherwise known as suicide by cop.
Solution: stop making these events persisting front page news. TV reporters, agree among yourselves to avoid the drama. Geesh, you folks flock to these sites with trucks and out of breath morbid excitement. STOP, please.
Sure, I wish guns would go away. They won't. I want more background checks but what do we do when a gun owner who passed a background check has a mental status alteration? Most important seems to be to dissipate the perverse rewards to the mentally ill and emotionally distressed for engaging in violent behavior.
Change is way overdue.
2
Realistically nothing will be done on this issue unless corporate America gets behind it. Gun deaths now exceed car deaths in roughly half the states in the U.S.. Yet guns are lightly regulated compared to autos. Why? Because insurance companies lobbied for changes regarding auto deaths. Everyone must have insurance to drive. Reduce the blood alcohol levels. Click it or ticket seat belt laws. Get auto makers to add safety features and changes around headlights/tail lights. Etc. But with most gun deaths, insurance companies don't have to pay off. Suicides. Terrorist acts. They have no skin in the game on any of that. And somewhere in America (those same places that resist common sense gun laws as government infringement on individual rights), those same people looked at safety belt laws or having to pay for more expensive cars with government mandated safety features as infringement on individual rights as well. Didn't matter as long as they were outlobbied.
3
For the left dropping sanctions in a non-starter since that is their ultimate objective. For the right the registration of firearms is a non-starter since they are perfectly aware of the lefts actual goal.
6
I was standing in line at Kroger while the man in front of me was wearing what I think was a shoulder holster. He was a middle aged man and as I stood behind him I wondered if he was someone I could trust with a gun in a crowded grocery store. What if there was a sudden altercation or a sound of gunfire? Would this man use his weapon carefully and intelligently?
As I stewed on this, it came time for him to check out. He had trouble using the pin pad because, apparently, he couldn't see well. In order to finish his transaction, he had to put his face all the way to within an inch or two of the device.
The US is full of people who are angry and rebellious and willing to go to any lengths to protect what they perceive as their rights without giving sufficient concern to whether their behavior could endanger others. That's the kind of people we are, encouraged by inflammatory rhetoric from our politicians and Fox News. Politicians make jokes about killing opposing politicians and there's no penalty for that, even after someone takes them up on it as in the case of Gabrielle Giffords.
Do our lenient gun policies make us safer? I don't think so. But the bullies and gun-armed have won the battle so far. So much so that a group of men has occupied a federal building and gotten away with it.
I completely disagree with Mr. Kristoff on this one.
As I stewed on this, it came time for him to check out. He had trouble using the pin pad because, apparently, he couldn't see well. In order to finish his transaction, he had to put his face all the way to within an inch or two of the device.
The US is full of people who are angry and rebellious and willing to go to any lengths to protect what they perceive as their rights without giving sufficient concern to whether their behavior could endanger others. That's the kind of people we are, encouraged by inflammatory rhetoric from our politicians and Fox News. Politicians make jokes about killing opposing politicians and there's no penalty for that, even after someone takes them up on it as in the case of Gabrielle Giffords.
Do our lenient gun policies make us safer? I don't think so. But the bullies and gun-armed have won the battle so far. So much so that a group of men has occupied a federal building and gotten away with it.
I completely disagree with Mr. Kristoff on this one.
5
That the death rate has gone down, with a 50% increase in gun ownership is not surprising. The 26 deaths in New Town, would represent a 26% death rate if we counted 100 guns owned. If ownership increased by 50% to 150, the death rate per would be 17.3%, for those same 26 deaths.
1
Of course, now that you have written a fact-based essay, the commenters are coming out with shrieks that are irrelevant to what you actually said. Further proof of your words, that many liberals are not interested in gun safety but only interested in feeling threatened, aggrieved, self-righteous and morally superior.
7
Kristoff misses a critical statistic. According to the Department of Justice about 500,000 guns are stolen each year! Sure, some criminals obtain guns through unscrupulous dealers, and a few are purchased legally before the owners turn to crime, but larceny is the primary source by far.
So how might we reduce gun theft? Imagine a criminal walking through a parking lot. He spots an NRA sticker on your car window. Worse yet, same punk is casing your neighborhood and sees that same sticker. We help criminals steal guns by telegraphing their location. Peel that target off your car and deter crime!
So how might we reduce gun theft? Imagine a criminal walking through a parking lot. He spots an NRA sticker on your car window. Worse yet, same punk is casing your neighborhood and sees that same sticker. We help criminals steal guns by telegraphing their location. Peel that target off your car and deter crime!
1
Every 2 minutes, someone is injured in a drunk driving incident.
These can be prevented, by installing a breathalyzer on every automobile.
Yes, it might "inconvenience you" when you go to start your car, and yes, no more "remote staring" would be available, but isn't the SAFETY of Americans more important?
No?
That only comes into play on issues YOU find important?
How ironic!
These can be prevented, by installing a breathalyzer on every automobile.
Yes, it might "inconvenience you" when you go to start your car, and yes, no more "remote staring" would be available, but isn't the SAFETY of Americans more important?
No?
That only comes into play on issues YOU find important?
How ironic!
4
Gun Facts for Liberals:
Guns 101: With guns frequently in the news, some journalists have been mis-characterizing certain weapons. Hollie McKay and gun expert Dennis Santiago explain the differences among hand guns, revolvers, automatic and semi-automatic pistols.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4704103848001/guns-101-hand-guns/?#sp=show-clips
Guns 101: With guns frequently in the news, some journalists have been mis-characterizing certain weapons. Hollie McKay and gun expert Dennis Santiago explain the differences among hand guns, revolvers, automatic and semi-automatic pistols.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4704103848001/guns-101-hand-guns/?#sp=show-clips
1
I was pleasantly surprised to see such a sober and thoughtful analysis from the NYT. Kristoff makes some great points. See my analysis:
http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-left-hates-guns_2.html
http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-left-hates-guns_2.html
Apparently it was inconvenient to mention that while the number of guns has increased, the number of households having them has decreased. Also inconvenient are the statistics on the aging of the population; the demographic of young men who are responsible for the most crime in any society has shrunk.
Then there's the "mystery" of why Congress will not pass reasonable gun safety legislation despite the wishes of the majority. No mystery here, except the NAMES of all those in Congress who are beholden to the NRA for their re-election. How 'bout giving us the names and how much?
There may well have been a dummy or two in New York if they didn't do the research on clip capacity, but to blame this public health menace on liberals as being ignorant and sanctimonious is to blame the victims and reinforce the NRA's lies. Those ignorant, sanctimonious liberals made me buy another gun! Yeah, right.
And then there are the thousands of accidental deaths, especially of children, not even mentioned here but assuredly caused by the presence of guns in the home. Inconvenient to mention them here, but hey--liberals already know those facts.
Liberals may or may not be overly fearful of shoot-em-ups at Starbucks--apparently so far, so good, too soon to tell, really--but most people simply do not want the atmosphere of intimidation and implied threat created by the open display of weapons as they go about their daily lives.
Then there's the "mystery" of why Congress will not pass reasonable gun safety legislation despite the wishes of the majority. No mystery here, except the NAMES of all those in Congress who are beholden to the NRA for their re-election. How 'bout giving us the names and how much?
There may well have been a dummy or two in New York if they didn't do the research on clip capacity, but to blame this public health menace on liberals as being ignorant and sanctimonious is to blame the victims and reinforce the NRA's lies. Those ignorant, sanctimonious liberals made me buy another gun! Yeah, right.
And then there are the thousands of accidental deaths, especially of children, not even mentioned here but assuredly caused by the presence of guns in the home. Inconvenient to mention them here, but hey--liberals already know those facts.
Liberals may or may not be overly fearful of shoot-em-ups at Starbucks--apparently so far, so good, too soon to tell, really--but most people simply do not want the atmosphere of intimidation and implied threat created by the open display of weapons as they go about their daily lives.
3
I'm for a strict interpretation of the second. Everybody should be allowed to have as many muzzle loaders as they want. Keep your powder dry folks.
Where did Second mention muzzle loaders? It just said "arms".
4
And where is the media stories of the TWO armed robberies in Chicago that were thwarted by concealed carry employees??? Guns save lives, gangsters take them using ILLEGAL guns. Go after the gang-bangers, not lawful citizens
6
Fly a plane into a building and kill thousands and its not plane violence. Use a machete on the subway and its not machete violence. Bomb people in Boston and its not bomb violence.
But kill with a gun and its gun violence, right? Wrong. You are being manipulated.
But kill with a gun and its gun violence, right? Wrong. You are being manipulated.
8
More people are killed each year by guns than by bombs, planes and machetes combined. But don't let logic and facts stand in the way of your right to make ignorant arguments.
3
Thank you for your comments. Please consider making clear the number of suicides that greatly skew the numbers. I believe that last year, there were 33,000 gun related deaths, of which 22,000 were sucides. There are more deaths by drunk drivers than the net number of non sucide deaths. We need perspective, as we attempt to regulate gun laws. Thank you
2
"40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check. That’s crazy. Why empower criminals to arm themselves?"
That is also a weird argument from those in favor of gun controls. Convicted criminals in general are either in prison, where they can't (legally) buy a gun, or they have purged their sentenced, in case they should no longer be considered as criminal -- or do you think that ex-convicts should have their rights restricted, do you agree with depriving them of the right of vote, etc... ?
That is also a weird argument from those in favor of gun controls. Convicted criminals in general are either in prison, where they can't (legally) buy a gun, or they have purged their sentenced, in case they should no longer be considered as criminal -- or do you think that ex-convicts should have their rights restricted, do you agree with depriving them of the right of vote, etc... ?
4
Good article. However, one solution path, universal background checks, suggested here leaves open a key constitutional question. If there is a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear, then why does that right not apply to the mentally ill and to those who have completed their prison sentences? Do those people not have a right to self-defense? Are they not subject to risks from those who hate them? How can we legally disarm some but not others absent specific evidence of prior serious gun-related misconduct?
A restraining order is issued for many reasons, such as 'stalking'. Is there an increased risk, often aggravated by resentment of the restraining order itself? Yes. Does that mean we can use statistical inference of group risk to deprive an individual's right? Such logical presumption, an implicit 'proof of future crime' reminds one of the movie "Minority Report" and extends legal sanction to cover crimes not yet committed by someone with no history of that type of crime.
While I strongly support increasing gun safety, we need to do so within the existing framework of American law. We do not do this by restricting rights based on fuzzy definitions such as 'mental health'. Many states now allow people with a past felony conviction to vote? Can those people also own a gun?
A restraining order is issued for many reasons, such as 'stalking'. Is there an increased risk, often aggravated by resentment of the restraining order itself? Yes. Does that mean we can use statistical inference of group risk to deprive an individual's right? Such logical presumption, an implicit 'proof of future crime' reminds one of the movie "Minority Report" and extends legal sanction to cover crimes not yet committed by someone with no history of that type of crime.
While I strongly support increasing gun safety, we need to do so within the existing framework of American law. We do not do this by restricting rights based on fuzzy definitions such as 'mental health'. Many states now allow people with a past felony conviction to vote? Can those people also own a gun?
2
Maybe we could focus too on the "well regulated" language of the Second Amendment. We seem to be regulating guns less and less well--or so it would seem if we follow the NRA agenda.
3
Certainly was inconvenient for those children.
1
A fact not mentioned: if no one has a gun, no one can get shot.
5
The gun industry and gunners need to be taxed for the full extent of all costs they impose on society. It is a parasitic nightmare.
2
The first piece of research you quote (from 2004) discusses the effect of removing the assault weapons ban and ends with a final conclusion:
“It is also possible, and perhaps probable, that new AWs and LCMs will eventually be used to commit mass murder … The notoriety likely to accompany mass murders if committed with AWs and LCMs, especially after these guns and magazines have been deregulated, could have a considerable negative impact on public perceptions, an effect that would almost certainly be intensified if such crimes were committed by terrorists operating in the U.S.”
They were right: lifting the assault weapon ban led to mass murders including those by terrorists – and yet the paper implies that the consequent negative perceptions would be out of proportion to the statistical impact on the total number of deaths.
That is the thing with research: it can be very narrow and can totally obscure the important conclusion.
“It is also possible, and perhaps probable, that new AWs and LCMs will eventually be used to commit mass murder … The notoriety likely to accompany mass murders if committed with AWs and LCMs, especially after these guns and magazines have been deregulated, could have a considerable negative impact on public perceptions, an effect that would almost certainly be intensified if such crimes were committed by terrorists operating in the U.S.”
They were right: lifting the assault weapon ban led to mass murders including those by terrorists – and yet the paper implies that the consequent negative perceptions would be out of proportion to the statistical impact on the total number of deaths.
That is the thing with research: it can be very narrow and can totally obscure the important conclusion.
Wonderful to see you writing a moderate column. But could you be pulling for Sanders who is to the left of Hillary on all issues except guns?
1
Nicholas, Background Checks are fine. But Obama's plan included a registry, which facilitates the belief that confiscation is next. And before you decry the paranoia of "confiscation," why didn't Obama simply strip the registry part of the bill and submit the background check part he said he wanted? And Obama didn't propose the checks since, because if that passes, then what? Then Obama doesn't have the issue and can't add other more restrictive measures later.
5
Insurance is the answer to gun control. If I have to pay extra to have a pit bull in the house,why not extra for a gun in the house. I am sick of paying for the gun carnage. New York may not have the best laws, but 5 gun deaths per hundred thousand is better than 15 deaths per hundred thousand in SAFE Texas.
4
This has been a remarkable week at the NYT: in the wake of Cologne, it has allowed op-eds recognizing the folly of Ms. Merkel's open immigration policies, and today it has even allowed Mr. Kristof to bravely explode some of the favorite liberal myths about gun violence in the US. In this new and welcome spirit, perhaps it is time for the NYT to honestly acknowledge that urban black and Hispanic youths commit the great majority of murder and other crime, in spite of their relatively small numbers. Murder rates among American whites are comparable to those among Europeans. Gun owners are very tired of being villainized for the sins of a tiny minority, and they express their disgust in the voting booth. Democrats would do well to notice. I am voting for Bernie Sanders.
4
Points well-taken, and I agree that if we changed the context from “gun control/regulation” to “gun safety” it could relieve much of the adversarial nature of the discussion. I personally don’t like guns, don’t own a gun, and I don’t feel that everyone is safer if everyone is carrying guns. However, having lived in Geneva 30 years ago, I have never been able to get past the Swiss paradox. In Switzerland, every male has compulsory military duty on a yearly basis until well into middle age, and because the Swiss army is actually run as a militia (not too different from the Militia referenced in the second amendment), every working-age man keeps his automatic rifle at home, and the percentage of households with guns in Switzerland is not far from that of the US. And yet, the rate of homicide by guns in Switzerland is about 1/10 that of the US. So, there is much more to the argument than just how many guns are out there.
3
Check out Switzerlands demographics..The unmentionable is that in the US, young black males, between 17 and 40, 3% of our population, commit almost half the homicides, and Democrats will not touch the problem.
4
How can an article like this, which is reasoned and well thought out from the author's perspective, fail to include reform of a judicial system that fails to zealously enforce the penalties that exist for the use of guns in the commission of crimes?
2
Kristof writes, "But we need a new strategy, a public health approach that treats guns as we do cars- "
But Public Health study on guns has never been allowed by Congress. All federal agencies are banned from funding such studies.
But Public Health study on guns has never been allowed by Congress. All federal agencies are banned from funding such studies.
2
There are a lot of alternatives to lessening gun deaths which don't even need a new law passed. However, most of them are undesirable to most of society. Yes, universal background checks should be instituted and the mental health of individuals should factor more into that list of no buy. But that is the easiest, low hanging fruit we have.
First, we need to deescalate the violence in our society. We need to understand that guns aren't the answer to solving problems. Who is out there preaching this? No one - not even our churches. Why? Too much money is tied up in our "violent" society. Hollywood, Madison ave, politicians, police and prisons all benefit from our fear and work to spur it on. I don't see this changing anytime soon.
Second, focus on the epicenter of the violence - young black Americans. Everyone blames them, but no one is willing to sacrifice their time or wealth to help. You think the gun lovers are going to want to live in an integrated community or give up a penny to help? Nope - and again our "Christian values" are no where to be seen.
Call me out on this, make a difference, but lets at least pick the low hanging fruit.
First, we need to deescalate the violence in our society. We need to understand that guns aren't the answer to solving problems. Who is out there preaching this? No one - not even our churches. Why? Too much money is tied up in our "violent" society. Hollywood, Madison ave, politicians, police and prisons all benefit from our fear and work to spur it on. I don't see this changing anytime soon.
Second, focus on the epicenter of the violence - young black Americans. Everyone blames them, but no one is willing to sacrifice their time or wealth to help. You think the gun lovers are going to want to live in an integrated community or give up a penny to help? Nope - and again our "Christian values" are no where to be seen.
Call me out on this, make a difference, but lets at least pick the low hanging fruit.
Thank you, Mr. Kristof, for challenging the readership to rethink its strategies around gun safety.
I'm afraid, however, that your argument is falling on deaf ears. I've read through many of the comments here, and they either take you to task for not bringing up the "sins" of "the other side" or simply blame the NRA and its cohorts for our current situation.
The reality is that we, too, must take a step back and honestly consider what's driving our own position on this issue. Is it fear? Are we fearful of the fearful people? Are gun owners *really* fearful, as we keep telling ourselves, or have they just grown up with guns all their lives and are comfortable with them? What aspect of the situation am *I* unwilling to see or consider, or dismiss out of hand because it doesn't fit my picture of what I believe reality to be?
It's all well and good for me to push facts and data and sound reasoning, but to have a truly honest conversation, I have to be willing to open myself to the possibility that "those people" have a valid point.
Some of the best conversations I've ever had with my Republican friends have been because I've asked them genuine questions in an attempt to understand where they're coming from -- and that alone has removed a lot of my knee-fear response to what sometimes seems on the surface like their extreme positions.
But first, I had to set aside my assumption that my view is the correct one.
I'm afraid, however, that your argument is falling on deaf ears. I've read through many of the comments here, and they either take you to task for not bringing up the "sins" of "the other side" or simply blame the NRA and its cohorts for our current situation.
The reality is that we, too, must take a step back and honestly consider what's driving our own position on this issue. Is it fear? Are we fearful of the fearful people? Are gun owners *really* fearful, as we keep telling ourselves, or have they just grown up with guns all their lives and are comfortable with them? What aspect of the situation am *I* unwilling to see or consider, or dismiss out of hand because it doesn't fit my picture of what I believe reality to be?
It's all well and good for me to push facts and data and sound reasoning, but to have a truly honest conversation, I have to be willing to open myself to the possibility that "those people" have a valid point.
Some of the best conversations I've ever had with my Republican friends have been because I've asked them genuine questions in an attempt to understand where they're coming from -- and that alone has removed a lot of my knee-fear response to what sometimes seems on the surface like their extreme positions.
But first, I had to set aside my assumption that my view is the correct one.
65
Wonderful comment.
1
Thoughtful column. However, let's put to rest the fantasy that Congress is out of touch with the voters. The primary goal of every legislator is re-election. Given the 95%-plus Congressional re-election rate, they are adept at reading their constituencies. The fact that they can blithely ignore the polls simply underscores that enhanced gun control is not a voter priority, period.
4
"Died from guns" makes it seem that the gun itself is the problem. It is not. On their own, a loaded gun is no danger to anyone. Load an AR15 and chamber a round. Don't even put the safety on. Now prop it in a corner for the next 20 years without touching it. Do you know what will happen? Nothing. The gun will do nothing unless picked up by a human being.
This is a crucial point, because the anti-gun movement fantasizes that just by imposing limits on a certain tool of criminal behavior, they can control or eliminate criminal behavior.
You won't. In the case of mass murder, the number of tools available are as infinite as the human imagination. In fact, the five deadliest mass murders in American history weren't committed with guns. (Explosives, arson, arson, explosives, airplanes.)
Ban "assault rifles" and the next mass shooter will use a shotgun or pistol (as has already been seen at the Navy Yard and VA Tech.) Or a bolt action hunting rifle (UT clock tower.)
Ban all guns and somehow confiscate all of them (without starting a civil war in the process) and the next mass killer will find another way. Kind of like the mass casualty arsons Australia has seen in the wake of its epic gun control experiment.
In the terms of everyday criminal behavior, look at the success we've had banning drugs. Criminals, already banned from ownership, seem to have little trouble obtaining guns.
But kudos for trying to being some sense to the debate.
This is a crucial point, because the anti-gun movement fantasizes that just by imposing limits on a certain tool of criminal behavior, they can control or eliminate criminal behavior.
You won't. In the case of mass murder, the number of tools available are as infinite as the human imagination. In fact, the five deadliest mass murders in American history weren't committed with guns. (Explosives, arson, arson, explosives, airplanes.)
Ban "assault rifles" and the next mass shooter will use a shotgun or pistol (as has already been seen at the Navy Yard and VA Tech.) Or a bolt action hunting rifle (UT clock tower.)
Ban all guns and somehow confiscate all of them (without starting a civil war in the process) and the next mass killer will find another way. Kind of like the mass casualty arsons Australia has seen in the wake of its epic gun control experiment.
In the terms of everyday criminal behavior, look at the success we've had banning drugs. Criminals, already banned from ownership, seem to have little trouble obtaining guns.
But kudos for trying to being some sense to the debate.
5
I see the acquisition of guns for non-sporting purposes as a sign of a deeply insecure, affluent, hostile society. First guns aren't cheap so affluence is a factor. I believe gun purchases for many Americans is a sign of deep anxiety, and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness in a culture that has progressively become more antisocial, isolated, distrustful, and psychologically empty. I would bet that research would show that those who are happy, socially thriving, enjoy good relationships, and see the good in people have lower firearm purchase rates.
'First guns aren't cheap so affluence is a factor.'
I live down the road from the city of Paterson, NJ. Gun violence is a serious problem in the poor black neighbourhoods. The same is true of other NJ cities such as Camden and Newark. Not to mention in NYC.
I also recently finished Paul Theroux's latest travel book, 'Deep South', in which the author visits the region, specifically focusing on poor and low-income areas, white and black. These parts of the South are awash in guns. He makes a point of visiting several gun shows. And yet, wherever he goes he finds people on assistance, jobs shipped overseas, barely scraping by.
So your vision of suburbanites packing the basement rec room with AK-47s to man the barricades against the sansculottes just doesn't wash. I agree tht in some demographics gun ownership may reflect 'deep anxiety, and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness in a culture that has progressively become more antisocial, isolated, distrustful, and psychologically empty'. But I think it's not a question of affluence.
I live down the road from the city of Paterson, NJ. Gun violence is a serious problem in the poor black neighbourhoods. The same is true of other NJ cities such as Camden and Newark. Not to mention in NYC.
I also recently finished Paul Theroux's latest travel book, 'Deep South', in which the author visits the region, specifically focusing on poor and low-income areas, white and black. These parts of the South are awash in guns. He makes a point of visiting several gun shows. And yet, wherever he goes he finds people on assistance, jobs shipped overseas, barely scraping by.
So your vision of suburbanites packing the basement rec room with AK-47s to man the barricades against the sansculottes just doesn't wash. I agree tht in some demographics gun ownership may reflect 'deep anxiety, and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness in a culture that has progressively become more antisocial, isolated, distrustful, and psychologically empty'. But I think it's not a question of affluence.
2
I grew up in the rocky mountain west were owning a gun is like owning a bicycle. You hunt, target practice, etc. I think you would lose your bet. I am happily married, , well educated, gainfully employed, etc. like much of my family who also owns guns. So many times, we project our thoughts and feelings on others and fail to realize that the world is not all like us. Owning gun for many of us is a part of life that does not control who we are. And yes, there have been no gun deaths in our family or by our family in generations, unless you count the animals we shoot and eat. In the end, I think you would find that owning a gun does not per se make you happy or sad, social or antisocial, etc. Perhaps, it is people like you who are baffled as to why gun control is not doing what you thought it would, because you misunderstand the vast majority of law abiding gun owners.
1
Although there are more guns in America, it is mostly the result of the same people buying gun after gun. Ownership is relatively stable. Thus you wouldn't expect U.S. deaths to particularly increase as the number of guns increases. So, although it is good to know that deaths aren't skyrocketing as more guns are owned this doesn't obviate that gun death rates in the US are much greater than other nations' death rates, nations without our extensive gun cults and fetishists. Still, the concern in the U.S. may be somewhat overblown since many of the gun deaths are people gunning down their own children or other loved ones. Such is the price of freedom. I'm not saying we should do nothing. Certainly anyone whose gun leads to the death of someone in their family either directly or indirectly should be duly punished and imprisoned, if for no other reason than the safety of their remaining loved ones. I'm saying we should focus more on preventing ownership gun of those who are likely to kill others loved ones, for example those with a history of violence or belong to criminal organizations, and let the people who simply are risking the lives of their own families be. Freedom!
1
In 2013 there were 505 fatal firearm accidents. The people gunning down their own children you describe. Swimming pools are more dangerous.
There are about 9,000 gun murders a year and 20,000 gun suicides.
But I do agree with one point, criminal control not gun control is what works.
There are about 9,000 gun murders a year and 20,000 gun suicides.
But I do agree with one point, criminal control not gun control is what works.
3
The reason many politicians object to the eviscerating of the Second Amendment, is that they are closer to the Constitution, than he average voter.
Such a significant issue should be dealt with by a national debate among the States, rather than a compromise pushed through in relative secrecy on a Friday night by opportunistic politicians.
Such a significant issue should be dealt with by a national debate among the States, rather than a compromise pushed through in relative secrecy on a Friday night by opportunistic politicians.
3
I recently read of a young boy who accidentally killed himself with his father's gun. The family lived in one of the worst neighborhoods in Cincinnati, where gun violence was widespread and there were twice as many burglaries as anywhere else in the city. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have both openly and very fervently declared that if elected president they would impose a ban on "assault" weapons. That scares gun owners. Really scares them. Bernie and Hillary both believe that weapons used on the battlefield should not be sold or allowed in America. That also scares gun owners, gun enthusiasts, target and competitive shooters. And it scares people who believe, really believe in the right of self defense.
There are many types of battlefield weapons. They include rifles that are semi-auto, or bolt action too. In reality, less than .1% of all gun crimes are committed with AR type rifles. Fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons are very, very different. Full auto weapons are almost totally unobtainable. Movies may show full-auto and semi-auto rifles and carbines being used by criminals but reality is that they are not the weapon of choice of criminals.
The most used weapons of criminals (according to FBI statistics) are the lowly .22 pistol and the .38 special. Hardly weapons of the battlefield. Those weapons are used because they are cheap and readily available. An AR 15 is not cheap and it can't be carried concealed under a shirt or jacket. Another easy weapon to obtain is the 9mm semi-auto pistol. Semi autos are found in .40 caliber, .45, .380 and .357 (.38). The military uses .9mm semi-auto pistols. They are widely used on the battle field. Are they assault weapons? Will Bernie and Hillary ban those too?
There are many types of battlefield weapons. They include rifles that are semi-auto, or bolt action too. In reality, less than .1% of all gun crimes are committed with AR type rifles. Fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons are very, very different. Full auto weapons are almost totally unobtainable. Movies may show full-auto and semi-auto rifles and carbines being used by criminals but reality is that they are not the weapon of choice of criminals.
The most used weapons of criminals (according to FBI statistics) are the lowly .22 pistol and the .38 special. Hardly weapons of the battlefield. Those weapons are used because they are cheap and readily available. An AR 15 is not cheap and it can't be carried concealed under a shirt or jacket. Another easy weapon to obtain is the 9mm semi-auto pistol. Semi autos are found in .40 caliber, .45, .380 and .357 (.38). The military uses .9mm semi-auto pistols. They are widely used on the battle field. Are they assault weapons? Will Bernie and Hillary ban those too?
7
Why are those weapons needed? What is the purpose of owning them?
The core of this column is pure common sense. Common sense is a misnomer, unfortunately, given it's rarity in the implementing of all manner of government policy.
Why can't politician's consistently make logical, research based decisions while formulating legislation? Obviously the effects of profit motive are huge, in this case, gun manufacturers who wish to hide the facts to increase sales pay politicians to vote against public interest- but this only works as long as the public fails to vote their interest.
This trick is easily accomplished by using money to find ways to appeal to people's emotions. The gun lobby has been extremely skillful at triggering emotional response of a significant voting block of the populace to vote for candidates that support laws that are primarily aimed at increasing gun sales- often at the expense of safety.
The health insurance lobby accomplishes the same kind of thing in the realm of health care by promoting the fear of long waits in a much more efficient Canadian style, single payer system.
In all important realms of government, from health care through criminal justice to defense spending the United States is disastrously inefficient and generally oblivious to the use of logic and research to formulate policy. Thank goodness we have ample resources to help compensate for all this wasteful policy but those resources are shrinking.
Why can't politician's consistently make logical, research based decisions while formulating legislation? Obviously the effects of profit motive are huge, in this case, gun manufacturers who wish to hide the facts to increase sales pay politicians to vote against public interest- but this only works as long as the public fails to vote their interest.
This trick is easily accomplished by using money to find ways to appeal to people's emotions. The gun lobby has been extremely skillful at triggering emotional response of a significant voting block of the populace to vote for candidates that support laws that are primarily aimed at increasing gun sales- often at the expense of safety.
The health insurance lobby accomplishes the same kind of thing in the realm of health care by promoting the fear of long waits in a much more efficient Canadian style, single payer system.
In all important realms of government, from health care through criminal justice to defense spending the United States is disastrously inefficient and generally oblivious to the use of logic and research to formulate policy. Thank goodness we have ample resources to help compensate for all this wasteful policy but those resources are shrinking.
First column i have seen, from a liberal pundit which sought to find common ground on gun deaths without insulting the opposite side. The only thing I would add is that he did not mention that the vast majority of death from guns is suicide. That is where you are most likely to see a drop in deaths with gun safety measures that have been proposed. Not the horrendous mass murder incidents that have occurred.
If you want to go after reducing the mass murders, that is another issue and needs to have an evidence based analysis on what is driving it. My biggest issue with supporting proposals of gun safety or gun control is that the people and groups that are doing them do not have the evidence based analysis that would show that the proposals have a chance in you know what of doing anything but making people think they have done something. This then lets the problem simmer and get worse.
If you want to go after reducing the mass murders, that is another issue and needs to have an evidence based analysis on what is driving it. My biggest issue with supporting proposals of gun safety or gun control is that the people and groups that are doing them do not have the evidence based analysis that would show that the proposals have a chance in you know what of doing anything but making people think they have done something. This then lets the problem simmer and get worse.
4
I agree that the terms need to be changed i. e. "gun control" vs "gun safety" but neither are accurate. All of these "guns" or "arms" as defined by the constitution are WEAPONS and that's what they should be called. Their ultimate purpose is KILLING in the offense or defense and with these terms and purposes defined, and in mind, is how they should be "controlled".
2
I hereby apologize for all the times I have sneeringly referred to "gun nuts" as men who are concerned about the size and function of their genitalia. Mr. Kristoff is right, we need to have a civilized discussion about gun safety. Have your guns, guys, whatever purpose they serve is none of my business -- and sometimes in the dark of night, I've had those kinds of concerns myself, so who am I to talk? -- but treating guns at least the way we treat cars is something we should all work towards, together.
3
I am a gun owner, a concealed carry holder, and I find myself somewhere in the middle of this argument. I don't support the obvious obstructionism of the NRA but I think that their political tactics are about par with the rest Congress, demonize, divide, denigrate. I don't belong to the NRA because in fact they stand in the way of progress when it comes to gun safety which I support. But the opposite, take-all-guns-away Liberal position is much less satisfying and impractical. As for now, I'll sit in the middle and listen for the ring of truth.
80
As a liberal with "New York" values, I have never met a liberal who advocates "take-all-guns-away". This is a paranoid (or simply cynical) construct of the "any regulation equals confiscation" crowd. While you're waiting for that ring of truth, you might start with your own straw man arguments
1
Legal guns designed to kill people encourage people to use them for what they are designed to do.
While I agree that the NRA can be strident, and Wayne LaPierre is often embarrassing, you should join. They are the biggest voice fighting for the rights of gun owners. They are also the largest gun safety organization in the nation. If you have a CCW license, you took a course designed by the NRA, approved by the NRA with an instructor certified by the NRA.
The NRA runs a free "Eddie Eagle" gun safety program which teaches children who encounter a gun this: "stop don't touch, leave the room, tell an adult." That's actual common sense.
And did you know the current NICS system was put place with full NRA support?
The NRA runs a free "Eddie Eagle" gun safety program which teaches children who encounter a gun this: "stop don't touch, leave the room, tell an adult." That's actual common sense.
And did you know the current NICS system was put place with full NRA support?
As with to many editorials on "gun anything" this on politically correctly omits the biggest problem.
Here in Miami as elsewhere in the US, most gun crimes are committed by illegal aliens and ghetto dwellers.
Do something about this and the gun crime rate will plummet.
Here in Miami as elsewhere in the US, most gun crimes are committed by illegal aliens and ghetto dwellers.
Do something about this and the gun crime rate will plummet.
3
It would be interesting to see the actual numbers. Do you include suicides and accidents? And there are substantial number of domestic interfamily deaths and injuries.
1
Like stop all of the progressive liberal Marxist programs like minimum wages, unemployment for life, government kidnapping and indoctrination facilities (public schools), reduce taxes, shrink government, etc. Let folks create jobs and opportunity. End the war on drugs. Let the folks get out and work rather than become violent criminals drawn by the incentive of drug money.
@ W.A. Spitzer:
First, almost 2/3s of gun deaths are from suicide. Myriad steadies have proven that the vast majority of suicides are not spontaneous acts. Japan and Korea have no private ownership of firearms, but the highest rates of suicide in the world.
It's all about the pachyderm in the room. If you want figures, you could start here:
Let's take a closer look at that elephant. In recent years, there have been between 8000 and 9000 homicides committed with firearms annually. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that in that same year, 6,739 black men were murdered, overwhelmingly by young black men like themselves. Since 2001, even as rates of violent crime have dropped dramatically, more than 90,000 black men in the U.S. have been killed by other black men. With fatalities on this scale, the term epidemic is not a metaphor. Every year, the casualty count of black-on-black crime is twice that of the death toll of 9/11.
If you remove the yearly black on black homicide rate from the yearly U.S. homicide rate, our per capita gun deaths would be the envy of most every country in the world. The left is in agony over the white guilt they they feel about this problem. That is why you never hear an outcry from the MSM about the 20 young black people dying in each of our inner cities every week.
Elephants are hard to move under the best circumstances. They're even harder to move when you refuse to recognize their presence!
First, almost 2/3s of gun deaths are from suicide. Myriad steadies have proven that the vast majority of suicides are not spontaneous acts. Japan and Korea have no private ownership of firearms, but the highest rates of suicide in the world.
It's all about the pachyderm in the room. If you want figures, you could start here:
Let's take a closer look at that elephant. In recent years, there have been between 8000 and 9000 homicides committed with firearms annually. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that in that same year, 6,739 black men were murdered, overwhelmingly by young black men like themselves. Since 2001, even as rates of violent crime have dropped dramatically, more than 90,000 black men in the U.S. have been killed by other black men. With fatalities on this scale, the term epidemic is not a metaphor. Every year, the casualty count of black-on-black crime is twice that of the death toll of 9/11.
If you remove the yearly black on black homicide rate from the yearly U.S. homicide rate, our per capita gun deaths would be the envy of most every country in the world. The left is in agony over the white guilt they they feel about this problem. That is why you never hear an outcry from the MSM about the 20 young black people dying in each of our inner cities every week.
Elephants are hard to move under the best circumstances. They're even harder to move when you refuse to recognize their presence!
Why is it so impossible to simply say that guns have no place in our civil society if they are not for hunting purposes? Forget background checks et al, I think there should be no guns in the hands of civilians at all. And it is so annoying to see the Second Amendment misinterpreted to seemingly permit this
5
One more time.
The 2d Amendment does not exist in a vacuum. It should be read in conjunction with the document it amends, specifically Art. I, §8. of the Constitution.
That part settled on Congress the power to raise an army and fund it for two years at a time. NOT a professional standing army such as we have today. It then provides the power to establish and fund a federal *navy*. The difference? You can't just assemble a navy ad hoc. You need ships, ports, etc. Whereas in those days an 'army', such as the one Washington led, was mostly just 'men with guns' - more or less adequate to the needs of a sparsely populated, mostly wilderness, largely agrarian new nation geographically isolated from the wars of Europe. The section then continues to set forth the terms of establishing state militias, which would be called upon to comprise a federal army if needed, and to allocate powers for the formation and regulation of those militias between federal and state authority.
Self-described conservatives keep telling us to read the Constitution. Well, dammit, *read it*.
The 2d Amendment does not exist in a vacuum. It should be read in conjunction with the document it amends, specifically Art. I, §8. of the Constitution.
That part settled on Congress the power to raise an army and fund it for two years at a time. NOT a professional standing army such as we have today. It then provides the power to establish and fund a federal *navy*. The difference? You can't just assemble a navy ad hoc. You need ships, ports, etc. Whereas in those days an 'army', such as the one Washington led, was mostly just 'men with guns' - more or less adequate to the needs of a sparsely populated, mostly wilderness, largely agrarian new nation geographically isolated from the wars of Europe. The section then continues to set forth the terms of establishing state militias, which would be called upon to comprise a federal army if needed, and to allocate powers for the formation and regulation of those militias between federal and state authority.
Self-described conservatives keep telling us to read the Constitution. Well, dammit, *read it*.
You are the one misinterpreting the Second Amendment. If you believe guns have no place in society, then ban together and do the heavy lifting of passing a Constituional Amendment. We can have that debate, but it is one you will lose. That is why you pretend that the Second Amendment does not mean what it clearly means.
3
A crisis will quickly bring the guns out. Take St. Louis, where the murder rate was up almost 70 percent in 2015. Intelligent people know we are sitting on a powder keg.
1
Indeed. The Bundy clan is gun-enabled.
1
I agree advocates of gun safety measures (liberals AND conservatives) shouldn't sneer at gun owners. One issue with Kristof's logic - guns sold soared while gun homicides declined - is that the number of gun owning households declined. Presumably it only takes one gun to kill someone knocking on your front door.
1
Wait. I am very much in line with the sentiment here. But the sentence "We spend billions of dollars tackling terrorism, which killed 229 Americans worldwide from 2005 through 2014, according to the State Department." seems to leave out 9/11, no? The State Department might have a statistic that comes to 229 Americans killed by terrorirm, but here in New York, our total goes over 3,000 for the period 2005 to 2014.
2
Include 9/11, and you are still looking at a factor of more than 100 times more deaths from domestic firearms incidents.
The 9/11 attacks took place in 2001.
1
9/11 occurred in 2001. That is outside the period referenced, 2005-14.
1
"The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half."
A somewhat meaningless stat since you have the same people buying multiple guns (and more ammo) every time they remember a black man is president. Obama signs nuclear accord with Iran, gun nuts buy more guns and ammo.
The key is the number of people owning guns going up or down, not the net number of guns. The number of gun owners, as a percent of the population has actually gone down, 38% to 32% so we would expect a small decrease in gun violence and we get it. Most guns are owned by white males over 50, a fairly milquetoast group of wannabe aging Rambos.
The reason the US gun deaths are so high is that these old white boys have their kids or grand kids get the guns and shot someone, the old white boys shoot one of the kids sneaking home at night, the old white boys get depressed or their kids get depressed and shoot themselves. the boys get drunk and shot themselves or family members. And occasionally one of their kids goes wild and shoots up elementary school with the arsenal as in Newton.
Other advanced liberal democracies in Europe, Asia, Australia have good gun regulations and have 90% less gun violence.
US could cut the 30,000+ gun deaths, the 300,000+ gun injuries by 90% by emulating the common sense gun laws of other nations.
A somewhat meaningless stat since you have the same people buying multiple guns (and more ammo) every time they remember a black man is president. Obama signs nuclear accord with Iran, gun nuts buy more guns and ammo.
The key is the number of people owning guns going up or down, not the net number of guns. The number of gun owners, as a percent of the population has actually gone down, 38% to 32% so we would expect a small decrease in gun violence and we get it. Most guns are owned by white males over 50, a fairly milquetoast group of wannabe aging Rambos.
The reason the US gun deaths are so high is that these old white boys have their kids or grand kids get the guns and shot someone, the old white boys shoot one of the kids sneaking home at night, the old white boys get depressed or their kids get depressed and shoot themselves. the boys get drunk and shot themselves or family members. And occasionally one of their kids goes wild and shoots up elementary school with the arsenal as in Newton.
Other advanced liberal democracies in Europe, Asia, Australia have good gun regulations and have 90% less gun violence.
US could cut the 30,000+ gun deaths, the 300,000+ gun injuries by 90% by emulating the common sense gun laws of other nations.
1
If the average gun injury costs $10,000, 300,000 shootings per year costs $30 billion. The gun industry is among the most heavily subsidized businesses in the US.
2
Read the US Constitution's Second Amendment and understand its history. We have the gun rights the founders indended. The Second Amendment needs to be changed for any meaningful gun control to be implemented.
3
Nonsense. The amendment requires gunners to be "well regulated". You have to prove to the unarmed that you are not an insurrection plotting treason.
1
Even the NRA says we should enforce existing laws, yet I have not seen a discussion of what those laws - both federal and state - say about penalties for using guns in crimes.
Perhaps enforcing those laws would get some of the offending guns off the street and send a message to those most likely to use them to cause harm.
Perhaps enforcing those laws would get some of the offending guns off the street and send a message to those most likely to use them to cause harm.
A rarity these days, the topic of gun control (Excuse me, gun safety) being discussed so reasonably. Thank you for this.
2
Easiest solution: implement the wording of the 2nd Amendment and mandate that all gun owners, regardless of age, gender or place of residence, enlist in a federal militia to protect the nation against ISIS. Make it a felony to own/possess a gun and not to do so. Then enforce it. Have mandatory registration, monthly "drills," and annual week-long training sessions. Gun ownership would wither over the course of a couple of years.
3
Some thoughtful comments. Let me add this: Where are the conservatives on the financial cost? I've read that it is in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
1
I have to feel sorry for you Americans. You all know well that there will be another dreadful massacre (and another), that many will die in senseless arguments and accidents, and many men, including war veterans, will succeed in suicide that they may not have attempted or been successful with without a gun. The only answer - removing most weapons from homes - is not open to you as it is to us.
3
I agree hugely with Kristof here.
I am no particular fan of guns, but I've also come to take a utilitarian view of their continued reality in American life. Liberals in general seem to have an emotive reaction that can be irrational. The work of John Lott is instructive here appertains mass shootings: Gun-free zones are the common denominator in almost all large-casualty shootings.
I do not think it wise for a movie theater to be the only one in town with signs posted stating "Gun-Free Zone" -- regardless of how safe that makes liberals feel. This is an exemplary example of making an emotional totem of signage over the signature fact that mass-shooters do not obey such signs.
I am no particular fan of guns, but I've also come to take a utilitarian view of their continued reality in American life. Liberals in general seem to have an emotive reaction that can be irrational. The work of John Lott is instructive here appertains mass shootings: Gun-free zones are the common denominator in almost all large-casualty shootings.
I do not think it wise for a movie theater to be the only one in town with signs posted stating "Gun-Free Zone" -- regardless of how safe that makes liberals feel. This is an exemplary example of making an emotional totem of signage over the signature fact that mass-shooters do not obey such signs.
5
Mr Kristof is truly on to something when he notes the supercilious and condescending attitude of Progressives toward gun owners. I support strict gun control. I served as a member of the Maryland House Judiciary Committee for 12 years. During a marathon 14 hour hearing on guns The Senate committee-dominated by Progressives-treated the witnesses testifying for gun ownership with barely concealed contempt. One State Senator was playing chess on his computer during the testimony. By contrast the House Committee was respectful. Both committees reached the same conclusions but only one showed fundamental respect to all citizens who appeared. The second amendment crowd was outraged-understandably-by how the Senate committee treated them and their families. Frankly Progressives just dont get it. They are doing more damage by their style and methods to their cause than gun advocates can accomplish. This extends to their treatment of other citizens and points of view with whom and with which they disagree. If you want to understand the rise of people like Donald Trump look in the mirror.
4
I applaud Mr. Kristof's attempt to honestly address the inconvenient truths about liberal views on guns.
However, liberal views on guns suffer from far greater inconvenient truths than Kristof acknowledges.
Foremost is the myth of an "epidemic of gun violence"; "the toll of guns " as Kristof terms it.
This myth ignores the fact that the number of innocents killed by guns in a given year is minuscule.
The inconvenient truth of the matter is that about 12,000 people in the US die by gun homicide each year--see the federal CDC website for confimation. That equates to a .07% chance, less than 1% chance, -that an innocent will die by gun violence in any given year. That's an epidemic? That "toll" justifies the liberal apoplectic view on guns?
Another inconvenient truth: Kristof's conveniently lumps suicide in with yearly gun death counts. Suicide accounts for over 50% of death by gun each year. Suicide prevention is certainly a worthy goal. But equating intentional harm to a criminal act that takes an innocent life is simply ridiculous. Suicide does not threaten innocent citizens, and therefore does not justify more laws.
Had Kristoff excluded suicide from the figures he used to support his straw man death toll argument, and only counted deaths through homicide, he would have had to count from about 1920, not 1970.
The ultimate inconvenient truth is that liberal apoplectic views on guns is simply not justified or supported by actual facts regarding the threat posed.
However, liberal views on guns suffer from far greater inconvenient truths than Kristof acknowledges.
Foremost is the myth of an "epidemic of gun violence"; "the toll of guns " as Kristof terms it.
This myth ignores the fact that the number of innocents killed by guns in a given year is minuscule.
The inconvenient truth of the matter is that about 12,000 people in the US die by gun homicide each year--see the federal CDC website for confimation. That equates to a .07% chance, less than 1% chance, -that an innocent will die by gun violence in any given year. That's an epidemic? That "toll" justifies the liberal apoplectic view on guns?
Another inconvenient truth: Kristof's conveniently lumps suicide in with yearly gun death counts. Suicide accounts for over 50% of death by gun each year. Suicide prevention is certainly a worthy goal. But equating intentional harm to a criminal act that takes an innocent life is simply ridiculous. Suicide does not threaten innocent citizens, and therefore does not justify more laws.
Had Kristoff excluded suicide from the figures he used to support his straw man death toll argument, and only counted deaths through homicide, he would have had to count from about 1920, not 1970.
The ultimate inconvenient truth is that liberal apoplectic views on guns is simply not justified or supported by actual facts regarding the threat posed.
6
About 1 out of 100 gun owners will murder someone over their their lifetime of gun ownership.
1
A fair article, should have mentioned this administrations dismal record on enforcing gun laws already enacted. Hard to trust them to pass new laws when they wont enforce the old laws.
I would agree to stop being supercilious about guns if we could change our Constitution so that criminals and terrorists no longer have a constitutional right to bear arms in the United States.
The article title uses the terms "facts". But there are none that are current and truly verified.
Because our Republican "friends" have blocked honest, double-blind research by the CDC on gun violence.
What are these Republican politicians afraid of? The Truth, perhaps.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/08/458952821/congress-s...
Because our Republican "friends" have blocked honest, double-blind research by the CDC on gun violence.
What are these Republican politicians afraid of? The Truth, perhaps.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/08/458952821/congress-s...
1
As much as I love you Nick, you completely miss the biggest point: Gun accidents. You completely fail to mention them. Over 85,000 Americans will have their precious flesh pierced by a bullet simply because a trigger was accidentally pulled.
Say what you might about open carry, concealed carry, the drop in homicides the tension gun control folks inspire in gun nuts and on an on, but what is not going down is gun accidents. And here is the thing Nick: Where there is no gun there can be no gun accident. Find me some research proving otherwise and then we can argue until then I continue to insist that the 2nd amendment is a suicide pact.
Say what you might about open carry, concealed carry, the drop in homicides the tension gun control folks inspire in gun nuts and on an on, but what is not going down is gun accidents. And here is the thing Nick: Where there is no gun there can be no gun accident. Find me some research proving otherwise and then we can argue until then I continue to insist that the 2nd amendment is a suicide pact.
If one does not want to get shot, avoiding gun ownership is the most effective strategy.
2
Stay home and safe, but wait, don't drive that car, bicycle and don't try to change an old incandescent light bulb at home with a new fangled LED.
Check out (walk) down to your local ER hospital.
Count the accidental gunshot victims :)
Check out (walk) down to your local ER hospital.
Count the accidental gunshot victims :)
Independent, Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders might just be the bridge we need, coming from Vermont; he agrees with President Obama's plan and he too has no shrill yelling.
1
Nice to see Mr. Kristof illustrate some of the inconvenient truths about "gun control". Few if any liberals focus on "gang control" which is a leading cause of homicides, most of which are committed with stolen or otherwise illegally obtained weapons (straw buyers). The second amendment was intended to protect citizens from the overreach of tyrannical government (like the crown), which the federal government and the political class who presumably "govern" it resemble more and more as time goes by. Focus on gangs (re: Chicago) and mental health/suicides (re: everywhere), and homicides from firearms will trend downward. Imposing more restrictions on law abiding citizens will not change the conduct of gangs, criminals, or people with mental issues.
5
The editorial ignores the fact that Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by a gun than most Europeans . Europeans ,for the most part are entitled to a gun only if they hunt .Handguns are completely prohibited. Unless you suppose that Americans are uniquely bloodthirsty ,the root of the problem is the idiotic second amendment ,people will keep killing each other as long as they are entitled to own guns.
1
Not one NRA member that I know wants universal background checks, America already has enough gun regulations that are ineffective
2
The NRA claims to have 4.5 million members. The ones I know are all in favor of universal background checks.
2
Finally, a sensible, truthful, fact checked article about guns, written by a liberal!
2
None of these stats ever break down by race or socioeconomics. How about studying the stats on white middle and upper middle class people? How many shooting deaths are there caused by these owners? If you weed out suicides?
How many gun deaths are there by black lower middle and poor owners? Homicides, gang ? How many deaths by those with criminal histories of any kind? How many deaths related to domestic abuse both by race and economic factors.
The problem with gun grabbers is that they lump all citizens into one stat. Well, sorry. Most upper middle/wealthy people can own all the guns they want and not do a fraction of the damage that people in the lower classes commit. Or people who are in stable healthy homes. So why don't we admit that? Because it is too politically correct, that's why.
How many gun deaths are there by black lower middle and poor owners? Homicides, gang ? How many deaths by those with criminal histories of any kind? How many deaths related to domestic abuse both by race and economic factors.
The problem with gun grabbers is that they lump all citizens into one stat. Well, sorry. Most upper middle/wealthy people can own all the guns they want and not do a fraction of the damage that people in the lower classes commit. Or people who are in stable healthy homes. So why don't we admit that? Because it is too politically correct, that's why.
4
Then why don't we have policies that assure children of stable homes and fathers and mothers with jobs that provide enough money for food and shelter. When we ship manufacturing jobs and now everything overseas, we create an atmosphere where lower classes exists and mental illness is more the norm. The family falls apart.
More class wars does not help.
More class wars does not help.
By using the phrase "gun grabbers," you incorrectly assume that a majority of liberals want to "take away your guns." This is the "Obama is coming after your guns" nonsense that has been stoked by the right wing for the last 7 years. First of all, it would be literally impossible to "take back" 300 million guns, even if the big, bad Government wanted to. Secondly, what liberals want are two things: 1. Background checks 2. A ban on the sale of assault weapons. As Ronald Reagan said: "I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth or home defense. But I do believe an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon nor needed for home defense."
The facts that you want to be available are clearly available. Lower-class blacks and poor whites shoot each other. Middle-class and rich white people shoot themselves. Most of us don't think either of these situations are desirable. There are many ways to make gun safe. There are many ways to control the sale of guns to individuals who are unstable or criminal. The facts are out there.
The NRA has petitioned Congress to make it difficult to do research. If you have a gun in your house, even if you are a wealthy white well-adjusted person someone is more likely to use it on themselves or a member of the family than it is for one to protect herself from a home invasion. This is a fact. It should also be publicized.
Being white and rich does not immunize you from suicide or mistaking a loved one for an intruder. If we work together we can decrease the number of gun related deaths without banning guns. I think it's a good idea. I hope you do too.
The NRA has petitioned Congress to make it difficult to do research. If you have a gun in your house, even if you are a wealthy white well-adjusted person someone is more likely to use it on themselves or a member of the family than it is for one to protect herself from a home invasion. This is a fact. It should also be publicized.
Being white and rich does not immunize you from suicide or mistaking a loved one for an intruder. If we work together we can decrease the number of gun related deaths without banning guns. I think it's a good idea. I hope you do too.
Newtown, Connecticut, where Adam Lanza murdered 20 first grade children, is home to a euphemistically-named gun-and-ammo promotions racket -- "The National Shooting Sports Foundation." Spurred by her son's, and her own mental health problems in combination with the lies and propaganda that come out of that "Foundation" as well as the NRA, Lanza's mother had assembled an arsenal large out of all proportion to her personal defense needs and that wound up being a cause of her death.
After the Newtown massacre, President Obama pushed for -- and polls show that about 85% of Americans supported -- better background check legislation regulating the purchase of guns and ammo.
Despite the president's and the public's overwhelming support for the proposed legislation, it didn't pass Congress. So instead of lambasting people who want better background checks, Kristof should get smarter in his prescriptions, the most important of which have to be breaking the stranglehold that the NRA has on Congress.
After the Newtown massacre, President Obama pushed for -- and polls show that about 85% of Americans supported -- better background check legislation regulating the purchase of guns and ammo.
Despite the president's and the public's overwhelming support for the proposed legislation, it didn't pass Congress. So instead of lambasting people who want better background checks, Kristof should get smarter in his prescriptions, the most important of which have to be breaking the stranglehold that the NRA has on Congress.
4
I share your concerns and I agree . However Mrs. Lanza should have been ,encourage not to have any '' Fire Arms'' what so ever , her ex-husband and second son. Had absolutely no public comments, that I'm aware of.
Had Adam Lanza , used a fertilizer bomb, or driven his car into the play ground .
This Tragedy would have been reported and covered in a different fashion .
In this Presidential election year, I'm not surprised that press is taking a more moderate approach. Yes All Regan Democrat's matter, especially their Votes on election day.
Had Adam Lanza , used a fertilizer bomb, or driven his car into the play ground .
This Tragedy would have been reported and covered in a different fashion .
In this Presidential election year, I'm not surprised that press is taking a more moderate approach. Yes All Regan Democrat's matter, especially their Votes on election day.
A key problem with analyzing gun violence from a public health perspective is that the vast majority of violent acts with guns involve deliberate, motivated, purposeful actions, whereas the analytical methods and the problems they're applied to by public health researchers involve accidental events, which are not only unintentional but unwanted (e.g., car accidents and cancer). Gun violence is more appropriately studied by criminologists and economists, who deal with purposeful actions, motivations, etc.
Inappropriate methods combined with with a not-so-hidden public policy agenda has led to a great deal of public health pseudo-science and junk science on gun violence.
Inappropriate methods combined with with a not-so-hidden public policy agenda has led to a great deal of public health pseudo-science and junk science on gun violence.
3
An inconvenient fact for conservatives is that the NRA has stifled research by the CDC into gun violence by pressuring Congress to cut off funding specifically for this purpose. Jay Dickey, a Republican congressman from Arkansas who wrote the original budget amendment in 1996, now expresses regret and says he never intended it to limit research into gun violence and deaths. But the effective ban on such research still exists, thanks to the NRA.
Which begs the question: if the gun lobby believes it has the facts on its side, why strenuously limit research that would (presumably) help prove its case?
Which begs the question: if the gun lobby believes it has the facts on its side, why strenuously limit research that would (presumably) help prove its case?
7
Compromise and reason are too late. Obama and Clinton declared war on the NRA. War on millions of Americans who make up the NRA, millions more who agree with NRA, and millions more who own guns. We all know who the stereotypical NRA men and women are. And liberals have declared war on us. Open war is upon us whether we would have it or not. Lock and load, civil war II is here.
5
The majority of NRA members agree with expanding background checks, yet the leadership and extremists continue to resist
Indeed. The gun industry is outright subversive in the US.
Great column. Unfortunately, judging from the comments here, moving from polemics to a sensible public health approach will not be easy. Thanks anyway for trying, Nick.
6
In Texas, at least, the overall conviction rate of CHL holders (for all crimes) is 0.03% that of the general population. That's 346 times LESS than the general crime rate. And if you count homicides only, it's another order of magnitude less. Texas has a robust licensing program, including fingerprinting, background checks, and formal training (almost exclusively on the appropriate use of deadly force).
Some states, however, do not, and they're the problem. In some states you can slap down the licensing fee--sometimes as low as $20--and the local sheriff will issue a permit.
As a case study, CHL such as in Texas WORKS.
Some states, however, do not, and they're the problem. In some states you can slap down the licensing fee--sometimes as low as $20--and the local sheriff will issue a permit.
As a case study, CHL such as in Texas WORKS.
6
About 2/3 of gun deaths (about 20,000 per year) are suicides. Studies indicate that most of these suicides would not happen if a gun were not available at the moment that the impulse to suicide arises. So, we should focus a great portion of our gun safety efforts on this part of the problem. Indeed, we can't expect to make much of a dent in the gun death numbers without doing so.
8
There are another 20,000 suicides a year from means other than guns. And some countries with almost no personal ownership of guns, like Japan have far high rates of suicide than the US. To argue for gun restrictions to reduce suicide will never get any traction.
3
-- "the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected). Liberals were closer to the truth, for the increase in carrying loaded guns does appear to have led to more aggravated assaults with guns."
Rubbish. TIME magazine (Jan.28, 2013) devoted the whole issue to guns. It stated that every year guns are used legitimately in self-defense 180,000 times; this includes both, circumstances at home and concealed-carry in the street. This HAS TO have salutary impact on crime fighting. So no, the liberals don't seem to be closer to the truth.
Rubbish. TIME magazine (Jan.28, 2013) devoted the whole issue to guns. It stated that every year guns are used legitimately in self-defense 180,000 times; this includes both, circumstances at home and concealed-carry in the street. This HAS TO have salutary impact on crime fighting. So no, the liberals don't seem to be closer to the truth.
9
Thank you for your fine column. When you are at an impasse, you need to try and fine common sense things that will help that a majority of people can agree upon. Suicides and family violence are the biggest part of gun violence. Smart gun technology, as an example, can help with both of these. If I cannot operate my spouse's gun, a suicide might be prevented. The same with family violence, if she cannot operate my gun, I might not get shot. So long as the debate is about gun control and it can be portrayed as a second amendment issue, there will be little progress. I do not own guns, I am around people all the time that do. For the most part, they understand that there is a gun problem. Let's change the debate to how do we reduce suicides with guns and family violence with guns and we might make some progress. This comes from someone who worked at a store and sold a gun to someone who shot a person with that gun. This incident certainly made me in favor of waiting periods.
3
I'd be obliged if anyone could please clarify when and how the 2nd Amendment morphed from "arms" to "guns" specifically? In this comment, I'm not asking from a pro-gun or anti-gun position. I'm just trying to understand why the focus so frequently seems to be on guns rather than any other type of weapon, whether the context is a news media article, opinion page or debate among political candidates?
I've asked this question before and have yet to get any reply. My ignorance isn't willful and considering what's at stake in Nov. 2016, I'd like to become more knowledgeable, asap. Any substantive (and patient) reply would be appreciated.
1-16-16@9:36 pm est
I've asked this question before and have yet to get any reply. My ignorance isn't willful and considering what's at stake in Nov. 2016, I'd like to become more knowledgeable, asap. Any substantive (and patient) reply would be appreciated.
1-16-16@9:36 pm est
3
It is fairly simple: "arms" is a general term for all kinds of weapons (swords, clubs, maces, knives, muskets, rifles,etc.). "gun" is a specific example of a member of this class of objects. So anything that refers to "arms" includes "guns" as a specific case. The focus is on guns because they are so much easier and more effective for killing people, and so many people are killed by guns.
1
Up until the late 1800's, the majority of firearms were one shot weapons. Because of that, swords, bayonets, and knives played a greater role in a given conflict. Even in the first World War, the majority of rifles used only held three to five rounds. The rifles and bayonets were longer because they had to be used as spears once the rounds had been expended.
Grenades, mortars, and such are considered "destructive devices". Cannons, tanks, etc. are "crew served" weapons that an individual cannot "bear" or operate alone.
Grenades, mortars, and such are considered "destructive devices". Cannons, tanks, etc. are "crew served" weapons that an individual cannot "bear" or operate alone.
1
While you have gotten closer to the middle of the battle over guns, you still have missed a few points. 1. If you wanted to kill yourself or someone else and didn't have a gun, would that stop you? No. 2. Laws don't stop crimes, it creates an new crime. Just driving thru some states you will break gun laws because there are school zones, city ordinances, and laws you could not reasonably know. 3. Stating poles are a waste of time. Poles vary by how you present the question and by whom you ask. 4. We don't trust government. While we want a safely net of government, it is always tainted by buying votes or trading favors. 5. The price of freedom is responsibility. You must protect yourself, the government has no duty to protect you from people that want to harm you. The government shows up to collect evidence and pursue the suspect after the fact. 6. If you read most of these post, you will notice that the liberal view is almost always emotional. Laws must be based on facts not on feelings.
6
Part of the problem is that the N.R.A. has successfully lobbied, via legislators that are more concerned with keeping their N.R.A grade up than they are with the safety of the American people, to pass laws that obstruct meaningful research into firearm homicides and violence.
4
What we have is more guns in the hands of fewer people. They can only shoot one of their guns at a time
4
There are a lot of new gun owners. There are also a lot of people who will not advertise their ownership.
1
A quick review of the comment section explains in a nutshell why gun rights supporters aren't willing to talk about so-called reasonable gun control ideas. The number of comments object to Kristof's attempt to find common ground and think the only answer is making most or all guns illegal. Why would pro gun people want to try and seek a middle when there is not honest partner to work with on the other side. Recent polls show a majority of Americas favor gun rights and don't even support banning assault rifles. This issue has always been a loser for the left and will continue to be one. It cost Clinton the congress in the 1990's.
8
Best column on this issue in a long time! Someone finally 'gets it'! Thank you, Mr Kristof, for saying what desperately needed to be said!
I tear my hair every time I read these comments and see someone getting up on his soapbox proclaiming 'repeal the 2d Amendment, ban all guns!' It may give the proclaimer a warm fuzzy feeling of his own righteousness. But not only will we not completely disarm the nation, we should not even try. Any attempt to confiscate guns already in private hands, aside from voluntary programs, would produce a civil war making Somalia look like Shangri-La. (Even Australia, which introduced effective laws to prevent massacres, doesn't ban private ownership.) And, pardon the expression, such proclamations give ammunition to the NRA telling owners that 'gun grabbers' are taking aim at their rights.
I don't own a gun, and I've never shot anything more powerful than a BB gun. I might have one, if the guns and shooting lessons weren't so expensive. I'm not against guns. I am against gun nuts. I'm also against anti-gun nuts, though.
I tear my hair every time I read these comments and see someone getting up on his soapbox proclaiming 'repeal the 2d Amendment, ban all guns!' It may give the proclaimer a warm fuzzy feeling of his own righteousness. But not only will we not completely disarm the nation, we should not even try. Any attempt to confiscate guns already in private hands, aside from voluntary programs, would produce a civil war making Somalia look like Shangri-La. (Even Australia, which introduced effective laws to prevent massacres, doesn't ban private ownership.) And, pardon the expression, such proclamations give ammunition to the NRA telling owners that 'gun grabbers' are taking aim at their rights.
I don't own a gun, and I've never shot anything more powerful than a BB gun. I might have one, if the guns and shooting lessons weren't so expensive. I'm not against guns. I am against gun nuts. I'm also against anti-gun nuts, though.
16
The second amendment requires gun ownership to be well regulated for the safety and liberty of the unarmed.
1
By all means, let's focus on gun safety instead of gun control. Liberals are very supportive of this approach.
Unfortunately gun rights supporters are not. The NRA, the gun lobby, gun manufacturers and their minions in Congress believe the only agenda of the gun safety side is complete gun confiscation.
As long as the pro-gun side is unwilling to compromise, nothing will get done.
Mr. Kristof is wrong to place blame equally on both sides. Those of us who who support gun safety legislation welcome the support of the gun rights side, should they ever decide to work with us. It's a matter of life and death..
Unfortunately gun rights supporters are not. The NRA, the gun lobby, gun manufacturers and their minions in Congress believe the only agenda of the gun safety side is complete gun confiscation.
As long as the pro-gun side is unwilling to compromise, nothing will get done.
Mr. Kristof is wrong to place blame equally on both sides. Those of us who who support gun safety legislation welcome the support of the gun rights side, should they ever decide to work with us. It's a matter of life and death..
5
Nice opinion, expressed as fact. You are doing precisely what the writer of this article states those on the left do. FYI, look it up. The NRA, puts on more gun safety clinics than anyone else and those who own guns in many states are required to attend safety courses before they can get their card to purchase a gun.
You obviously, (my opinion) are not talking about gun safety so then you must be talking about gun control, using a new more acceptable terminology.
You obviously, (my opinion) are not talking about gun safety so then you must be talking about gun control, using a new more acceptable terminology.
1
If you're so fair-minded and willing to consider both sides of the debate, have you read the National Research Council's "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review"? If not, I suggest you do, before trying to push your policy agenda on others. Even from your comment it is apparent that you have self-righteously attempted to adopt the moral high-ground without any understanding of the "research" you purport to want more of or the concerns of those who value a right guaranteed by the second amendment right that you obviously couldn't care less about.
1
There is just no getting around the fact that the victims of the mass shootings were defenseless. They didn't shoot back and the concept of defenseless is not complicated. And Trump is right that a two way gun fight is vastly different than a safe zone slaughter.
The writer also omits the fact that most gun crimes are done with illegal guns - guns that were stolen or bought for cash on the street. The "good people" that submit to a background check are not the problem. Let the writer argue that stop and frisk makes no difference in the possession of illegal guns.
The writer also omits the fact that most gun crimes are done with illegal guns - guns that were stolen or bought for cash on the street. The "good people" that submit to a background check are not the problem. Let the writer argue that stop and frisk makes no difference in the possession of illegal guns.
5
So a two-way gun fight is somehow safe? Tell that to the people wounded in police-criminal gun battles. An untrained guy with a Glock is not somebody I want around me. The police are supposedly well trained, yet they can't seem to hit their targets with any regularity...
3
Safer than a defenseless slaughter. In a slaughter, the shooting has already started, so we are just waiting to learn who dies - victims or the shooter. And no one is saying you have to carry or hang out with others that do, but if you were at San Bernardino, you would be begging for a pistol.
1
If it's so simple, why aren't there ANY examples of civilians stopping a mass shooting with a gun?
Restrictions that actually pass are ineffective by design: they are passed as sops by cynical legislatures throwing us a bone and saying, "Look how hard we worked for this." But we know these will be ineffective before they are passed. The rules that experts say would be most effective (precisely the ones most sought by "liberals" -- or is it "Liberals"?) are those those jokers won't pass. I suppose only by organizing (e.g., by supporting Bloomberg's Everytown) will give us the sway we need to get action from our representatives. We need to fight the NRA with their own weapons. I am not referring to guns, but money and lobbying tactics.
4
I fear additional background checks by themselves are not going to make much difference. With so many guns already in private hands, the black market is probably readily available to anyone who wants to obtain a gun without going through the background check process. I would imagine it's not that difficult.
Do we need to look at the mirror and ask why this country is so violence-prone? What are the root causes? Why are we so different from similar nations such as Canada and Australia? Apart from the issue of gun control or gun safety, is there something inherent in our country's character that is flawed in this respect?
Do we need to look at the mirror and ask why this country is so violence-prone? What are the root causes? Why are we so different from similar nations such as Canada and Australia? Apart from the issue of gun control or gun safety, is there something inherent in our country's character that is flawed in this respect?
6
In the first paragraph, you infer that the increase in gun ownership has somehow influenced the decrease in gun homicides. These two facts may be unrelated. Please expand upon the reasons for the decrease in homicides and show data that would support your inference.
Also, after reading that a classroom of first graders, movie goers, church attendees, and many others have been murdered by men with guns, it's really hard to feel sorry for a tone of voice. I've noticed that the minority gun supporters (the most vocal) take even the simplest of arguments for some regulation to the extreme with the "slippery slope" assertion, that the tiniest regulation will lead to confiscation of all guns by President Obama. Yet, you would blame those speaking out against guns for tone of voice. It reminds me of how women get blamed for being beaten up by their husbands. They said something that annoyed the guy, so he must be justified in beating her.
There very well may be an argument against gun regulation, and some actual missteps by "liberals," whoever those people are, since I'm sure there are some conservatives who also speak out against unregulated proliferation of guns in our society (Brady? wasn't he Republican?). But this column helps no one. Please, a rewrite showing real cause and effect, not just inference or correlation. And please, this is an issue affecting our communities, and the lives of our children and neighbors, our families, so there will be emotion.
Also, after reading that a classroom of first graders, movie goers, church attendees, and many others have been murdered by men with guns, it's really hard to feel sorry for a tone of voice. I've noticed that the minority gun supporters (the most vocal) take even the simplest of arguments for some regulation to the extreme with the "slippery slope" assertion, that the tiniest regulation will lead to confiscation of all guns by President Obama. Yet, you would blame those speaking out against guns for tone of voice. It reminds me of how women get blamed for being beaten up by their husbands. They said something that annoyed the guy, so he must be justified in beating her.
There very well may be an argument against gun regulation, and some actual missteps by "liberals," whoever those people are, since I'm sure there are some conservatives who also speak out against unregulated proliferation of guns in our society (Brady? wasn't he Republican?). But this column helps no one. Please, a rewrite showing real cause and effect, not just inference or correlation. And please, this is an issue affecting our communities, and the lives of our children and neighbors, our families, so there will be emotion.
8
Mr. Kristof, your figure of 229 Americans killed worldwide from terrorism in 10 years compared to 310,00 Americans died from guns America, says a lot about the fabric of this country.
I still do not understand why our focus is only on the terrorists and not on the highest number of gun deaths among the Americans.
Why we're balancing the violent deaths of the jihadists abroad with the number of deaths of the innocents inside the country ?
And it truly boggles my mind to think that we're just allowing the American citizens to die at the hands of other American citizens.
What patriotism is that ?
What civic values we learn from this ?
What would've the real patriots thought about this mass elimination of the descendants of the early settlers of this country ?
Nobody really asks these questions beside talking about the Second Amendment .
To me, people has the right to carry guns.
But why kill other people ,specially the innocent ones with the same guns ?
Actually granting mental illness issue to the killers has itself given a sense of immunity to all the killers in this country.
Every gun holder thinks they can kill somebody or anybody for any reason or no reason and if nothing works in their trial, at least the defense of temporary mental disillusionment , will definitely work.
And interestingly but sadly, this defense works in most number of cases where the defendants have good lawyers with money to spare for bringing in mental health experts in the trial.
I still do not understand why our focus is only on the terrorists and not on the highest number of gun deaths among the Americans.
Why we're balancing the violent deaths of the jihadists abroad with the number of deaths of the innocents inside the country ?
And it truly boggles my mind to think that we're just allowing the American citizens to die at the hands of other American citizens.
What patriotism is that ?
What civic values we learn from this ?
What would've the real patriots thought about this mass elimination of the descendants of the early settlers of this country ?
Nobody really asks these questions beside talking about the Second Amendment .
To me, people has the right to carry guns.
But why kill other people ,specially the innocent ones with the same guns ?
Actually granting mental illness issue to the killers has itself given a sense of immunity to all the killers in this country.
Every gun holder thinks they can kill somebody or anybody for any reason or no reason and if nothing works in their trial, at least the defense of temporary mental disillusionment , will definitely work.
And interestingly but sadly, this defense works in most number of cases where the defendants have good lawyers with money to spare for bringing in mental health experts in the trial.
4
That 1993 reference in the op-ed piece is cherry-picked, and represents the peak of a spike upwards in gun homicides in the mid-90s. So that "fact" was likely lifted from an apologetics site and part of the fog of war to attempt to dissociate guns from gun deaths and blame anything and everything else.
The reality is that gun carnage has been pretty steady in this country these past 5, 10 or even 30 years, the increase in guns counterbalancing the decrease in ownership. The core issue is our saturation as a society, and the chief culprit is ordinary mundane handguns not esoteric quasi-military hardware.
The other reality, proved in study after study, is that guns turn on their owners. They endanger, not protect. The USA has a collective mania, a dangerous and deadly fascination with instruments that deal out death efficiently, and the outcome that plays out in public and in private is no surprise to the rest of the world. The only sensible gun control, the only strategy shown to work, is to chip away at that mountain of guns.
The reality is that gun carnage has been pretty steady in this country these past 5, 10 or even 30 years, the increase in guns counterbalancing the decrease in ownership. The core issue is our saturation as a society, and the chief culprit is ordinary mundane handguns not esoteric quasi-military hardware.
The other reality, proved in study after study, is that guns turn on their owners. They endanger, not protect. The USA has a collective mania, a dangerous and deadly fascination with instruments that deal out death efficiently, and the outcome that plays out in public and in private is no surprise to the rest of the world. The only sensible gun control, the only strategy shown to work, is to chip away at that mountain of guns.
9
A most refreshing article about gun safety without demonizing either side. This is precisely the debate we need so we can work together to solve this problem. People are in favor of smart guns and as a Republican, I see no reason for the NRA to fight smart guns but they do. That must be overcome. It also makes no sense to talk about banning all guns as that will not fly and it only incenses the opposition. The key is to set ideology aside and pragmatically hammer out an agreement that both sides accept. Most people acknowledge the numerous points of agreement on this issue. But it matters little unless Congress can do the same.
3
Republicans fight smart guns because states like NJ have laws that require all guns sold in the state to be smart guns as soon as smart guns are available anywhere. And guess what? As soon as some guns are "smart" then all the old ones are definitely unreasonable dangerous by comparison. Therefore, the only reasonable thing to do would be to ban the unsafe guns. And don't bother arguing that something like that could never happen. No one will believe you.
Also, generally, the argument that even NRA members are for background checks is misleading. Most NRA members are OK with background checks as they currently exists. (I am an NRA member and I am fine with them. How else will crazies ever get filtered out?) But universal background checks require gun registration and the NRA nor its membership support that.
Also, generally, the argument that even NRA members are for background checks is misleading. Most NRA members are OK with background checks as they currently exists. (I am an NRA member and I am fine with them. How else will crazies ever get filtered out?) But universal background checks require gun registration and the NRA nor its membership support that.
1
Mr. Kristof, this column suggests that "liberals" use gun control as a political tool. I can assure you that most of us are devastated by the agony caused by gun violence and the absolute insanity of unbridled access to guns.
I respectfully disagree with the idea that research has not shown the benefits of "gun control" laws on limiting the consequences of gun violence . Here is an inconvenient gun fact that a good scientist understands. Incidence of gun related deaths in the past 5 years expressed in gun related suicides + homicides + accidents per 100,000 people:
US 10.64
Great Britain 0.23
Netherlands 0.58
Spain 0.62
Germany 1.10
A 10-40 fold difference in these outcomes is stronger evidence than any that exists that limiting access to guns is a key component to limiting gun related tragedy. Social science research is notoriously difficult to perform and corroborate. Particularly when there are so few studies that exist, so little funding to support analysis and such heterogeneity in law enforcement across state borders, the data you site is very suspect.
Licensing, effective background checks (improved IT systems and efforts to provide data on crime, mental illness for the systems), harsh penalties for straw purchases, improved gun safety technology, waiting periods, assault weapon bans all are essential.
Some inconvenience and cost is strongly justified to gain access to a weapon .
I respectfully disagree with the idea that research has not shown the benefits of "gun control" laws on limiting the consequences of gun violence . Here is an inconvenient gun fact that a good scientist understands. Incidence of gun related deaths in the past 5 years expressed in gun related suicides + homicides + accidents per 100,000 people:
US 10.64
Great Britain 0.23
Netherlands 0.58
Spain 0.62
Germany 1.10
A 10-40 fold difference in these outcomes is stronger evidence than any that exists that limiting access to guns is a key component to limiting gun related tragedy. Social science research is notoriously difficult to perform and corroborate. Particularly when there are so few studies that exist, so little funding to support analysis and such heterogeneity in law enforcement across state borders, the data you site is very suspect.
Licensing, effective background checks (improved IT systems and efforts to provide data on crime, mental illness for the systems), harsh penalties for straw purchases, improved gun safety technology, waiting periods, assault weapon bans all are essential.
Some inconvenience and cost is strongly justified to gain access to a weapon .
13
Nicholas Kristof falls victim to the false symmetry between those wanting better gun control vs those wanting essentially no gun control. And no, this is not a "liberal" issue. The inadequacy of many gun control laws is not evidence of the ineffectiveness of gun control, but of the corruption of the political system in which the NRA and its allies can either block or emasculate appropriate legislation. Kristof fails to recognize the laws passed are compromises forced by the opposition, which are intended to make them ineffective. Effective gun control legislation can dramatically decrease gun deaths, as in Australia, and even minimal gun control can decrease gun deaths, as in Connecticut vs Missouri. The U.S., with its lax gun laws, has 5 times the gun homicide rate of any developed nation. And his use of the term "gun homicides" obscures the fact that more than half of gun deaths are suicides. The insincerity of the anti-gun control crowd is revealed by their opposition to required and recurrent gun safety education, practice, and demonstration of competence. If the NRA really believes a person's life may depend on having and using a gun, then they should demand that all gun owners be truly qualified to save their own or someone else's life on such an occasion. But, of course, they don't. The NRA just uses that position to fuel paranoia and entrap the gullible...which, in this case, includes Mr. Kristof.
10
This essay is a valuable step forward in trying to have an intelligent conversation about guns. If Mr. Kristof focused on the shortcomings of the Left on this issue, I'm sure most of his readers are all too familiar with the shortcomings of the Right. However, it hardly matters how informed & rational our conversations are. The NRA is not thinking in terms of public safety (as they used to!). They are thinking in terms of selling guns. And congress is not thinking in terms of what the public wants or needs but in terms of the money & publicity that determine elections, as it must under current rules.
4
You omit some important facts. Of the almost 34,000 firearms deaths each year, almost 24,000 are suicides. The government has no business interjecting itself into the business of suicide. This leaves 10,000 actual murders a year, of which 3700 are black on black, committed by 13% of the population. 13% of the U.S. population commits 37% of the murders almost exclusively black on black since most murders are committed against someone you know. I submit that the U.S. does not have a gun problem. It has a black problem.
9
And a white problem, given that virtually all serial killngs and mass murders are committed by white men. And a men problem too, come to think of it, since nearly all domestic murders are committed by men, as are the considerable majority of suicides.
2
What about the other 63%? That's the majority right? Are you saying that if it does not happen in your neighborhood, it's alright?
Let's see what does the average house cost in Naples? Let me look that up in Zillow. Hmmm. Yeh, exactly what I thought.
The prince says that people who are not rich don't count. I think we have a "royal" problem.
Let's see what does the average house cost in Naples? Let me look that up in Zillow. Hmmm. Yeh, exactly what I thought.
The prince says that people who are not rich don't count. I think we have a "royal" problem.
While Kristof makes some important observations he misses the key point that stops Congress from acting largely because the public opinion is strongly against the idea. And that is the real wish particularly urban liberals to ban private ownership of entire classes of firearms.
5
Guns designed to shoot people encourage people to do just that.
Some inconvenient facts for Mr Kristof -
I am a gun owner, I support gun control that extends far beyond background checks, and I am definitely NOT a Liberal. Where I live Liberal is a dog whistle word; I refer to myself as a Citizen. It would be nice if the author would refer to us as citizens also; it is much more difficult to demonize a citizen that it is to demonize a Liberal.
Properly used, firearms are tools. On private rural property, they also become the only available line of defense for life and livestock. The romantic fantasy of the armed good guy is a narrative promoted more by the motion picture industry than by the gun industry. And the fantasy is nonsense. You now have a mid life housewife firing at a fleeing (as in posed no risk to her) shoplifter at a Home Depot parking lot in Michigan, and a 3 y/o accidentally killing himself with his father's handgun accessed under the counter in a North Carolina convenience store, while the child sat on daddy's lap. Anyone care to explain to me how either of these gun owners meet the threshold of responsible gun ownership. It's like putting an Uzi in the hands of an 11 y/o girl from NJ.
Used safely, guns are fun to fire. Target enthusiasts do not need armor piercing rounds on the range, quarter powder charges puncture paper just as well and are far less lethal if misused. But unless you ever fired one, you wouldn't know that.
And until you do know what you are talking about sir, please stop talking trash.
I am a gun owner, I support gun control that extends far beyond background checks, and I am definitely NOT a Liberal. Where I live Liberal is a dog whistle word; I refer to myself as a Citizen. It would be nice if the author would refer to us as citizens also; it is much more difficult to demonize a citizen that it is to demonize a Liberal.
Properly used, firearms are tools. On private rural property, they also become the only available line of defense for life and livestock. The romantic fantasy of the armed good guy is a narrative promoted more by the motion picture industry than by the gun industry. And the fantasy is nonsense. You now have a mid life housewife firing at a fleeing (as in posed no risk to her) shoplifter at a Home Depot parking lot in Michigan, and a 3 y/o accidentally killing himself with his father's handgun accessed under the counter in a North Carolina convenience store, while the child sat on daddy's lap. Anyone care to explain to me how either of these gun owners meet the threshold of responsible gun ownership. It's like putting an Uzi in the hands of an 11 y/o girl from NJ.
Used safely, guns are fun to fire. Target enthusiasts do not need armor piercing rounds on the range, quarter powder charges puncture paper just as well and are far less lethal if misused. But unless you ever fired one, you wouldn't know that.
And until you do know what you are talking about sir, please stop talking trash.
7
Kristof provides much needed facts and clear thinking to a divisive issue. Kristof is clearly stating that all voters need to be better informed on the reality of guns versus the hysteria. More knowledge will lead to better gun safety.
Good guys and gals use guns in self-defense many times a year. Here are some of the sites that track this. For those who claim this is a myth, you are not being provided the facts by the regular news media. These stories are often ignored due to anti-gun biased by the news media.
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
http://bearingarms.com/category/guns-saving-lives/
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Ohio-CHL-holders-acting-in-self-defense
http://armedpatriots.com/index.shtml
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
http://bearingarms.com/category/guns-saving-lives/
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Ohio-CHL-holders-acting-in-self-defense
http://armedpatriots.com/index.shtml
Another inconvenient fact is that the majority of gun violence (homicides vs suicides) is in certain communities perpetrated by criminals in possession of illegal guns. And there are millions of the those guns on the streets that when sold 'privately' will escape any background check laws.
More inconvenient are the real solutions to dealing with illegal guns in high crime neighborhoods that surely skate the civil rights of those citizens.
And while President Obama is closing background check loopholes, please come up with a solution for why illegal immigrants are allowed to possess guns (thank you Judge Diane Wood) but cannot have their backgrounds checked because they are 'undocumented'?!
More inconvenient are the real solutions to dealing with illegal guns in high crime neighborhoods that surely skate the civil rights of those citizens.
And while President Obama is closing background check loopholes, please come up with a solution for why illegal immigrants are allowed to possess guns (thank you Judge Diane Wood) but cannot have their backgrounds checked because they are 'undocumented'?!
2
Kristoff leads with, "The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half." This may indeed be true. A statistic I would like to see is how much more frequent mass murder has become since 1993.
3
I would also add that the population of the U.S. has also grown by 1/3 in that time. So, the 50% increase in guns in the country is well within the range of error for such statistics (most people do not realize that the number of guns in the country is a big swag because federal laws as they stand make it difficult to know for sure).
2
I visited the Kittery Trading Post in Maine just before Christmas, specifically their gun department. I pointed to a nice new semi-automatic assault weapon in a show case and asked the sales assistant what I needed to do to walk out of the store with it. As a New Hampshire resident I would have to show a valid driver's license and then wait for a Federal criminal background check. How long would that take? Less than 30 minutes. No training, no nothing. I passed on the purchase. But is so easy, so depressingly easy.
11
Yeah, sadly that's part of that "shall not be infringed" thing. It's been going on for longer than you or I have been around.
Don't like guns? Don't buy one.
Don't like guns? Don't buy one.
2
I certainly qualify as a liberal but I will always support evidence-based solutions over ideological posturing. Most social problems tend to involve the vast majority of trouble being caused by a small minority of actors, and guns are likely no exception. Mr. Kristof is absolutely right that the focus should be on treating gun deaths like a public health problem; something, one would hope, that people across the political spectrum would support.
6
Kristoff has written an original and timely piece regarding the truth behind so much of the hot air and half-truths about guns in America. As the owner of a pistol with a carry permit I am one of the majority that fervently supports stronger gun control laws, most especially universal and thorough background checks.
Having written to my congressman regarding same I came away from reading the response that, frankly, Congress doesn't want to spend the money.
While not a member, I wrote a note to the NRA expressing my concerns and belief in universal registration and received a polite, deaf "slippery slope" argument back in return.
Those who support universal registration should ban the word "confiscation" from their vocabulary and concentrate on the big picture and begin mustering troops from both sides of the gun-debate divide.
Having written to my congressman regarding same I came away from reading the response that, frankly, Congress doesn't want to spend the money.
While not a member, I wrote a note to the NRA expressing my concerns and belief in universal registration and received a polite, deaf "slippery slope" argument back in return.
Those who support universal registration should ban the word "confiscation" from their vocabulary and concentrate on the big picture and begin mustering troops from both sides of the gun-debate divide.
5
The gun industry should be taxed to recover every last cent of the social costs it creates. It is freeloading on the unarmed public.
1
I would support a waiting period for purchases and a ban on sales that are "sight unseen". If people cannot look the buyer in the eye, that's a no go. We are not talking about selling groceries here.
There are only two legal items that are deadly when used as intended - guns and cigarettes. I hate them both.
I see nothing glib or sanctimonious about the liberal position. Failure to make a difference before and after a regulation only means that the regulation tinkers at the edges of the problem.
But Kristof is right in suggesting the public safety approach for that very reason.
I see nothing glib or sanctimonious about the liberal position. Failure to make a difference before and after a regulation only means that the regulation tinkers at the edges of the problem.
But Kristof is right in suggesting the public safety approach for that very reason.
5
Good analogy. And just as cigarettes endanger bystanders (second hand smoke), so do guns. Those who own guns, or argue for unfettered rights, or pass or repeal laws introducing them in the public space, endanger the rest of us, and it's time they paid a price for the attendant carnage. I hate the phrase "responsible gun owner". It's nonsensical. It's like "responsible smoker". It just means they have yet to use their product for its primary and intended use. Would anyone say a responsible baseball bat owner is someone who has never hit a ball with it?
"One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate."
Of course, if we only spoke reasonably, calmly and rationally to people who plan their interior decorating around shield zones in case of a home invasion that never comes, all would be well. Mr. Kristof misses the point that there is no discussion with a dwindling number of gun owners. They view it as an absolute right to have and frighten the rest of us with guns. Fear is their main motivating force and no amount of rational facts or objective reality will penetrate that barrier.
You make liberals the bad guys and ignore the irrational ones with the guns.
Of course, if we only spoke reasonably, calmly and rationally to people who plan their interior decorating around shield zones in case of a home invasion that never comes, all would be well. Mr. Kristof misses the point that there is no discussion with a dwindling number of gun owners. They view it as an absolute right to have and frighten the rest of us with guns. Fear is their main motivating force and no amount of rational facts or objective reality will penetrate that barrier.
You make liberals the bad guys and ignore the irrational ones with the guns.
8
There are approximately 100 Million legal gun owners in the United States. The fastest growing demographic in gun ownership is women. Yet you call our population "dwindling" and choose to mass label us in an insulting manner, exactly what the author was referring to.
2
I, too, think that guns should be treated like cars.
Register all guns and keep a complete database easily accessible by law enforcement.
Require gun owners to get a licence which requires tests both written and practical with different tests for different kinds of guns.
Require gun owners to carry liability insurance.
Subject gun owners to a myriad of rules as to how they may operate the guns such as making it illegal to operate a gun while under the influence of alcohol.
Require regular inspections of guns.
Regulate what type of guns are legal and where various types can be used.
Have a special group of police whose sole duty is to see that gun operators obey the rules,
Please no babbling about rights vs privileges. All rights have restrictions. You can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater.
Register all guns and keep a complete database easily accessible by law enforcement.
Require gun owners to get a licence which requires tests both written and practical with different tests for different kinds of guns.
Require gun owners to carry liability insurance.
Subject gun owners to a myriad of rules as to how they may operate the guns such as making it illegal to operate a gun while under the influence of alcohol.
Require regular inspections of guns.
Regulate what type of guns are legal and where various types can be used.
Have a special group of police whose sole duty is to see that gun operators obey the rules,
Please no babbling about rights vs privileges. All rights have restrictions. You can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater.
18
'All rights have restrictions' Are you trying to justify Voter ID laws too?
1
Liability insurance would cost only a few dollars per gun. Auto liability insurance costs about $500 per year, but there are millions of auto accidents per year and most of the insurance money goes to body shop work. About 60 percent of gun deaths are suicides, in which cases no liability would be paid.
The purpose of driver's tests and driver's licensing is to ensure drivers possess the skills required to operate a car or truck, which requires far more skill than operating a gun. Regardless of testing and licensing, there are about 13,000 fatal auto accidents per year. Even though American own more guns than cars, there are only about 600 accidental gun deaths a year. If cars and trucks killed only 600 Americans each year, we would spend billions to test and license drivers. More Americans die in bicycle accidents than gun accidents.
The purpose of driver's tests and driver's licensing is to ensure drivers possess the skills required to operate a car or truck, which requires far more skill than operating a gun. Regardless of testing and licensing, there are about 13,000 fatal auto accidents per year. Even though American own more guns than cars, there are only about 600 accidental gun deaths a year. If cars and trucks killed only 600 Americans each year, we would spend billions to test and license drivers. More Americans die in bicycle accidents than gun accidents.
While you are correct that all rights may be reasonably restricted by the state, the SCOTUS has ruled this can only be done in the interest of public safety. That is why there are already laws in most states against discharging your weapon while intoxicated (one of the things you suggested). But most of what you suggested would not pass any legal test for restricting rights in the interest of public safety. There is no evidence to suggest that allowing the state to routinely inspect the guns of law abiding gun owners would have any measurable benefit to public safety. And yes, there is a 2nd amendment protecting the right of individuals to keep and bear arms while there is no such amendment regarding cars or even horses for that matter, so your comparison is largely invalid right off the bat. You apparently don't like guns at all. That's fine, I get it. Lobby your politicians to pass a constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd. Then if you happen to get that passed all you need is for three fourths of the states to ratify that amendment. Best of luck with that.
1
When a shooting occurs every 3 hours in Chicago and every 6 hours in Philadelphia, the solution is not universal background checks for gun buyers.
To reduce this epidemic, universal gun checks,with metal detectors, of all citizens in public places is necessary.
The most basic civil right is life.
The current epidemic of gun violence is intolerable.
To reduce this epidemic, universal gun checks,with metal detectors, of all citizens in public places is necessary.
The most basic civil right is life.
The current epidemic of gun violence is intolerable.
5
How can you use the term "epidemic of gun violence" when the author just pointed out violent crime, including shooting deaths, have been on the decline for decades? And this while gun ownership and concealed carry has grown dramatically. I agree that the most basic civil right is life, and I choose to protect mine and my family with a gun. What you do to protect yours is your business.
Gun control, gun safety, what have you is not an issue that can easily be divided into equivalencies. Too many of those supporting lax gun laws argue that they need guns to protect themselves from the masses, who they highly fear even though most people are unarmed and no threat at all. Yet, we who favor greater restrictions are told to completely trust those carrying guns, complete strangers who boast that they "conceal and carry" or go further and don't even conceal. If we do trust them and are wrong - if they are a bad guy with a gun or an irresponsible one who does not have their weapon properly secured - we could lose our very lives for our mistake in judgment. That kind of power should be, as the 2nd Amendment itself said, well regulated.
9
Why no talk about the culture of violence that Hollywood and the video game industry glorifies?
Ultimately it comes down to culture and a society's tolerance for violence.
Ultimately it comes down to culture and a society's tolerance for violence.
7
Too true; the record shows that humans never killed or hurt each other prior to the semi realistic release of video games in the 1990's. Read a book why not.
1
Violence? Love of, not tolerance. Rambo etc. are much loved figures in our culture. How can a man (and increasingly, a woman) be a "real man" or "real woman" without a gun? That is at the heart of this liberal's concerns over guns.
Why no mention of the refusal of Congress to support research on gun violence? They cut funding for CDC research; many are characterizing this as a Congressional ban on gun research.
22
When the head of the CDC public stated that the goal of the "research" was to ban guns, Congress cut the public funding used to produce the propaganda. There is much research ongoing.
1
To understand how and why CDC funding for promoting gun control (not stopping research) happened: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stop...
Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership.
Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership.
Sorry, I can't find the reference for TG's comment. There have been a number of researchers whose studies have been validated and reported by the CDC that have been personally outspoken about gun control. If you try and find reasons why Congress banned funding for CDC to research gun violence, you find NRA's heavy hand all over it. It's quite clear that the NRA will exert the full weight of their lobby power to deep-six any research on gun violence that might challenge NRA's positions.
The root cause of all this gun stuff is that pesky 2nd Amendment. And while it's not the First Amendment, any talk of guns without acknowledging that of all the Rights the Founders thought were important, the right to bear arms was the 2nd most important is at best disingenuous at worse, deliberate.
And while I support a change to the term, "gun safety," knowing that we have more guns, but less homicides gives me pause. The issue remains, how to get guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? (There is no law that will prevent a criminal from getting a gun and doing harm.) I wish President Obama was a leader who could at the very least get both sides to talk about mental illness. Unfortunately, by demonizing the other side, he has lost any credibility to seek compromise.
And while I support a change to the term, "gun safety," knowing that we have more guns, but less homicides gives me pause. The issue remains, how to get guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? (There is no law that will prevent a criminal from getting a gun and doing harm.) I wish President Obama was a leader who could at the very least get both sides to talk about mental illness. Unfortunately, by demonizing the other side, he has lost any credibility to seek compromise.
6
I don't think Obama cares about compromise.
But he does care a lot about distracting people from paying attention to the imminent loss of sovereignty and epic giveaway to the corporatocracy that will happen if the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal goes through and feeding controversy over other issues works real well for that.
After all, BHO's "legacy" might be negatively affected if people wake up and he can't deliver for his handlers...
http://www.citizen.org/investorcases
But he does care a lot about distracting people from paying attention to the imminent loss of sovereignty and epic giveaway to the corporatocracy that will happen if the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal goes through and feeding controversy over other issues works real well for that.
After all, BHO's "legacy" might be negatively affected if people wake up and he can't deliver for his handlers...
http://www.citizen.org/investorcases
1
Well, prof there were 8 SCOTUS decisions before Heller. They can be summed up in the words of the very conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger who said that anyone who believe the second amendment confers the right to own a gun on an unfettered individual" is "perpatrating a fraud upon the American people."
1
If private citizens walking around with their guns strapped on their hips were really an effective deterent to crime or terrorism, then the 'pro-gun' lobby would be calling for the free distribution of firearms to every adult citizen and mandatory open carrying along with the abolition of police forces (using the money saved to pay for the free firearms, of course - nobody wants to raise taxes). And the semi-mythic Old West would have been a really peaceful place.
6
If what they say about having guns everywhere on display were true, Iraq and Syria would the paradise that ISIS says it is. The thing is that the quietest and most peaceful place in any town is the cemetery.
The pro 2nd Amendment people, unlike liberals, do not expect anything"Free"from the government because we understand it's not Free.
My firearm have saved me from being robbed once. That's enough for me to carry the rest of my life.
My firearm have saved me from being robbed once. That's enough for me to carry the rest of my life.
1
Mr. Kristof is absolutely right (as he so often is). A focus on sensible regulation, not restriction, and a focus on safety, not control is what's needed. And, the impetus has to come from within the community of gun owners with the realization that people aren't coming for their guns. It's simply a question of accepting certain constraints -- background checks, more control over sales, safety measures that keep guns out of the hands of young children, and maybe some forms of insurance or registration -- to limit deadly and unlawful use of guns, and to ensure that the costs of such use are borne, to some extent, by the industry. Ironically, while Secretary Clinton is hammering Senator Sanders over guns (just as she once hammered then Senator Obama from the other direction), someone like Sanders -- or coalitions of legislators from more conservative states -- may be far better placed to enact gun safety measures. Mr. Kristof is right, to some extent, in blaming liberals for the ignorance and baggage that accompany their calls for gun control, but it is also true that the NRA (and its real muscle, coming from the gun industry, not nickel and dime members) has consistently put forth the most sustained and deceptive campaign of misinformation of just about any lobbying group I've seen in my lifetime.
5
We should register and insure your first amendment rights as well or at least send you to a class to teach about responsible use of the first amendment before you leave this type of comment.
1
Actually what you write about the NRA is not true. Here is the breakdown of the NRA's income:
http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/
There are more articles like this that provide facts about where the NRA's money comes from, and they find the same. The majority of the NRA's money comes from the individual donations of it's 4 million+ members.
http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/
There are more articles like this that provide facts about where the NRA's money comes from, and they find the same. The majority of the NRA's money comes from the individual donations of it's 4 million+ members.
1
Mr Kristoff deserves credit for noting that liberals know neither firearms nor shooters. Ignorance can be excused to lack of knowledge; demonization of law abiding shooters and the NRA is less ignorance than it is nasty scapegoating at best, or arrogant self righteous hauteur at worst. Treating people with contempt
does not win arguments and further alienates a large segment of the nation. Finally, there is a genuine civil libertarian element to understanding lawful self defense and the Second Amendment.
does not win arguments and further alienates a large segment of the nation. Finally, there is a genuine civil libertarian element to understanding lawful self defense and the Second Amendment.
1
Nicholas Kristof fails to note that the police and the states attorneys can barely enforce the bank, homicide and tax laws of the US let alone gun laws. Not one of the predictors in my algorithm to predict violence is gun possession or ownership. Violence is economic and related to mental illness, yet the liberal media persist in making it an issue of gun control. With jobs homicides decrease and with less employment suicides increase. At least 59% of the 300 annual mass shooters are mentally ill; 90% of the 41,000 yearly suicides have psychiatric issues; 20% of the 14,000 annual homicides involve mental illness. Since 1945 we released psychiatric patients and in 1980 the poor and without community or family support who are mentally ill migrated to jail cells. The US has the highest historical prison population with nearly 10,000,000 on parole, probation or in jail. Futhermore, current approaches of judgment and interviews miss 54% of at risk, while physicals miss 51%, background checks, 75% and short tests, 25%. Collectively professionals miss 54 to 61% of at risk, often identifying people as dangerous when they are not, and not dangerous when they are. So the inconvenient fact about guns and refugees is that background checks miss three out of four at risk.
7
Mental illness IS the problem, as you so astutely point out. The first question that needs to be asked is: why are we so crazy? I believe a World Health Organization study within the last 5 years on mental health patterns worldwide showed that not only do Americans consume the highest per capita levels of psychoactive medication in the world, we also have the highest levels of un-diagnosed mental illness. Those are scary statistics. Frankly, we need to ask what has gone so wrong here first. Second, no person with a history of mental illness should be able to procure a firearm. Then we need to get the dangerously mentally ill off the street and into treatment centers. Mental illness needs to be treated, and treated seriously, not temporarily warehoused and then left to its own devices. This is a national disgrace, that we treat the mentally ill so poorly.
I wish Kristof would have been more explicit that suicides comprise nearly 2/3's of gun deaths annually. Mental health issues should be the focus. It won't stop everything, but why are we focusing on the smaller % of gun deaths and not the major cause?
4
You don't see any correlation between the ready availability of guns and suicides?
Yes, I suspect there is a relationship, but how many news stories lately have you seen about this? And the question is what is the relationship and why? Does someone go to a gun show to buy a gun from an unlicensed seller so they can commit suicide? Is it because a gun is laying around the house without a lock? Are people not getting mental health treatment because of financial and/or social barriers in the first place? There are 40,000+ suicides in this country every year. Why? Lots of questions that I would like to see get a lot more attention. Instead, awful as it is, a shooting that kills 6 gets a lot of media attention and the over 100 people who commit suicide DAILY get none. Why?
Before launching into the smug chuckles that clueless creatures of a lower culture actually believe that anyone wants to take away their guns, examine what happened in the last two weeks. In two state legislatures --
Washington and Georgia -- nearly identical bills were introduced to ban not just the sale, but the possession of autoloading rifles and pistols. Note that this is the vast majority of handguns, and probably 50 percent of rifles. Ban the possession is, in fact, confiscation.
That these bills are nearly identical indicates they were written elsewhere. The smart money says it came from one of the Bloomberg Astroturf groups, and that this gun confiscation bill will be inserted into legislatures around the country.
There's an old line that it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
No one wants take away your guns. Well, except the Democrats who introduced the confiscation bills in Washington, in Georgia, in . . .
Washington and Georgia -- nearly identical bills were introduced to ban not just the sale, but the possession of autoloading rifles and pistols. Note that this is the vast majority of handguns, and probably 50 percent of rifles. Ban the possession is, in fact, confiscation.
That these bills are nearly identical indicates they were written elsewhere. The smart money says it came from one of the Bloomberg Astroturf groups, and that this gun confiscation bill will be inserted into legislatures around the country.
There's an old line that it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
No one wants take away your guns. Well, except the Democrats who introduced the confiscation bills in Washington, in Georgia, in . . .
16
friend, the firearms enshrined in the 2nd Amendment are flint locks and muzzle loaders. Not gas operated semi's. And if can't tell the difference between the two, you have no business owning either.
Oh, don't worry. ALEC will send their carbon-copy bills to overturn all these bills.
Another "inconvenient fact" for the Politically Correct is that there is a major racial disparity in who commits gun homicides in the US.
Despite the popular meme that the problem is about racist white dudes with scary black rifles, the reality is that more homicides are committed with blunt objects than with any form of long gun. And that American blacks commit gun homicides at a rate approximately eight times higher than whites do. Those homicides are committed predominantly with handguns and the victims are predominantly black, also.
And although most homicides are intra-racial, when they are not, black on white killings occur at a much higher rate than the other way around:
"According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3%... The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
All the above can be determined from the FBI's Uniform Crime statistics.
As someone summarized it, if Americans generally committed gun homicides at the rate white people commit them the US homicide rate would look like Europe's (low) and if they committed homicide at the rate Asian-Americans do it would resemble rates for most of Asia (lower yet).
Despite the popular meme that the problem is about racist white dudes with scary black rifles, the reality is that more homicides are committed with blunt objects than with any form of long gun. And that American blacks commit gun homicides at a rate approximately eight times higher than whites do. Those homicides are committed predominantly with handguns and the victims are predominantly black, also.
And although most homicides are intra-racial, when they are not, black on white killings occur at a much higher rate than the other way around:
"According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3%... The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
All the above can be determined from the FBI's Uniform Crime statistics.
As someone summarized it, if Americans generally committed gun homicides at the rate white people commit them the US homicide rate would look like Europe's (low) and if they committed homicide at the rate Asian-Americans do it would resemble rates for most of Asia (lower yet).
18
Am I correct to assume you subscribe to the Subculture of Violence Theory in the linked wikipedia article? I am curious, are the numbers consistent with accidental deaths and suicides as well?
Living in Japan, you are probably aware of the extremely small number of gun related crimes there. Do you attribute this to the Asian-ness of the Japanese or to the almost complete lack of handguns in the country.
Living in Japan, you are probably aware of the extremely small number of gun related crimes there. Do you attribute this to the Asian-ness of the Japanese or to the almost complete lack of handguns in the country.
First, just to say that Gonewest's position is about as Politically Correct as you can get, only from the opposite perspective of the Left looking at the Right.
Second, it's well known that the crime stats from US Government agencies have significant limitations regarding validity and reliability; their data gathering is flawed, stats are under-reported, etc. If the Gun Rights advocates were serious about developing reasonable steps to increase gun safety, they'd be looking for ways to support funding for better research instead of trying to block it for political reasons.
Speaking of survey's, as a gun owner who had to take a class last year to renew my carry permit, although not a member, I managed to get on the NRA mailing list. I just received a survey form from them to complete and mail back. I have never seen such biased questions on a survey before. Can't wait to see NRA trot out those stats!
Second, it's well known that the crime stats from US Government agencies have significant limitations regarding validity and reliability; their data gathering is flawed, stats are under-reported, etc. If the Gun Rights advocates were serious about developing reasonable steps to increase gun safety, they'd be looking for ways to support funding for better research instead of trying to block it for political reasons.
Speaking of survey's, as a gun owner who had to take a class last year to renew my carry permit, although not a member, I managed to get on the NRA mailing list. I just received a survey form from them to complete and mail back. I have never seen such biased questions on a survey before. Can't wait to see NRA trot out those stats!
1
substitute the words "economic status" for race and your data base will reveal the same results - poor people kill others in percentages that far exceed their percentage of the population. You have also skewered your data base by going back to 1980. If you take your data base back to 1880, you may find whites murdering native americans at rates far in excess than their (whites) percentage of the total data field.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Garbage in, garbage out.
1
Thank you for this intellectually honest discussion of exactly why we have such difficulty in passing reasonable gun safety laws. As a gun owner in NY, the NY SAFE Act passed secretly under the cover of night in 2013 gave me no reason to trust the government when it comes to my guns. Lets add two more important points to the discussion; 1) While they rarely admit it in public and think they are fooling gun onwers, many of the loudest proponents of "gun control" do not believe the 2nd amendment allows for the individual ownership of guns and 2) the statistically insignificant but horrifying number of mass shootings since Columbine is a troubling pathos of middle class young men, particular (mostly) to the United States, that we have yet to effectively address. When we get all these issues on the table and start having some honest discussions as Mr. Kristof suggests, thats when we will be able to pass some common sense gun safety laws.
9
"Well regulated" the gun industry and gunners are not.
I read columns like this looking for any real solution to this problem, and every time, I come away thinking the same thing: there is no solution. We are a violent people, and our lack of education has made us more so. We need the guns to feel powerful and important.
There is no solution to this. So stop arguing about it. Try banning the bullets instead.
There is no solution to this. So stop arguing about it. Try banning the bullets instead.
8
Stop giving the gun industry a free ride. Make it pay for all of its collateral damages.
One of the rather loathsome aspects of labeling one side of a debate or the other as "Liberals" or "Conservatives" is that often the debaters are not liberal or conservatives. Often people disagreeing about guns are not gun nuts and constitutional scofflaws. Reasonable people disagree just as well unreasonable.
When most of us ask for sensible gun laws, that is what we mean: sensible guns laws. Laws meant to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of mentally ill, children, criminals. Laws meant to track ownership and reduce the ease of undocumented unregistered guns flowing to people who really should not possess one. Laws meant to use the market to manage some of the risk. And most of us are open to debating how if one regulation won't work, to amend it.
It is neither sensible to declare that we completely ban all guns, nor to declare that nothing will work so we should do nothing, the Constitution says so. It is not sensible to continue to lose tens of thousands of lives a year on the fear that the jackbooted government thugs will use registrations to confiscate.
But in order to get there, we don't need sensible people talking, we need our government leaders to stop taking money from the NRA, and direction from ALEC, and open the floor to genuine conversation and debate.
When most of us ask for sensible gun laws, that is what we mean: sensible guns laws. Laws meant to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of mentally ill, children, criminals. Laws meant to track ownership and reduce the ease of undocumented unregistered guns flowing to people who really should not possess one. Laws meant to use the market to manage some of the risk. And most of us are open to debating how if one regulation won't work, to amend it.
It is neither sensible to declare that we completely ban all guns, nor to declare that nothing will work so we should do nothing, the Constitution says so. It is not sensible to continue to lose tens of thousands of lives a year on the fear that the jackbooted government thugs will use registrations to confiscate.
But in order to get there, we don't need sensible people talking, we need our government leaders to stop taking money from the NRA, and direction from ALEC, and open the floor to genuine conversation and debate.
21
There are only two things "liberals" need to know about American gun culture.
First, many guns bought by our compatriots are specifically designed and built to kill people. They are not hunting or sports weapons. They are military weapons.
Second, the purchase and ownership of guns is largely unrestricted and unregulated. Lethal, military-grade weapons find their way into the wrong hands constantly, as proven by the legal ownership of weapons wielded by the perpetrators of the ftequent massacres that are now part of the background noise of America.
Beside these two horrific facts, "liberal" ignorance about, say, the details of magazine capacity seem rather to pale in comparison, no?
First, many guns bought by our compatriots are specifically designed and built to kill people. They are not hunting or sports weapons. They are military weapons.
Second, the purchase and ownership of guns is largely unrestricted and unregulated. Lethal, military-grade weapons find their way into the wrong hands constantly, as proven by the legal ownership of weapons wielded by the perpetrators of the ftequent massacres that are now part of the background noise of America.
Beside these two horrific facts, "liberal" ignorance about, say, the details of magazine capacity seem rather to pale in comparison, no?
21
But don't we read every day about another criminal or terrorist being stopped cold by a law abiding gun toter? Those 300 Million guns are keeping us all safe. Obviously. Except for the 30,000 people who are killed by them every year - half being suicides.
When will reality have some bearing on the public discussion?
When will reality have some bearing on the public discussion?
We have experience with dangerous devices. - automobiles. We should treat guns the same way. Every user tested and licensed. Every gun registered and insured. The gun advocates would have no grounds to complain -- America's car culture is alive and well, and no one is concerned that the government is taking our cars. The same would be true of guns.
314
given the disrespect, the carelessness, selfishness, incompetence and anger with which many people use their cars, I think this is a terrible idea.
Do you have an unfounded fear of cars too?
Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. I have a better idea, let's have a litmus test for everyone to ensure they can use their free speech rights in a responsible manner without hurting anyone's feelings, misspeaking, misleading, etc. Only then would you be allowed to exercise your constitutional right to free speech.
The basic premise of your article is incorrect. While it is true that the number of guns in the US has grown over the past twenty years, the percentage of Americans owning guns has actually decreased. This simply puts lie to the major talking point of the NRA and others of the vehemently pro-gun faction.
Further, there is no mystery as to what lies behind Congressional inaction on sensible gun control measures. Republicans in particular are well paid by the gun lobby to ensure that no legislation enhancing gun safety is allowed to pass.
I am not trying to suggest that there have not been strategic mistakes by the pro- controls side over the years. That said, the first step in getting anything accomplished on this issue is to be honest about the facts on the ground as they currently stand.
Further, there is no mystery as to what lies behind Congressional inaction on sensible gun control measures. Republicans in particular are well paid by the gun lobby to ensure that no legislation enhancing gun safety is allowed to pass.
I am not trying to suggest that there have not been strategic mistakes by the pro- controls side over the years. That said, the first step in getting anything accomplished on this issue is to be honest about the facts on the ground as they currently stand.
13
If what you say is true, that the percentage of Americans owning guns has decreased, then who is it amassing all this weaponry? And why?
Dear Mr. Kristof,
Thank you for the sane, well thought out and practical approach to "gun safety".
Your ideas will not budge the minds of those already believing that Mr. Obama is "coming for their guns" or the politicians firmly in the pockets of the NRA/Gun Manufacturers lobby but it might cause those who wish for some sane standards in gun purchasing to, at least, tell the difference between a semi-automatic and full automatic weapon when trying to regulate the same.
"Know your enemy" is an old dictum which the anti-gun supporters should embrace. As fearsome as "assault weapons" look, they are not responsible for the bulk of the 90 deaths a day from guns which this country's legislators tolerate. The hand guns shown in the photo for this piece are the real "death dealers"; eminently concealable, easy to re-load (just stuff in another clip) and not regulated nationwide (Translation: even in Ct., one can purchase a handgun from a "private" individual with little or no strings attached. In gun shows in the South, almost no firm identification is required and no limit to the amount of guns sold).
Alas, the gun lobby has one thing the anti-gun lobby doesn't seem to have, money.
Want things to change? Start voting and start waiting; with over 300 million guns out there already, it will be some time before that "90 a day" number starts to decrease but not trying to change rampant gun violence is not an option.
Thank you for the sane, well thought out and practical approach to "gun safety".
Your ideas will not budge the minds of those already believing that Mr. Obama is "coming for their guns" or the politicians firmly in the pockets of the NRA/Gun Manufacturers lobby but it might cause those who wish for some sane standards in gun purchasing to, at least, tell the difference between a semi-automatic and full automatic weapon when trying to regulate the same.
"Know your enemy" is an old dictum which the anti-gun supporters should embrace. As fearsome as "assault weapons" look, they are not responsible for the bulk of the 90 deaths a day from guns which this country's legislators tolerate. The hand guns shown in the photo for this piece are the real "death dealers"; eminently concealable, easy to re-load (just stuff in another clip) and not regulated nationwide (Translation: even in Ct., one can purchase a handgun from a "private" individual with little or no strings attached. In gun shows in the South, almost no firm identification is required and no limit to the amount of guns sold).
Alas, the gun lobby has one thing the anti-gun lobby doesn't seem to have, money.
Want things to change? Start voting and start waiting; with over 300 million guns out there already, it will be some time before that "90 a day" number starts to decrease but not trying to change rampant gun violence is not an option.
3
You make many good points, put please, if the gun can kill 26 people in a matter six minutes, what difference does it make whether it's an aumotatic or semi-automatic weapon? Those dear victims are just as dead, and whatever weapon was used should be banned. We are mad to enable this madness.
1
Because a guy from Conn. that's never been to a southern gun show said so. NEXT!
I am middle of the road on this issue and bi-cultural in the sense of working all day with liberals but living in a very conservative town. From that vantage, in my experience the following statements are spot on:
"One reason [for lack of progress] is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate."
And
"And every time liberals speak blithely about banning guns, they boost the N.R.A."
I applaud the suggestions to focus on "gun safety" not "gun control" and to couch those efforts also in terms of reducing suicides and accidents, not just violent assaults.
Candidates spend a lot of time studying how to craft their messages in ways that appeal to the target audience; gun law reformers might do well to follow that example.
"One reason [for lack of progress] is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate."
And
"And every time liberals speak blithely about banning guns, they boost the N.R.A."
I applaud the suggestions to focus on "gun safety" not "gun control" and to couch those efforts also in terms of reducing suicides and accidents, not just violent assaults.
Candidates spend a lot of time studying how to craft their messages in ways that appeal to the target audience; gun law reformers might do well to follow that example.
1
Aside from hunting, why do people need guns? When do we ever hear about guns being actually used for protection? Guns get used to kill innocent robbery victims, schoolchildren, spouses and coworkers. And in suicides. But for protection?
16
Guns are a public health problem, but congress does not permit the collection of information and the analysis of data to present the information in a way that might be persuasive to the public. Consequently, we have the very emotional back and forth that results in nothing getting done. The NRA is the main barrier to progress on the life saving policies that are needed. If the government's job is to keep us safe, they have failed when it comes to sensible gun laws. It is not Obama's fault.
22
Thank you for this well researched piece that attempts to go beyond the usual rhetoric. Since so much of the violence is committed by men, doesn't it make sense that we look for a prevention response that targets that population and the risk factors that they carry. What is going on with men that they are so willing to kill and injure others ? We need to confront this reality and address it in some meaningful ways if gun violence is going to be reduced.
9
The root cause of our gun problem is our obsession with guns and violence as a way of solving our differences with others. How can a country who always thinks about military solutions first to solve our differences with foreign governments expect its citizenry to not think about guns to solve problems with their neighbors? Add to that the way we glorify military adventurism and the violent use of guns in the media and it's no wonder why gun safety is beyond our reach.
28
Killing people one disagrees with isn't dispute resolution, it is murder.
Excellent article, in the main, especially in pointing out the ignorance of many gun control advocates concerning the guns themselves, especially how they work. Not to suggest that I'm not in favor of gun safety measures. I most certainly am of the sort Kristof proposes: Fact and research-based. But I'm surprised at his failure to mention the legislation against gun death research by the CDC. That prohibition, to my mind, is one of the most egregious accomplishments of the NRA and its sycophants. Do we have anyone in Congress with the courage to work on repeal?
16
The lies about the importance of magazine capacity, ease of changing magazines, and automatic reloading after every shot to assault tactics makes me think there is not one shred of integrity in the gun industry.
1
Great piece. I totally agree. Lets be practical, prudent and compromise. As a nation, we need do the same with 4-5 other key issues that are important and bitterly divide us. Putting them to rest through compromise would be very helpful to the unity of our country.
6
Compromise is not always the best way.
If your opposition says 2 + 3 = 23, it does little good to compromise on 14. Your bridges will still fall down.
If your opposition says 2 + 3 = 23, it does little good to compromise on 14. Your bridges will still fall down.
Regardless of laws, there seems to be a nationwide black market for guns that complicates effort to keep weapons out of the hands of killers.
8
Part of the zealousness of both anti gunners and gun enthusiasts( hunters, collectors, competitive shooters, re-enactors, gun builders, and other gun users), is the way guns are woven into American history. Guns are often portrayed as what the hero reaches for to solve many problems. On the other side we portray victims who are injured or killed by indiscriminate criminals. We insert guns into drama, love stories, domestic tragedy, tale of revolution and civil unrest and every story of rebellion. The list is endless. Guns are part of American culture, history, tradition and way of life.
In countless TV and movies guns save the day or hopelessly ruin it. Video games and kids toys incorporate guns and bloody violence. The gun is ultimate tool to reach for when we want to solve any problem short of a stuffed toilet. Want a divorce? Get a gun. Too many indians? Get a gun. Money? Get a gun. Hate your parents? Get a gun. Want to get even with someone? Get a gun. Didn't get that promotion? Get a gun. Need more drugs and have no money? Get a gun. Someone cuts you off on the highway? Get a gun. Even comedies use guns as props making it seem like its simply just a joke.
We need not get a gun, but get a grip! Why can't screen writers and story tellers put guns away? Why can't we get the guns, gun play and bloody violence out of video games? Is that the only entertainment that we can offer? Is every police call and response a gun drama? Can we find another way to respond?
In countless TV and movies guns save the day or hopelessly ruin it. Video games and kids toys incorporate guns and bloody violence. The gun is ultimate tool to reach for when we want to solve any problem short of a stuffed toilet. Want a divorce? Get a gun. Too many indians? Get a gun. Money? Get a gun. Hate your parents? Get a gun. Want to get even with someone? Get a gun. Didn't get that promotion? Get a gun. Need more drugs and have no money? Get a gun. Someone cuts you off on the highway? Get a gun. Even comedies use guns as props making it seem like its simply just a joke.
We need not get a gun, but get a grip! Why can't screen writers and story tellers put guns away? Why can't we get the guns, gun play and bloody violence out of video games? Is that the only entertainment that we can offer? Is every police call and response a gun drama? Can we find another way to respond?
25
There is even a gun in the plot of "Carol". Evidently guns are the most ubiquitous McGuffins in movie plots.
1
I don't think people in favor of gun control are sanctimonious. We only want simple safeguards and are shocked when this is met with such resistance, especially in the aftermath of tragedy. So, like was stated here, 100% background checks are critical. Also, an assault weapons ban might have saved some lives at Sandy Hook elementary, but I don't want to seem holier than thou.
190
These "facts" are really not as inconvenient, as they are irrelevant to the issue, since there are so many relevant facts that only the intellectually challenged, apparently 38% of America, would in any way try to make a case for less control or suggest that the current situation is safe. It is impossible to come across as anything less than supercilious to these people, who wouldn't recognize a fact if they tripped over it. When you listen to Mr. LaPierre, President of the NRA, the "good guy with a gun," it's enough to make you pull your hair out, since there is nothing in this man's mind or apparently the minds of 38% of Americans and/or the minds of its 5 million members that admits to anything needing to be done, other than arming every man, woman, and student in America. In reality, it is hardly an intellectual discussion. It is all about money going into the right pockets. Let's be real about it, Congress is owned by the NRA and that is why nothing commonsensical is done. We need a system in our country, similar to "motor vehicles" to create a sense of responsibility and accountability. The situation as it currently exists is a farce, especially when we are the only country in which it is occurring.
47
Even better than "gun safety" would be "firearms safety." The term "firearms" is a more professional, respectful and balanced term.
We liberals really need to get better at messaging.
We liberals really need to get better at messaging.
2
"Firearms" is used by people who think guns are holy.
Interesting column. Well thought out, reasonable and generally a good idea, although replace "gun control" with Gun Safety has been in place for several years, usually pushing rules & laws that do nothing to enhance real safety. I love the comments. So many seem to say, nope, we are liberals, we are right, everyone else is wrong, and we don't need to make any changes.
Those of us who own firearms and enjoy various gun sports wish those of you who claim to hate guns would step outside your comfort zone and learn something, because honestly most of you are so mislead and clueless it is pathetic, other than what other gun haters think and say. I realize that is a risk and often leads former gun haters to become at understanding and more tolerant of gun rights, if not actually becoming competitive shooters, hunters and/or collectors. Its a risk you should take.
Those of us who own firearms and enjoy various gun sports wish those of you who claim to hate guns would step outside your comfort zone and learn something, because honestly most of you are so mislead and clueless it is pathetic, other than what other gun haters think and say. I realize that is a risk and often leads former gun haters to become at understanding and more tolerant of gun rights, if not actually becoming competitive shooters, hunters and/or collectors. Its a risk you should take.
9
You make reasonable points.
Now, how about having gun enthusiasts realize that those of us who don't share their enthusiasm are very ill at ease with the knowledge that a person next to us in a bus or mall or supermarket, or on the street, may be carrying a deadly weapon that they are not always proficient in use? That by their own declaration, a good many of those carrying are convinced that they may be assaulted at any moment, and might then be prone to shoot first and ask questions later? That we are horrified almost every day when there are stories about a toddler shooting someone or being shot --- such as the lady who was braiding her daughter's hair and had her gun (why was she carrying at that time?) fall to the floor, discharge, and kill her daughter, or the man who shot his own son to death, thinking he was an intruder?
Is it sanctimony to be appalled by these things? Is it clueless to want to find ways to lessen the possibility of such tragedies? You ask us to understand you; what will you do in return?
In order to drive a car, one must demonstrate the ability to do so safely, and in most states, to carry insurance against harming others. Why is it unreasonable to require something similar with regard to guns?
Now, how about having gun enthusiasts realize that those of us who don't share their enthusiasm are very ill at ease with the knowledge that a person next to us in a bus or mall or supermarket, or on the street, may be carrying a deadly weapon that they are not always proficient in use? That by their own declaration, a good many of those carrying are convinced that they may be assaulted at any moment, and might then be prone to shoot first and ask questions later? That we are horrified almost every day when there are stories about a toddler shooting someone or being shot --- such as the lady who was braiding her daughter's hair and had her gun (why was she carrying at that time?) fall to the floor, discharge, and kill her daughter, or the man who shot his own son to death, thinking he was an intruder?
Is it sanctimony to be appalled by these things? Is it clueless to want to find ways to lessen the possibility of such tragedies? You ask us to understand you; what will you do in return?
In order to drive a car, one must demonstrate the ability to do so safely, and in most states, to carry insurance against harming others. Why is it unreasonable to require something similar with regard to guns?
15
It is a purely conservative trope to call these people gun haters ... they don't hate guns, they fear them, and they fear those who seem to worship them.
"Gun worshipers" not only want no new gun control laws, they want to eliminate all the ones that already exist. Does the NRA or its analogues endorse any gun control laws of any kind? NO? Then they endorse the repeal of every gun control measure that exists. No background checks for anyone, no laws limiting who can own what, no limitations on what sort of weapons are carried, how they are carried (no need for CC permits), or where they are brought.
The only laws concerning guns that they approve are those used to punish people when it is too late to undo what they have done. And even then they are willing to let it pass if it was "only an accident."
I oppose the banning or confiscation of guns. I used to own a gun, I may do so again. They are fun. They can be useful. But I am disgusted by the attitude of gun worshipers who always ready spit in the eye, and shake their fists in not their guns, at the people whom they intimidate.
"Gun worshipers" not only want no new gun control laws, they want to eliminate all the ones that already exist. Does the NRA or its analogues endorse any gun control laws of any kind? NO? Then they endorse the repeal of every gun control measure that exists. No background checks for anyone, no laws limiting who can own what, no limitations on what sort of weapons are carried, how they are carried (no need for CC permits), or where they are brought.
The only laws concerning guns that they approve are those used to punish people when it is too late to undo what they have done. And even then they are willing to let it pass if it was "only an accident."
I oppose the banning or confiscation of guns. I used to own a gun, I may do so again. They are fun. They can be useful. But I am disgusted by the attitude of gun worshipers who always ready spit in the eye, and shake their fists in not their guns, at the people whom they intimidate.
96
I think it is important to add that the fear that Obama wants to confiscate everyone's guns -- Ted Cruz at Republican debate two nights ago -- may seem really irrational and crazy, but it is undergirded by a fear of loss of control. Gun buyers are buying control over their lives. Many have a feeling that the world they know is being ripped away, by rapid social change, technological progress and fears of terrorism coming from abroad into our midst. If one feels that ISIS and Al Qaeda members could be one's neighbor, if transgender kids are using opposite bathrooms to their genitalia, girls are having abortions without their parents knowledge, only high tech mechanics can fix a car, and so forth, the world is spinning out of apparent control. Owning a gun, and having politicians who only say they will protect people's rights to own the guns, are a major source of perceived security. Until liberals (and I am one) speak in a language that addresses those fears, not only will gun possession advocates reject liberals as effete snobs, but they will double down on gun ownership. Understandably.
22
Amen to that!
@Christina Forbes - I agree completely. This is about one thing - fear. Fear that the government is going to confiscate guns (it was Rubio who made the statement that President Obama wants to "take your guns") only serves to reinforce the belief that to be armed is to be prepared & it provides the security so many are seeking. While I have great trouble accepting the absurdity of anyone who claims the government wants to confiscate your weapons, I understand that is what is preached by the NRA. I'll give Wayne LaPierre credit for sticking to the script, but, I find him & his message deeply disturbing.
1
Governor O'Malley of Maryland (the guy running for president, polling at about 3%) did his job so well that Beretta moved to Tennessee.
The average tenure of employees at the plant is 14 years, and about 50 percent of workers are minorities. A good number are women. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/beretta-moving-production-out-of-md....
Of course good paying jobs in manufacturing with health benefits are falling from the skies. I will guess that the unemployed people of this area will not be contributing to his presidential campagain.
The U.S. Military and law enforcement were major purchasers of these weapons.
Accokeek Md. must have not voted democratic, and stuffed enough cash in his till.
The average tenure of employees at the plant is 14 years, and about 50 percent of workers are minorities. A good number are women. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/beretta-moving-production-out-of-md....
Of course good paying jobs in manufacturing with health benefits are falling from the skies. I will guess that the unemployed people of this area will not be contributing to his presidential campagain.
The U.S. Military and law enforcement were major purchasers of these weapons.
Accokeek Md. must have not voted democratic, and stuffed enough cash in his till.
6
There are fewer smokers now than 30 years ago: do there are fewer jobs harvesting tobacco, and fewer jobs making cigarettes. Shall we encourage smoking so that those jobs come back?
Ever read G. B. Shaw's play, Major Barbara?
You know, it used to be said the safest neighborhoods in New York were the ones where mofiosi live. Nobody messed with the people who lived in those neighborhoods.
Do organized crime and gun manufacturing have anything in common? Certainly not!
You know, it used to be said the safest neighborhoods in New York were the ones where mofiosi live. Nobody messed with the people who lived in those neighborhoods.
Do organized crime and gun manufacturing have anything in common? Certainly not!
Universal background checks sound like a great idea to people who know nothing about how they could be implemented.
There is a chain of custody and recordkeeping with dealers and it can be overseen by BATF because they know who the licensed dealers are and what has been shipped to them.
It’s a completely different picture for casual sales. There is no starting point for recordkeeping. People might sell an occasional gun they no longer need or to replace it with one they like better.
You could have a widow with a few guns the late husband left behind that she wants to get rid of. First, she would have to know there is such a rule. Unlikely. Then how could she do it? Maybe she could ask they guy across the street who was a buddy of her husband to take them and dispose of them. But wait! At that point she would be committing a felony. She would have to get a background check on HIM before she could turn the guns over to him.
Then how could it even be done? On NPR a couple of weeks ago there was a comment from a gun dealer that it took 30 minutes to an hour on the phone with the FBI to get a check done. If she had to use a dealer to do the check, they would probably charge $50 or so to do the check. Not much of a deal unless they are pretty expensive guns.
At best it will create a bureaucratic jumble to drive people crazy. And maybe throw a few widows in the federal pen for trying to get rid of the late husband’s hardware.
There is a chain of custody and recordkeeping with dealers and it can be overseen by BATF because they know who the licensed dealers are and what has been shipped to them.
It’s a completely different picture for casual sales. There is no starting point for recordkeeping. People might sell an occasional gun they no longer need or to replace it with one they like better.
You could have a widow with a few guns the late husband left behind that she wants to get rid of. First, she would have to know there is such a rule. Unlikely. Then how could she do it? Maybe she could ask they guy across the street who was a buddy of her husband to take them and dispose of them. But wait! At that point she would be committing a felony. She would have to get a background check on HIM before she could turn the guns over to him.
Then how could it even be done? On NPR a couple of weeks ago there was a comment from a gun dealer that it took 30 minutes to an hour on the phone with the FBI to get a check done. If she had to use a dealer to do the check, they would probably charge $50 or so to do the check. Not much of a deal unless they are pretty expensive guns.
At best it will create a bureaucratic jumble to drive people crazy. And maybe throw a few widows in the federal pen for trying to get rid of the late husband’s hardware.
5
Good points.
Also worth mentioning is the fact that many of those who support universal background checks have no idea what is being checked for. They simply assume that anyone who might fail one is somehow bad and dangerous without realizing that many (millions) of people who do or would (if the letter of the law was being observed) fail them for reasons that have little or nothing to do with whether they are dangerous or irresponsible.
The following people, for example, are defined as "Prohibited Persons" under the Gun Control Act of 1968 - for whom it is a felony to possess so much as a single round of ammunition:
- Anyone convicted of a crime that *could have* resulted in a sentence of more than a year's imprisonment.
No distinction being made as to whether this was for a violent or non-violent act.
No consideration of what the actual sentence was. It could have been ten days in jail or even a suspended sentence. Does not matter.
- Any user of any substance on the federal government's list of Controlled Substances. The Justice Dept. has made it quite clear that this includes *any* cannabis use, even where locally legal or decriminalized.
Like we're going to be safer if cannabis users are all disarmed?
If background checks are to be used at all they should at least not be used to exclude people from gun ownership on grounds that have nothing to do with whether they would be responsible or not.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
Also worth mentioning is the fact that many of those who support universal background checks have no idea what is being checked for. They simply assume that anyone who might fail one is somehow bad and dangerous without realizing that many (millions) of people who do or would (if the letter of the law was being observed) fail them for reasons that have little or nothing to do with whether they are dangerous or irresponsible.
The following people, for example, are defined as "Prohibited Persons" under the Gun Control Act of 1968 - for whom it is a felony to possess so much as a single round of ammunition:
- Anyone convicted of a crime that *could have* resulted in a sentence of more than a year's imprisonment.
No distinction being made as to whether this was for a violent or non-violent act.
No consideration of what the actual sentence was. It could have been ten days in jail or even a suspended sentence. Does not matter.
- Any user of any substance on the federal government's list of Controlled Substances. The Justice Dept. has made it quite clear that this includes *any* cannabis use, even where locally legal or decriminalized.
Like we're going to be safer if cannabis users are all disarmed?
If background checks are to be used at all they should at least not be used to exclude people from gun ownership on grounds that have nothing to do with whether they would be responsible or not.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
4
So, of course, we should do nothing? Why are the gun enthusiasts not proposing legislation that makes sense if those of us who are appalled at the death toll from unfettered gun ownership don't have a clue?
1
My family owns rifles for hunting and 2 pistols for protection. All are kept locked away and separate from the bullets, although those of in the know can quickly arm ourselves. They are put away in places that a thief could never find.
We are southern democrats-- an entire family of 11-- some more moderate than others, but I would certainly say we are all liberal. We have a gay nephew who my 80-year-old parents would kill for. So, there we are.
We all believe there should be some form of laws in place to keep guns out of the hands of the deranged, those with criminal records and those on the FBI terrorist watch list. The one republican in our family (through marriage and the one I sleep with every night) is also for these checks.
The idea that "liberals" are a bunch of idiots when it comes to guns is rather condescending; many of us own guns. The article I would like to see is one in which republican politicians are not afraid to speak out on our behalf. They have become so afraid of the NRA and their constituents, they are silent, and their silence is causing Americans to die. Where is the patriotism when it comes to the blood on American soil?
We are southern democrats-- an entire family of 11-- some more moderate than others, but I would certainly say we are all liberal. We have a gay nephew who my 80-year-old parents would kill for. So, there we are.
We all believe there should be some form of laws in place to keep guns out of the hands of the deranged, those with criminal records and those on the FBI terrorist watch list. The one republican in our family (through marriage and the one I sleep with every night) is also for these checks.
The idea that "liberals" are a bunch of idiots when it comes to guns is rather condescending; many of us own guns. The article I would like to see is one in which republican politicians are not afraid to speak out on our behalf. They have become so afraid of the NRA and their constituents, they are silent, and their silence is causing Americans to die. Where is the patriotism when it comes to the blood on American soil?
434
Accidental deaths and suicides are not homicide. When you add them back in, how does the analysis change? Especially among children and young adults, accidents and suicide have to account for a huge percentage of their deaths. The baby who shot her mother in Walmart, the 9 year old who shot her range instructor when she lost control of her semi automatic, these are the stories left out of your homicide statistic.
I'm interested in gun related death rates and injury rates from the CDC to help us make informed decisions on gun control (or gun safety if you prefer), but they don't exist because the NRA won't allow it.
I'm interested in gun related death rates and injury rates from the CDC to help us make informed decisions on gun control (or gun safety if you prefer), but they don't exist because the NRA won't allow it.
7
The CDC got caught fudging the numbers to support an agenda thats why the Repubs shut that down. There are other independent studies that dont agree with the anti-gun nuts but go ignored. Accidents are accidents, why include them? Why include suicides?
4
to Pcuzz asking why accidents and suicides should be included in studies: Accidents and suicides must be part of the gun-safety research- even if there's no intent. We need to know statistically how many deaths and injuries are caused by firearms for comprehensive risk analysis to learn the true cost of gun use in our society and ways to improve gun safety.
Let's do as least as much safety research on firearms as we do on cars.
Let's do as least as much safety research on firearms as we do on cars.
4
No reason not to study accidents and suicide, if it is done ethically.
But where suicide and guns has been studied it generally showed that while guns were often used when available they did not really affect the suicide *rate*.
But where suicide and guns has been studied it generally showed that while guns were often used when available they did not really affect the suicide *rate*.
I tried this posting earlier but seems to have slipped between the cracks. It is good to see some honesty from liberals. To see the truth about other claims try a few web searches: "bloomberg twists gun research", "facts shoot holes in Obamas claim", and "mother jones mass shootings".
5
How about we just require for guns what we require for cars: training of some kind; a written test; a "road test" - or "range test" in the case of guns - ; and re-licensing every two to four years. I do not own a gun, but have taken a gun safety course which included experience on the firing range, so I am not against gun ownership. But I would like to have requirements in place which would include a registry - like we have with cars - of gun owners. No one thinks the government is going to take away our cars. Why the paranoia about the government and guns?
8
I am a medical doctor and life member of the NRA. It is refreshing to see in the pages of the NYT an article which attempts to present the gun owner side of the issue, though woefully incomplete. For example, as presently constructed, universal backround checks imply registration and the record of governments promising not to use registration to unduly restrict gun rights is poor, including in the USA. These lists have led to confiscation of firearms.
As for suicide, correlation is not causation. Many countries in the world have high suicide rates with means other than guns. The issue is suicide, not gun ownership.
You fail to credit the NRA and gun manufacturers and owners with reducing accidental gun deaths. This achievement was not accomplished by either government or other so called gun safety organizations, which are but thinly veiled gun bad organizations.
The NRA has challenged President Obama to a debate. Where is he?
As for suicide, correlation is not causation. Many countries in the world have high suicide rates with means other than guns. The issue is suicide, not gun ownership.
You fail to credit the NRA and gun manufacturers and owners with reducing accidental gun deaths. This achievement was not accomplished by either government or other so called gun safety organizations, which are but thinly veiled gun bad organizations.
The NRA has challenged President Obama to a debate. Where is he?
8
When in America have such lists led to confiscation?
As a doctor you must be very annoyed that so many useful medications are available "only with a prescription" and would prefer that we all be free to purchase whatever kinds of drug we like whenever and wherever we like, from whomever we like, and caveat emptor.
As a doctor you must be very annoyed that so many useful medications are available "only with a prescription" and would prefer that we all be free to purchase whatever kinds of drug we like whenever and wherever we like, from whomever we like, and caveat emptor.
3
Where was the NRA for the townhall on gun issues in Fairfax VA last week? Their HQ is 4.4 miles from the venue of that meeting. Their rep could have walked to it: yet they were conspicuous by their absence.
2
The NRA was invited to the town hall meeting with President Obama on CNN. they refused to come.
3
It would help if liberals would stop saying there's "300 hundred million firearms ....... that's one for etc. My comprehension ends at what I own. Also if they stop referring to backwards countries across the Atlantic still paying taxes to religions as examples of what we should be emulating. They do turn fascist at the slightest hint of trouble don't they?
The most obnoxious law ever passed, was a response to liberals over gun control, I'm talking about open carry. From what I've seen no one's doing it. Considering it's origin do you wonder why?
Speaking of obnoxious people they do like to play with liberals. Here in Texas they'll tell you global warming doesn't exist. Then build more windmills then any state in the Union. There I go dragging global warming into everything just like a liberal.
The most obnoxious law ever passed, was a response to liberals over gun control, I'm talking about open carry. From what I've seen no one's doing it. Considering it's origin do you wonder why?
Speaking of obnoxious people they do like to play with liberals. Here in Texas they'll tell you global warming doesn't exist. Then build more windmills then any state in the Union. There I go dragging global warming into everything just like a liberal.
1
Thank you, Joe G, for helping me understand the weaponized folks who object to the Second Amendment's rule about "regulating" their ownership of guns: "My comprehension ends at what I own."
That's why the deaths-by-gun of nearly 100 Americans *per day* doesn't faze them.
That's why the deaths-by-gun of nearly 100 Americans *per day* doesn't faze them.
6
Do we really want to treat guns like cars? If I violate the laws of use with a car and injure or kill someone while sober, my chances of being charged with a crime in the US are very low. If I fire a rifle into the air on the 4th of July and the bullet injures or kills someone, I guarantee you I'll be charged with a crime when they find me. How about we start treating two deadly tools the same.
2
When a neighbor of mine, absolutely sober, clipped a jogger with his car on a dark night, he went to jail for it. What are you talking about?
1
On 'liberal' ignorance of firearms.
The reason the assault weapons ban didn't work was that it only made cosmetic changes to the weapon. Instead, if you want to stop mass killings, disable features of the weapon that enhance this but don't disable other features for sportsmen, self defense, and target shooters. This can be done by requiring a maximum of a five round magazine that is permanently welded into place.
States require sportsmen to limit magazine size, so this change would not impact them unreasonably. No sportsman needs a thirty round detachable magazine to hunt deer.
Target shooters could still use the weapon, as five rounds is more than enough to fire before checking your target and reloading.
Five rounds is more than enough to stop an intruder so the weapon could be used for self defense. (A shotgun is better for home defense anyway, so why bother with an assault weapon?)
Manufacturers could still sell 'assault' style weapons, but with the 'assault' features disabled.
Mass murders though, would be affected. They could not just mow down innocents as the gun would cease to function after five rounds without time consuming reloading.
The reason the assault weapons ban didn't work was that it only made cosmetic changes to the weapon. Instead, if you want to stop mass killings, disable features of the weapon that enhance this but don't disable other features for sportsmen, self defense, and target shooters. This can be done by requiring a maximum of a five round magazine that is permanently welded into place.
States require sportsmen to limit magazine size, so this change would not impact them unreasonably. No sportsman needs a thirty round detachable magazine to hunt deer.
Target shooters could still use the weapon, as five rounds is more than enough to fire before checking your target and reloading.
Five rounds is more than enough to stop an intruder so the weapon could be used for self defense. (A shotgun is better for home defense anyway, so why bother with an assault weapon?)
Manufacturers could still sell 'assault' style weapons, but with the 'assault' features disabled.
Mass murders though, would be affected. They could not just mow down innocents as the gun would cease to function after five rounds without time consuming reloading.
7
What a breath of fresh air!
I have a good friend in Michigan - hunter, NRA member - he uses the terms "anti's" and "pro's" to describe the debates on social media about gun control. This is exactly the problem - and we see it reflected here in these comments.
As Nick says, the only way we're going to solve the problems of gun violence it for all of us - ALL of us! - to let go of our sacred cows, declare a cease-fire (wretched pun intended), and try working together to find solutions. My "pro" friend in Michigan is correct on many levels - the "anti's" have been using condescension and hyperbole far too often, and this has only contributed to the polarity.
My friend is a retired teacher and coach. He is one of the most caring, gracious, giving people I know. He is a liberal Democrat who simply doesn't follow the party line on this one issue. Once he posted that he is tired of being thought of as a "blood-thirsty" monster because of his support for gun rights.
This is the heart and soul of the argument: the demonization of those who disagree. My friend doesn't want to see a room full of slaughtered children any more than we do. We just differ on how to achieve our goals.
The gun debate is a microcosm of the polarity in America, and is exactly why we struggle to find common ground - it's difficult to compromise with someone when we've convinced ourselves that they are inhuman, uncaring, & moronic.
We need to return to seeing one another as fellow Americans.
I have a good friend in Michigan - hunter, NRA member - he uses the terms "anti's" and "pro's" to describe the debates on social media about gun control. This is exactly the problem - and we see it reflected here in these comments.
As Nick says, the only way we're going to solve the problems of gun violence it for all of us - ALL of us! - to let go of our sacred cows, declare a cease-fire (wretched pun intended), and try working together to find solutions. My "pro" friend in Michigan is correct on many levels - the "anti's" have been using condescension and hyperbole far too often, and this has only contributed to the polarity.
My friend is a retired teacher and coach. He is one of the most caring, gracious, giving people I know. He is a liberal Democrat who simply doesn't follow the party line on this one issue. Once he posted that he is tired of being thought of as a "blood-thirsty" monster because of his support for gun rights.
This is the heart and soul of the argument: the demonization of those who disagree. My friend doesn't want to see a room full of slaughtered children any more than we do. We just differ on how to achieve our goals.
The gun debate is a microcosm of the polarity in America, and is exactly why we struggle to find common ground - it's difficult to compromise with someone when we've convinced ourselves that they are inhuman, uncaring, & moronic.
We need to return to seeing one another as fellow Americans.
16
In the last four years more than 120.000 have died from guns in America,easy math four years multiplied by more than 31,000 gun deaths per year equals over 120.000 gun deaths, This is more than all the deaths in the Korean, Vietnam and gulf wars combined, source US DEPT. of DEFENSE. Since 9/11 wherein 3,000 died much more than 430,000 have died in America from firearms, again math 14 years multiplied by more than 31,000 per year equals more than 430,000 deaths in America from guns. In 2015 there were more gun deaths than vehicle deaths, over 31,000 vehicle,e deaths and over 33,000 gun deaths.These deaths are from all causes, accidents, suicide, homicides etc, There are some who do not want to count certain gun deaths, tell that to families who have to deal with reality, it is more than statistics
5
Mr. Kristof,
Regarding the Democratic nomination, which candidate do you think would be most effective at working with the right to pass some all-appeasing gun legislation? On the flip side, which Republican candidate would be easiest to work with from a Democratic legislator's perspective?
Regarding the Democratic nomination, which candidate do you think would be most effective at working with the right to pass some all-appeasing gun legislation? On the flip side, which Republican candidate would be easiest to work with from a Democratic legislator's perspective?
Lived for years in Manhattan; now live in Austin. Never owned a gun, don't hunt though I shot a few Coke cans on a range when I was a Boy Scout. Interesting thing here in Austin where you see pick up trucks with gun racks and lots of folks have guns at home: we have burglaries in the daytime but after the sun goes down all is all cozy and safe. The bad guys know they have a good chance of getting blown away should enter anyone's home at night!
5
Also recently in the news:
A mother who shot and killed her daughter who returned home from a vacation earlier than expected at night
A father who shot and killed his son who had come back into the basement after saying he was heading out to school
A mother who shot and killed her daughter who returned home from a vacation earlier than expected at night
A father who shot and killed his son who had come back into the basement after saying he was heading out to school
10
The news is alway events (shootings) that happened; deaths that don't occur due to deterrence are never reported but they are as real as the shootings.
I am a Pro NRA gun owner. This is the most common sense editorial I have ever read and agree with. When people say common sense gun laws, you must define this very clearly. Common sense to you is not common sense to all. Keeping guns out of people who should not have them is the goal. But....if you have some mental illness (again please define), currently its against the law to make that information public. That information will be used to discriminate against employment, housing, etc. Please remember, if these proposed gun laws existed before Newtown or any event. The laws would have NOT prevented one death. Fact.
6
All eminently true, but I’d like to expand upon its conclusion as follows: "If the left can drop the sanctimony, and the right can drop the obstructionism, if instead of wrestling with each other we can grapple with the evidence, we can save thousands of lives a year...” and just possibly re-create a functioning legislative branch.
4
Now that Kristof acknowledges that it is bad people nit bad guns who hurt people, might he start identifying who the bad people are? I think the FBI crime stats can help. But beware - you won't like what you find.
1
Having worked on the tedious research end of drafting laws and regulations, I am highly skeptical that the legislative staff drafting the new york gun ban didn't know that "for most guns there is no such thing and a magazine for seven bullets or less." This language must have been included for a reason. Perhaps it was meant to eliminate "most" guns or incentivize the gun manufacturers to manufacture gun magazines that carry less than seven bullets.
3
The REALLY inconvenient fact is that the vast majority of "gun crime" is committed by young Black males. But since we're forbidden to notice this, we'll get nowhere.
2
In the 90s the NRA and chorus told us gun ownership cut crime. Quite the opposite is true. They said if everybody was armed citizens could protect themselves from crime and terrorists. It has never happen once in schools work places or colleges. Let blast the lies. If 75% of voters want action, why do those who block reforn keep keeping reelected and lying through their teeth/
Since Cruz brought up New York values - why is crime lower, incomes higher and education better in NY than Texas?. Maybe its time to chuck red neck and, right-wing Christian values from states that live off Washington welfare?
Since Cruz brought up New York values - why is crime lower, incomes higher and education better in NY than Texas?. Maybe its time to chuck red neck and, right-wing Christian values from states that live off Washington welfare?
5
OK, but actually haven't heard many liberals, condescending or otherwise, call for the banning of guns. Seems you are setting up straw-liberals here in an effort to show the NRA you are different kind of respectful liberal. Then the group will listen to you and work with you. I have some bad news: it won't.
I support many of your proposals but if being condescending to gun owners is a bad thing it's no less bad for you to be condescending and sanctimonious to others who want to stop the slaughter but who may not seem as perfectly calibrated as you.
President Obama has called for some very sensible reforms. Notice the NRA and the Republican Party expressing reassurance and jumping on board? I haven't.
I support many of your proposals but if being condescending to gun owners is a bad thing it's no less bad for you to be condescending and sanctimonious to others who want to stop the slaughter but who may not seem as perfectly calibrated as you.
President Obama has called for some very sensible reforms. Notice the NRA and the Republican Party expressing reassurance and jumping on board? I haven't.
8
Once again we have a liberal columnist trying to compromise with the conservative community by coming at the problem from the standpoint that the community is willing to compromise if the liberal side will only take some blame for the gridlock and if the liberals can find the right label for their safety initiatives. You still don't get it Nick. There is no compromising with the NRA. No matter what you say (or how you say it) will move this immovable organization. Twist yourself into a pretzel if you like, they will still say you are trying to take their guns away and are infringing on their "God given" right to arm themselves without restrictions. The NRA doesn't care about gun safety, they are concerned with gun sales. Until we put pressure on the politicians that matches the pressure the NRA applies then we will be stuck with 90% of the people wanting background checks and the Congress only responding to the NRA's campaign checks. Until then we will have to satisfy ourselves with the work evolution is doing thinning out the herd with suicides and accidents.
8
“And every time liberals speak blithely about banning guns, they boost the N.R.A. Let’s also banish the term “gun control”: the better expression is “gun safety.”
Calling “gun control, gun safety” is a deliberate fabrication intended to disguise and distort the antigun agenda. It is patently dishonest and is intended to manipulate the thinking of the ignorant and uniformed. If the antigun crusade is so righteous then why the need to engage in such cheap word manipulation.
Calling “gun control, gun safety” is a deliberate fabrication intended to disguise and distort the antigun agenda. It is patently dishonest and is intended to manipulate the thinking of the ignorant and uniformed. If the antigun crusade is so righteous then why the need to engage in such cheap word manipulation.
4
Forget about gun safety and mental illness and homicide stats, anybody who took 4th grade social studies or reads the first sentence of the 2nd amendment knows its intention: to allow states to protect themselves in the event of some kind of national tyrannical takeover
When you treat the Bill of Rights like the Ten Commandments, you get this country we live in
When you treat the Bill of Rights like the Ten Commandments, you get this country we live in
5
The second amendment gives me the right to kill as many of my fellow citizens as I can, till one of them exercises their 2nd amendment rights on me. Remember its not hunting if it cant shoot back.....A
1
The second amendment actually doesn't give you the right to kill anyone. It gives you the ability to kill anyone. You can go and shoot 20 people, but you don't have the right to do so.
1
Thanks for demonstrating Mr. Kristof's point about the ignorance, intolerance and general disdain for anyone disagreeing with them that (unfortunately) characterizes all too many gun control advocates...
2
Anyone thinking than a total ban could be successfully implemented in our lifetimes, is kidding themselves. What the statistics don't yet show, is the impact of new products and increased gun marketing over recent years. I cringed as Chris Christie proudly talked of vetoing any restriction of 50 caliber sniper rifle sales. This military grade product is fairly new to consumers, and we don't yet know how hideous its first use in a notable crime spree might be. It's extreme range and armor piercing power plainly have no civilian purpose. Gun enthusiasts aren't doing their cause any favors either, by talking up armed intervention against a future government they don't like. Citing anti-government paranoia as a central reason to support their favorite amendment is problematic. A few more Oregon incidents and the wider public could turn on the gun lobby in unexpected ways.
2
There are answers to all of the problems you bring up, such as demographics, etc but the main thing I have learned by living in Europe, Japan and Australia for the last 20 years is how pleasant it is to live in societies where guns are not a "thing". I don't see regular citizens toting weapons around the stores or the theaters. If someone drifts into my lane I don't have to think twice about honking at them least they fly into a rage and blow my head off - as almost happened when I was back home in Texas recently. Here in Europe the poison of amateurs with guns are not something we have to fear. We can drink coffee in Starbucks without being disturbed by people with semi-automatic guns strapped to their belts. This gun-free life is normal and allows a sense of freedom I don't experience in the US. I'm not sure if I will return - because of our sick gun culture.
7
Blaming liberals for the NRA having purchased congress and instigated the highly profitable domestic arms race? Now that's just ridiculous. should we blame the victims of school shootings on being in the wrong place and time? And was it those dang liberals who pulled funding for gun death research in the first place?
5
Just back from rainy England, a society similar to the US, just without the guns and thus daily gun violence. Homicide deaths per 100K in the US: 10.6. In the UK: .23 . There's an inconvenient fact for you.
7
My wife is British, and I promise you that the UK is not "similar to the US." The Brits wallow in their socialism, and for their complacency they now know exactly what to expect from gun removal... The cops who euthanized my wife's dog after it attacked a burglar in her home displayed the arrogance of fascist nanny state cops and made her the criminal for trying to protect her family. So yes, I'm okay with such steps as are required to keep lying progressives masked as something else away from ALL my rights.
Dear Mr. Kristof - You hit on the key aspect for gun safety - evidence and data based steps. The sensible first step is for Congress to remove the ban on gun research, to shed light on the truth and dispel the lies that irresponsible gun owners seek refuge in.
1
There is a reason why I call these people NRA gun nut psychos--and this self-serving op-ed piece is one of them. (The argument is the argument of the prison sociopath...indifferent to the carnage that is gun violence.) The 2nd Amendment sanctifies the pathology of gun ownership. American society has said that those guns are worth owning despite the 84,258 gun injuries (of which some 1,211 are to kids less than age 14); despite the 19,974 suicides by gun; despite the 11,208 gun homicides (of which 183 happen to kids less than age 14). So for a yearly total of 115,440 people harmed by guns--American society says: "That is the price Americans are willing to pay for untrammeled gun ownership." By contrast, in 2013, the UK saw 24 gun homicides while Xmas Day, 2015, America saw 27 gun homicides. To me, Americans pay an awfully high price... Those murdered children in Newtown alone should cause for every American to wonder about untrammeled gun ownership--should there really be 100,000,000+ gun owners? With that number of gun owners, as the cartoonist says--America is indeed held hostage...
5
Here's something else liberals do to infuriate gun owners: they refuse to favor punishment for those that refuse to follow the law. Everything is aimed towards a blanket approach so you won't have to look bad people in the eye and tell them they are wrong and will be punished for it. A prime example is lying on the Federal form for purchasing firearm and running the background check. You have the individuals full personal information, yet when they are turned down, seldom is even a prosecution initiated. This despite the fact that lying on the form is a felony
2
People that are protected by armed security guards should not be trying to tell everyone to turn in their guns.
1
PS: Where in NC are you living that it is so dangerous you feel compelled to arm yourself. Perhaps the economy of scale provided by the community banding together to address they chaos under which you're living might be a safer solution?
It is good to see some honesty. Like the fact that the gun deaths count includes suicides. In fact suicides are about 60%. You can see more misleading statistics from Gun Ban Lobby explained with a few google searches. Try "bloomberg twists gun research", "facts shoot holes in Obamas claim", and "mother jones mass shootings"
1
This column is a bait-and-switch - a "limited hangout". These are not the most inconvenient truths for liberals (I consider myself one).
The inconvenient facts for liberals are that 85-90% of gun violence in the US is committed by a single moiety - and it's a moiety that we liberals have declared hands-off, in terms of any serious regulation of conduct.
Which is a shame, because over 90% of the victims of that violence come from the same moiety - a group of people whom we say we are uniquely concerned about.
But taboos are taboos, and shibboleths are shibboleths. So: that damn NRA!
The inconvenient facts for liberals are that 85-90% of gun violence in the US is committed by a single moiety - and it's a moiety that we liberals have declared hands-off, in terms of any serious regulation of conduct.
Which is a shame, because over 90% of the victims of that violence come from the same moiety - a group of people whom we say we are uniquely concerned about.
But taboos are taboos, and shibboleths are shibboleths. So: that damn NRA!
2
There is a easy fix for the so called "epidemic" of "gun" violence, put everyone convicted of a violent act regardless if they used a firearm, to life without parole. Violent people can't be fixed, I shouldn't have to live with violent people in society, my 5'2" girlfriend shouldn't be forced to defend herself from violent men.
if in the last 10 years 310,000 Americans died from taking a drug, would you ban that drug? Indeed you would but it is guns that inflict that carnage and somehow, still your response is tepid. What is it really? 310,000 Americans dead in 9 years and you want to talk about playing it sensible.Guns cause death,cling to your 2nd amendment if you want but admit it, the price you pay is intolerable.
1
“We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.”
Its not really that complicated. Good law abiding gun owners, which at a minimum is 90% of American gun owners, never have been and never will be the problem. It doesn’t mater how many guns they have or what type of guns they have. It doesn’t matter if they carry their guns concealed or open carry. There has never been a single gun in the history of the universe that has ever pulled its own trigger and there never will be a gun that pulls its own trigger. The problem is human and unless and until that becomes the primary focus of the antigun crowd there will be no real progress in America. If and when that does becomes the primary focus then you will find allies where you now find adversaries.
Its not really that complicated. Good law abiding gun owners, which at a minimum is 90% of American gun owners, never have been and never will be the problem. It doesn’t mater how many guns they have or what type of guns they have. It doesn’t matter if they carry their guns concealed or open carry. There has never been a single gun in the history of the universe that has ever pulled its own trigger and there never will be a gun that pulls its own trigger. The problem is human and unless and until that becomes the primary focus of the antigun crowd there will be no real progress in America. If and when that does becomes the primary focus then you will find allies where you now find adversaries.
2
A law-abiding firearms owner is until s/he isn't.
Mr. Kristof really needs to get over his childhood love of guns. I agree that background checks and not allowing abusive husbands to have guns are important steps in the right direction; however, the majority of daily gun deaths happen to one group: people who commit suicide, usually older white men who've probably owned guns for a long time and would have passed a background check easily. How do you get guns away from them? They're not criminals, they weren't mentally ill when they bought the gun, and they might not be mentally ill now; studies show most suicides are committed in a temporary state of depression. The only real solution is to follow Australia's lead and have a massive national gun buyback. That, combined with serious gun restrictions and a campaign to convince people guns are NOT sexy is the only way to make a real dent in our "exceptional" American gun problem. If that sounds sanctimonious to you, it says a lot more about you and your denial of the gun problem than it does about me—and the vast majority of the rest of the world would agree,
2
Is it really necessary that the lead photo show, full face, the child who is presumably there with her parent, but may be harassed once the haters on social media get going? I realize that the photography department is as leftist as the rest of the times, thus you get Gov. Walker's mouth wide open on the photo he is shown in on the editorial page, but the one with Hillary Clinton shows her in a nice pose, mouth closed.
As for "reasonable" restrictions on guns, they are as palatable to the American people and their representatives as "reasonable" restrictions on abortion are to the left. Slanted polls can show the same on both, and the slippery slope argument properly used
As for "reasonable" restrictions on guns, they are as palatable to the American people and their representatives as "reasonable" restrictions on abortion are to the left. Slanted polls can show the same on both, and the slippery slope argument properly used
I have to agree with you that liberals can be supercilious and condescending, and sometimes demonstrate, unfortunately, ignorance about guns. In fact, liberals (and I am one) have been known to be supercilious and condescending about many topics; however, we are usually well-informed. I also agree with your assessment that liberals have shot ourselves in the foot (so to speak) in our attempts to promote gun legislation.
2
Okay then. Let's amend the constitution, confiscate every gun. From everyone. If there are no guns, there will be no gun violence.
Case closed.
Kalidan
Case closed.
Kalidan
1
One important step is to reverse the ban on the federal government maintaining a database containing information on gun deaths. So much rhetoric is spewed with vehemence sans data,that little rational thought is engaged.some guns are moredeadlythanothers,somegroupsofpeoplemore homocidal than others,somecircumstances more deadly than others..let describe these and other pertinent variables. then,commence rational discussion.
The major obstacle here,of course, is the vile,profit only driven NRA.
The major obstacle here,of course, is the vile,profit only driven NRA.
Kudos to Mr. Kristof for presenting a relatively balanced viewpoint, even though we know he is anti-gun. (And I don't mean anti-gun in a derogatory manner; just a statement of where Mr. Kristof stands.
I would suggest though that the focus should be on violence, not just guns. Last week here in Columbus we had an incident of domestic violence, where a man recently released from prison killed his ex-girlfriend and her two daughters. As a felon, he was't allowed to have a gun so he stabbed his former girlfriend to death and slit the girls' throats.
It's not the guns, it's the violent people who kill - with or without a gun.
I would suggest though that the focus should be on violence, not just guns. Last week here in Columbus we had an incident of domestic violence, where a man recently released from prison killed his ex-girlfriend and her two daughters. As a felon, he was't allowed to have a gun so he stabbed his former girlfriend to death and slit the girls' throats.
It's not the guns, it's the violent people who kill - with or without a gun.
2
Kristof avoids comparing the US and other advanced countries. The other countries do NOT allow gun ownership, and for comparable groups the gun death rates are between 1/10 and 1/2 of US rates.
Does gun prohibition save lives? Yes. To avoid mentioning this so as to not offend the gun nuts is itself nutty.
The gun lobby has consistently opposed the one recommendation that Kristof makes, which is to prohibit gun ownership or acquisition by people who have recently threatened their spouse or other intimate partner. What makes him think the gun nuts will compromise on this now?
Would they be more likely to compromise if I called them gun enthusiasts instead of gun nuts? Nope. Bullies do more bullying if you do not stand up to them. (Columbia psychology major writing here.)
Take refuge in humor. Go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). One plank is making hypocritical Congress allow guns in their midst, as long as they insist that the rest of us allow guns in our midst. Send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
Does gun prohibition save lives? Yes. To avoid mentioning this so as to not offend the gun nuts is itself nutty.
The gun lobby has consistently opposed the one recommendation that Kristof makes, which is to prohibit gun ownership or acquisition by people who have recently threatened their spouse or other intimate partner. What makes him think the gun nuts will compromise on this now?
Would they be more likely to compromise if I called them gun enthusiasts instead of gun nuts? Nope. Bullies do more bullying if you do not stand up to them. (Columbia psychology major writing here.)
Take refuge in humor. Go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). One plank is making hypocritical Congress allow guns in their midst, as long as they insist that the rest of us allow guns in our midst. Send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
1
Yes, but there are a few other facts to consider. Compare deaths by gunfire between the USA and Japan. In the USA, about one child a day dies because of gunfire. In Japan the number is ZERO. In most years, Tokyo has ZERO deaths because of gunfire. Your chances of being killed by gunfire are 1,000 times greater in the USA than in Japan.
3
Regulate guns like cars. Gun owners must assume SOME responsibility for the safety of their lethal property.
Central registries for certificates of title, and licences; liability insurance; and 'rules of the road'.
The ubiquity of guns makes impulse and opportunity irresistible to children, despondent folks, and a rainbow of people to whom guns become an irresistible temptation.
This approach is low....low...hanging fruit. Think about it
Central registries for certificates of title, and licences; liability insurance; and 'rules of the road'.
The ubiquity of guns makes impulse and opportunity irresistible to children, despondent folks, and a rainbow of people to whom guns become an irresistible temptation.
This approach is low....low...hanging fruit. Think about it
1
..."we need a new strategy, a public health approach that treats guns as we do cars — taking evidence-based steps to make them safer", says Kristof.
Republicans have defunded CDC research on this issue. The NRA does not want studies done that may facilitate evidence based gun safety policy.
Republicans have defunded CDC research on this issue. The NRA does not want studies done that may facilitate evidence based gun safety policy.
1
Wow! A well stated, compelling and NEW approach to prevent the gun carnage in the United States. Thank you, thank you. I've been quite anti-gun in the home, having been terrified by my father w/ a gun and a domestic partner w/ a gun. You approach is sensible, affordable and I hope, get done-able. Thank you, thank you!
1
Everything he said in the article is dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. The restricting guns on those who "abuse alcohol" could mean taking a constitutional right away from those who had a DWI in college and have led a blameless life since.
Furthermore, Mx Kristoff (who likes guns just fine when starting a war of choice) overlooks the fact that the biggest gun problem is with those, such as Mx Emanuel's constituents in Chicago (including the cops) who break the gun laws and do not care. How many gun deaths in Chicago last year? How many of those were committed by those Kristoff's gun confiscationist regime would go after?
Furthermore, Mx Kristoff (who likes guns just fine when starting a war of choice) overlooks the fact that the biggest gun problem is with those, such as Mx Emanuel's constituents in Chicago (including the cops) who break the gun laws and do not care. How many gun deaths in Chicago last year? How many of those were committed by those Kristoff's gun confiscationist regime would go after?
"— without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less."
I don't know if they knew or not, but could the gun manufacturers make smaller magazines? Then that law could work.
I don't know if they knew or not, but could the gun manufacturers make smaller magazines? Then that law could work.
1
The correlation with a drop in gun violence correlates with the introduction of background checks on about 60% of all gun sales - this was signed into law in 1994 by President Clinton, the Brady Background Check Bill, Ronald Reagan was an advocate and lobbied for it.
Yes, the number of guns in America increased as well, but I think the greater factor is background checks and rising prison populations - each of which separate dangerous people from guns.
Yes, the number of guns in America increased as well, but I think the greater factor is background checks and rising prison populations - each of which separate dangerous people from guns.
Thank you for the article. With both sides firmly dug in, getting objective facts about guns is difficult. We need more than partisan talking points.
1
Mr. Kristof, I applaud you for being a person who sees the other side of a controversy and is not too hidebound to write about it. THANK YOU!!!
I agree that you are absolutely right. The argument should be about safety and not control. Again, I thank you for being able to discern a path forward that, perhaps, both parties can pursue.
FYI, readers, I don't own a gun and don't want to. I don't object to gun ownership. I do object to those who will not even consider what simple regulations might be able to do to keep more Americans safe. The death rate from guns is a national tragedy.
I agree that you are absolutely right. The argument should be about safety and not control. Again, I thank you for being able to discern a path forward that, perhaps, both parties can pursue.
FYI, readers, I don't own a gun and don't want to. I don't object to gun ownership. I do object to those who will not even consider what simple regulations might be able to do to keep more Americans safe. The death rate from guns is a national tragedy.
"Let’s make America’s gun battles less ideological and more driven by evidence of what works."
Yes, let's do that by electing a Senator from a rural state (Bernie Sanders, of course!) who is less idealogical about guns than the rest of the presidential candidates from both parties.
Sanders: "We have been yelling and screaming at each other about guns for decades, with very little success. I come from a state that has virtually no gun control. But the people of my state understand, I think, pretty clearly, that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles. In our state, guns are used for hunting. In Chicago, they're used for kids in gangs killing other kids or people shooting at police officers, shooting down innocent people. We need a sensible debate about gun control which overcomes the cultural divide that exists in this country. And I think I can play an important role in this."
Yes, let's do that by electing a Senator from a rural state (Bernie Sanders, of course!) who is less idealogical about guns than the rest of the presidential candidates from both parties.
Sanders: "We have been yelling and screaming at each other about guns for decades, with very little success. I come from a state that has virtually no gun control. But the people of my state understand, I think, pretty clearly, that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles. In our state, guns are used for hunting. In Chicago, they're used for kids in gangs killing other kids or people shooting at police officers, shooting down innocent people. We need a sensible debate about gun control which overcomes the cultural divide that exists in this country. And I think I can play an important role in this."
2
As Nicholas Kristof points out, we need legitimate research into what works. I favor universal background checks because they represent no impact on ownership and have the prospect of some limitations on criminal possession of firearms. We should not believe that this is a panacea as 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides and likely available to virtually all who would use guns for this purpose. To tackle suicides, we must empower some combination of family and courts to withdraw or limit access to firearms people who are dangerously mentally ill. Ridiculous NRA concerns aside, this should not be impossible.
Criminal use of firearms seems nearly as direct. There must be a certain and extreme penalty for use of firearms in a crime. The penalties must be certain or as with current law, criminals are not deterred by laws that are not upheld.
Any violent crime perpetrated with a firearm should result in a Federal prison sentence of no less than 10 years. period. no exceptions. From an old person being pistol whipped, a person robbed at gun point, or a drunk husband who brandishes a gun threatening his spouse to the armed Oregon anti-government nuts, use a gun in a crime, Go to jail.
The NRA refuses to endorse such a regime because of their insane concern about the most minuscule potential impact on gun owners. Liberals refuse to consider laws that place people in prison.
No one seems concerned about the safety of the regular citizen and their rights to a safe life.
Criminal use of firearms seems nearly as direct. There must be a certain and extreme penalty for use of firearms in a crime. The penalties must be certain or as with current law, criminals are not deterred by laws that are not upheld.
Any violent crime perpetrated with a firearm should result in a Federal prison sentence of no less than 10 years. period. no exceptions. From an old person being pistol whipped, a person robbed at gun point, or a drunk husband who brandishes a gun threatening his spouse to the armed Oregon anti-government nuts, use a gun in a crime, Go to jail.
The NRA refuses to endorse such a regime because of their insane concern about the most minuscule potential impact on gun owners. Liberals refuse to consider laws that place people in prison.
No one seems concerned about the safety of the regular citizen and their rights to a safe life.
I agree that "we need a new strategy," but it also needs to be a strategy involving serious effort at significant reform. So far we have had non-clever strategies, timidly pursued, aimed at achieving token measures, and failing miserably at reaching even such token gains.
The sheer number of guns is not the crux of the problem; it is the readiness with which almost any half-way determined would-be killer can obtain one or more. Very few other countries go to such extremes to make murder easy.
We are many generations removed from the late 18th and early 19th century nation of remote farmers supplementing an agricultural subsistence with hunted game, and organized in militias for protection against attacks by hostile native American tribes. There is no good reason why America today needs a much higher percentage of the population to be gun owners, and under much laxer laws, than in most other civilized democracies, and no excuse for not pushing much harder for more significant and meaningful moves away from that pointless and highly destructive outlier status.
The sheer number of guns is not the crux of the problem; it is the readiness with which almost any half-way determined would-be killer can obtain one or more. Very few other countries go to such extremes to make murder easy.
We are many generations removed from the late 18th and early 19th century nation of remote farmers supplementing an agricultural subsistence with hunted game, and organized in militias for protection against attacks by hostile native American tribes. There is no good reason why America today needs a much higher percentage of the population to be gun owners, and under much laxer laws, than in most other civilized democracies, and no excuse for not pushing much harder for more significant and meaningful moves away from that pointless and highly destructive outlier status.
3
I'm very impressed by the tone of this article. Thank you for trying to make this debate more civil.
1
It's nice to include statistics, but you really need to drop suicides from that number. Those deaths don't help your case, because conservatives will say they don't count, since the depressed can always find another way. Without knowing the percentage of gun deaths that are suicides, we're left to make up a number on our own. Is it 10%? 90%? This matters a lot.
Restrictions to gun ownership in Chicago, L.A., and D.C. (to name a few) are greater than what is being proposed at the national level. Given the amount of gun crime in these gun-free utopias, these restrictions are ineffective and unnecessary infringements of the second amendment.
1
firstly, we have no valid data, the NRA has prevented the CDC from researching gun deaths. Secondly we have more gun deaths than ever yearly in the US, in spite of the drop in homicides. Seems to me it's the conservatives who have some inconvenient facts to face.
1
I am a northeast liberal and a veteran with over thirty years of active and reserve military service. I have used firearms as weapons. I am glad now to use them to punch little holes in paper. I enjoy that, and teaching my family and friends about gun safety.
I cringe when my fellow liberals "shoot themselves in the foot" due to their ignorance of firearms. Calling magazines clips. Confusing bullets with cartridges. Saying automatic, when you mean semi-automatic. That ignorance is inexcusable. It proves to the NRA ideologues that they are dealing with people who know not of what they speak.
Let us lose the sanctimony about firearms. Firearms are not evil. People who use them for murder, terror, and threats are.
If we lose that sanctimonious judgment, we can engage the majority of gun owners who advance the cause of gun safety.
I cringe when my fellow liberals "shoot themselves in the foot" due to their ignorance of firearms. Calling magazines clips. Confusing bullets with cartridges. Saying automatic, when you mean semi-automatic. That ignorance is inexcusable. It proves to the NRA ideologues that they are dealing with people who know not of what they speak.
Let us lose the sanctimony about firearms. Firearms are not evil. People who use them for murder, terror, and threats are.
If we lose that sanctimonious judgment, we can engage the majority of gun owners who advance the cause of gun safety.
4
I so appreciate what you share. But, and it is a big "but"! Pro lifers are absolutists. There is no reason acceptable to them for an abortion and many contraceptives are also opposed. You cannot negotiate and compromise. This same attitude is where I find the NRA. Because the right is simply absolute in their views there is no opportunity to discuss and consider options and new technology. The absolute views disregard the carnage of American lives. All Americans should be incensed by the continued daily deaths. I'm afraid. hardened positions out weigh compassion. The challenge is for those on the right to welcome discussion rather than create a wall. Gee, walls, that seems to be the mantra of the GOP! Keep people out and apparently keep ideas away too. When will the moderates - the majority - be heard rather than the extremists?
2
Looking in the mirror is always useful, That said, shortly after Sandy Hook, I started a blog, "End the Madness" (www.endthemadnessnow.org) dedicated to spurring public action to confront the scourge of lethal gunfire in America. Newtown CT was so horrible that I felt, and still do, as though a bag of bricks had been thrown at my gut, and I wasn't even victimized.
I consider myself liberal and am very proud of it. Without liberalism, we'd still have slavery; women would be barred from voting; eight-year-olds would be working in deep-pit coal mines; workers would have no protection from toxic workplace chemicals; people in Appalachia would be reading by oil lamp, and so forth. (Conservatives are protected by these measures too.)
Let me indulge in my own supercilious condescension. Yes, gun homicides have fallen, but not gun deaths overall. Yes, the assault rifle ban wasn't effective, because it was DESIGNED not to be effective. No responsible liberal I know (including the President) advocates banning all guns notwithstanding the inflamed rhetoric on the "responsible" right. If assault rifles cause "only" 2% of American gun deaths, that amounts to nearly 700 per year. These victims are no less dead nor their families no less devastated by such loss.
When I see gratuitous bumper stickers that read "Keep honking; I'm re-leading" or "If you can read this, you're in my sights," forgive me if I chafe at being called "condescending" or "supercilious." People are dying, in droves.
I consider myself liberal and am very proud of it. Without liberalism, we'd still have slavery; women would be barred from voting; eight-year-olds would be working in deep-pit coal mines; workers would have no protection from toxic workplace chemicals; people in Appalachia would be reading by oil lamp, and so forth. (Conservatives are protected by these measures too.)
Let me indulge in my own supercilious condescension. Yes, gun homicides have fallen, but not gun deaths overall. Yes, the assault rifle ban wasn't effective, because it was DESIGNED not to be effective. No responsible liberal I know (including the President) advocates banning all guns notwithstanding the inflamed rhetoric on the "responsible" right. If assault rifles cause "only" 2% of American gun deaths, that amounts to nearly 700 per year. These victims are no less dead nor their families no less devastated by such loss.
When I see gratuitous bumper stickers that read "Keep honking; I'm re-leading" or "If you can read this, you're in my sights," forgive me if I chafe at being called "condescending" or "supercilious." People are dying, in droves.
4
Many shotguns have a designed capacity of up to five shells (four in the magazine, one in the chamber) but most are plugged (by law) to accept only three shells. This is a Federal rule for hunting migratory birds and state law for other forms of hunting as well - yet there is almost no complaint about it. Wonder why? Is it the users and the use? Point is, there are capacity restrictions that have been around for a long time and don't gt much blow back.
2
The fact that homicides went down 50% since 1993 despite the increase in the number of guns suggests that the root cause of violence is not guns but the violent "nature" of American society. This reminds me of the drug war. The drug war is premised on drugs as the root cause of addiction. The truth is that you can't get rid of drugs if you can't get rid of the root cause. There are two forms of violence: violence against others. The preferred instrument for outward-directed violence at the moment is guns. The other form of violence is self-directed violence. The preferred instrument is drugs, and in extreme cases guns for suicide. The violent nature of society can only be cured over time when we give more value and importance to virtues like compassion, love, care, and concern for our brothers and sisters. How do we do this? That is the challenge. For instance, how did the maurading Germanic hordes become the enlightened, caring society of the Netherlands? If we knew how, perhaps we could fast forward with novel solutions that expedite changes that took centuries in the past. In the meantime, a show of genuine concern can be expressed by common sense background checks and gun safety laws. That is one step forward towards a compassionate and caring society, even if the gun statistics don't show any significant improvement because of it- yet.
1
Evidence-based politics, what a novel notion! Would there then be an equivalent of the Cochrane library of policy solutions that are proven to work? Politicians could then choose from there measures that fit their ideological or societal goals.
As always, a completely reasonable proposal. As one who has worked extensively on this problem in my state (CA) I agree entirely; the problem is, call it whatever you want--gun safety, gunsense--the NRA, the gun lobby and gun extremists (many of whom comprise these heavily-armed "patriot militias") radically & violently DON'T agree. As history has shown, a "reasonable" conversation with the NRA simply is not possible. I've had more than a few lengthy Twitter exchanges with gun extremists that always end with: the 2nd amendment is a "God given right" and any common sense regulation is an unconstitutional infringement. Period, end of conversation.
As with 'radical Islam,' the moderate voices among responsible gun owners must made themselves heard. Until then, a reasonable conversation with the gun lobby will not be possible. They have made it abundantly clear, they are not interested in reasonable solutions. They are not interested in ANY solutions -- aside from more guns than the 300 million+ already in private hands.
That said, I absolutely agree this is a public health issue and should be addressed as such. We can & should do much better than we are doing on gun safety.
As with 'radical Islam,' the moderate voices among responsible gun owners must made themselves heard. Until then, a reasonable conversation with the gun lobby will not be possible. They have made it abundantly clear, they are not interested in reasonable solutions. They are not interested in ANY solutions -- aside from more guns than the 300 million+ already in private hands.
That said, I absolutely agree this is a public health issue and should be addressed as such. We can & should do much better than we are doing on gun safety.
2
Some good points here, and everyone would benefit from a factual rather than a hysterical discussion of the complexities involved when a noteworthy minority refuse to discuss ANY efforts to increase gun safety. As a college teacher, I had a journalism class research what was then a proposed concealed-carry bill before the General Assembly. I was concerned that passage of the bill (now law) would lead to an increase in gun incidents involving those carrying weapons. Data from states that already had concealed-carry provided facts that showed this not to be the case, and I changed my view on that.
But the article neglects to address the psychological effect of increasing numbers of people walking around with loaded firearms. Ohio's General Assembly forbade concealed-carry in the Statehouse, an exception to otherwise-broad parts of the community where it's allowed. This suggests some awareness that there are in fact places where such behavior is a bad idea. (An AP story yesterday included a picture of open-carry individuals standing immediately outside the governor's office in Olympia. The intent behind this action is...?) It might be worthwhile to investigate the impact on the public's psychological reaction and general sense of well-being when the weapons-inclined feel strut through neighborhoods or businesses with assault rifle knockoffs slung over their shoulders. What's the intent of this, and what's the impact on the social fabric?
But the article neglects to address the psychological effect of increasing numbers of people walking around with loaded firearms. Ohio's General Assembly forbade concealed-carry in the Statehouse, an exception to otherwise-broad parts of the community where it's allowed. This suggests some awareness that there are in fact places where such behavior is a bad idea. (An AP story yesterday included a picture of open-carry individuals standing immediately outside the governor's office in Olympia. The intent behind this action is...?) It might be worthwhile to investigate the impact on the public's psychological reaction and general sense of well-being when the weapons-inclined feel strut through neighborhoods or businesses with assault rifle knockoffs slung over their shoulders. What's the intent of this, and what's the impact on the social fabric?
1
Why can't the judge issuing a restraining order ask the aggressor, or both, two questions? Do you have access to a gun? Would you agree to give up your gun voluntarily until this matter is resolved?
I'm sure the local sheriff would be happy to hold onto his or her guns for a couple of months.
I'm sure the local sheriff would be happy to hold onto his or her guns for a couple of months.
Something not often discussed about the "open carry" laws is their inherent racism.
A white guy walking down the street with a holstered gun will generate curiosity and maybe a polite inquiry from the police.
But a black guy walking down the street with a holstered gun?
A white guy walking down the street with a holstered gun will generate curiosity and maybe a polite inquiry from the police.
But a black guy walking down the street with a holstered gun?
The sheer number of people killed by guns is the only number that matters to me. I don't care what kind of gun is used to do the killing. We clearly have a problem with firearms. As long as one party with the blessing of the NRA will do anything in its power to prevent studies of gun violence and is all to willing to ignore the will of the American people, the killings will continue. And I'm afraid re-naming it "gun safety" won't change a thing.
Unfortunately, common sense has little to do with the gun safety laws. Nor do the statistics that you quoted, Nicholas. The gun lobby has so successfully indoctrinated their followers into believing that any safety law is going down the slippery slope to taking their guns away. No matter how often this lie is disputed, the believers have their ears stuffed with cotton and do not believe the truth or facts.
How do you fight the ideology and the tribal mentality that permeates out politics? Facts are disputed, proof is denied and ignorance prevails. It's discouraging.
How do you fight the ideology and the tribal mentality that permeates out politics? Facts are disputed, proof is denied and ignorance prevails. It's discouraging.
1
The fact that the NRA has shut down any efforts to talk about gun deaths as a public health threat is appalling. When Congress cut funding to the Center for Disease Control to address gun violence, it was obvious the NRA owns Congress. And it's not only the political parties that can't sit down together to talk about sane gun safety -- it's often individuals as well. As soon as I bring up the topic of reducing deaths by guns, many of my gun-owning friends or acquaintances immediately cite the Second Amendment and rant about how liberals like me want to take away their constitutional rights. (Of course, none of them belong to a well-regulated militia, but I digress.) If we can't even rationally talk about the problem, how can we fix it?
1
As a kid, I enrolled NRA safety courses. Rifles and a shotgun were tools on our farm. I taught sailors how to shoot, both handguns and rifles. I have healthy respect for formal, ongoing training. Background checks, of course, but given the carnage, training and registration must be adopted now. NRA opposition reflects its dependence on manufacturers with which it is in bed.
The present interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is wrong IMO. However, mandatory training, a condition of registration and licensing, isn't a threat to NRA's interpretation.
The model is auto registration/licensing. A license permits ownership, registration provides the tool to keep track of weapons. It becomes the means to make sure owners and shooters are trained in their use and safety. Ammunition should be traceable, available only to licensed owners in reasonably limited quantities. (Registered gun clubs could be an exception for ammunition used only on its closed range.) Formal transfer should protect against liability for subsequent misuse of a firearm. Possession without license/registration should be a felony.
Even with its limitations, weapons must be test fired, bore & breach markings recorded, those tests at every transfer.
Military style weapons have no place in civilian hands. No legitimate hunter would take one into the field. Their only purpose is to kill people. Likewise, handguns. Carry permits should be limited to law-enforcement and trained security personnel.
The present interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is wrong IMO. However, mandatory training, a condition of registration and licensing, isn't a threat to NRA's interpretation.
The model is auto registration/licensing. A license permits ownership, registration provides the tool to keep track of weapons. It becomes the means to make sure owners and shooters are trained in their use and safety. Ammunition should be traceable, available only to licensed owners in reasonably limited quantities. (Registered gun clubs could be an exception for ammunition used only on its closed range.) Formal transfer should protect against liability for subsequent misuse of a firearm. Possession without license/registration should be a felony.
Even with its limitations, weapons must be test fired, bore & breach markings recorded, those tests at every transfer.
Military style weapons have no place in civilian hands. No legitimate hunter would take one into the field. Their only purpose is to kill people. Likewise, handguns. Carry permits should be limited to law-enforcement and trained security personnel.
3
Mr. Kristof's proposal is rational and is a good start in the effort to combat gun violence. The problem is large and every effort to solve the problem must be considered.
Kristof, I always admire your look-at-the-other-perspective approach, but I'm afraid that you're working with a false equivalency.
You implore that liberals not empower the NRA with their attitude and inadequate knowledge, but the NRA is empowered by money. They are one of the most powerful lobby groups. They evaluate politicians and states and reach into their deep pockets accordingly, either with support or with smear ads. Their stranglehold keeps the CDC from studying gun violence as an epidemic.
You implore that liberals act with "less ideology" and "drop the sanctimony," but those attributes are what gun lovers succeed with. The Republican candidates speak of unfettered access to guns as among America's founding principles and a direct right from God. Following California's gun tragedy, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump reiterated that more guns are the solution. Marco Rubio boasted of spending Christmas Eve buying a rifle in a packed gun store filled with patrons frightened that President Obama will come for their arms. Chris Christie walked back his sensible gun restrictions and stokes the confiscation fears. Dr. Carson said that he never saw a bullet-riddled body so disturbing as encroaching on the Second Amendment.
So while I agree with your ultimate conclusion, just like Bernie Sanders' approach that we must all come together for a solution, our highest leaders need to come to the table honestly, not as mouthpieces, for that to happen.
You implore that liberals not empower the NRA with their attitude and inadequate knowledge, but the NRA is empowered by money. They are one of the most powerful lobby groups. They evaluate politicians and states and reach into their deep pockets accordingly, either with support or with smear ads. Their stranglehold keeps the CDC from studying gun violence as an epidemic.
You implore that liberals act with "less ideology" and "drop the sanctimony," but those attributes are what gun lovers succeed with. The Republican candidates speak of unfettered access to guns as among America's founding principles and a direct right from God. Following California's gun tragedy, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump reiterated that more guns are the solution. Marco Rubio boasted of spending Christmas Eve buying a rifle in a packed gun store filled with patrons frightened that President Obama will come for their arms. Chris Christie walked back his sensible gun restrictions and stokes the confiscation fears. Dr. Carson said that he never saw a bullet-riddled body so disturbing as encroaching on the Second Amendment.
So while I agree with your ultimate conclusion, just like Bernie Sanders' approach that we must all come together for a solution, our highest leaders need to come to the table honestly, not as mouthpieces, for that to happen.
2
The most cogent statement in this op-ed piece is that the gun violence issue is not gun control it is gun safety. Gun control may be thought of as one means of reducing gun violence but it is not the objective- gun safety is.
The expression gun control is counter productive to achieving any meeting of minds or to addressing the problem its intended to ameliorate. In fact, as we have experienced, the mention of gun control conjures the image of the government confiscating everyone's gun. This idea is politically convenient for GOP candidates and the NRA to use as a scare tactic ( also good for selling more guns) but everyone who has a modicum of common sense knows this is politically and practically impossible.
However, the politicalization of gun violence and gun rights to garner electoral support from the Republican base hurts everyone and assures more incidents of gun violence and injury and death of the innocents. The greatness of this country is in finding practical solutions to problems and not being stuck in ideological straight-jackets. Except that's what the increasingly ideological right wing Republicans have done to this country in disabling an entire nation from protecting their most vulnerable citizens.
The expression gun control is counter productive to achieving any meeting of minds or to addressing the problem its intended to ameliorate. In fact, as we have experienced, the mention of gun control conjures the image of the government confiscating everyone's gun. This idea is politically convenient for GOP candidates and the NRA to use as a scare tactic ( also good for selling more guns) but everyone who has a modicum of common sense knows this is politically and practically impossible.
However, the politicalization of gun violence and gun rights to garner electoral support from the Republican base hurts everyone and assures more incidents of gun violence and injury and death of the innocents. The greatness of this country is in finding practical solutions to problems and not being stuck in ideological straight-jackets. Except that's what the increasingly ideological right wing Republicans have done to this country in disabling an entire nation from protecting their most vulnerable citizens.
"We spend billions of dollars tackling terrorism, which killed 229 Americans worldwide from 2005 through 2014, according to the State Department. In the same 10 years, including suicides, some 310,000 Americans died from guns."
These are the two statistics that say it all. Focussing on terrorism is 'sexy' and prone to universal approval. But the really hard, nitty-gritty of preventing accidental deaths, impulse shootings and suicides becomes partisan.
Nicholas Kristof does indeed highlight weaknesses in the liberals' approach, including poor public relations, but never has a national debate become more necessary than for this exceptionally U.S. phenomenon of gun proliferation.
These are the two statistics that say it all. Focussing on terrorism is 'sexy' and prone to universal approval. But the really hard, nitty-gritty of preventing accidental deaths, impulse shootings and suicides becomes partisan.
Nicholas Kristof does indeed highlight weaknesses in the liberals' approach, including poor public relations, but never has a national debate become more necessary than for this exceptionally U.S. phenomenon of gun proliferation.
3
Intelligent debate requires reliable data. In the gun debate, most of the data out there is produced either by NRA sympathizers or gun control advocacy centers. I agree with Mr. Kristof that "it's complicated". And I believe that more and better empirical data would make the issue less complicated. I don't know if hard facts will carry the day. But I'd still like to know what's true and what's not true.
2
Actually, the hardest facts are produced by the US CDC, which can hardly be considered partisan. Most of our gun homicide victims are are young minorities killed by young minorities.
The data I cited is from "Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008,"
published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in November 2011.
published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in November 2011.
1
Mr. Kristof,
Thanks for pointing to the imperative that we must always introspect with regards to our own innate biases. Clarity of one's own bias leads to a well informed position from which to make the best case for better person-to-gun management in the U.S.
Thanks for pointing to the imperative that we must always introspect with regards to our own innate biases. Clarity of one's own bias leads to a well informed position from which to make the best case for better person-to-gun management in the U.S.
6
Consider that with these crazy concealed-carry and open-carry laws, people can now carry guns into banks parking lots -- and perhaps banks themselves. These laws also put more police officers at risk. Who is going to want to make a house call to follow up a disturbance or pull someone over, if the risk is heightened that they will meet with armed resistance.
7
I think that liberals are actually too cowed on this subject. What we need is a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, or at least a clarification in the wake of the Supreme Court suddenly deciding in recent years that it means everyone gets to carry an Uzi to kindergarten. Changing the Amendment won't happen overnight. It will take a cultural shift, an astounding educational campaign, guts and persistence. But it will have clarity and purpose. At present, anti-gun folks get caught up in absurd dialogues like the number of bullets, or the definition of semi-automatic, when what people like me mean is: private citizens shouldn't have the means to instantly kill each other. It happens to work in too many other countries to bother listing. I know, the U.S. is different. But it is also capable of changing.
7
What we have is anything but well regulated gunners. We have a mob of liars turning the English Language on its head and threatening us with insurrection. The second amendment is being defied right now. It needs to be enforced, not repealed.
6
"The second amendment is being defied right now. It needs to be enforced, not repealed."
And what would you propose to do about the the 40+ states where an individual right to keep and bear arms for defense is either an explicit provision of the state constitution or established by judicial precedent? (New York, New Jersey and California are among the outlying few that do not provide for this).
New Hampshire is fairly typical:
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Oregon:
The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]
Wisconsin:
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
Starting to get the picture?
Not that I have anything against a properly organized militia. Much preferable to a standing military.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
And what would you propose to do about the the 40+ states where an individual right to keep and bear arms for defense is either an explicit provision of the state constitution or established by judicial precedent? (New York, New Jersey and California are among the outlying few that do not provide for this).
New Hampshire is fairly typical:
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Oregon:
The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]
Wisconsin:
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
Starting to get the picture?
Not that I have anything against a properly organized militia. Much preferable to a standing military.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
The "equation of guns with danger" is perhaps not so dangerous as the danger of equating liberty with the ownership of a gun. While no one rightly expected gun homicides to grow in proportion to gun sales, defense of gun ownership as if it was a right--see http://wp.me/p36T6t-4vN, and articles by Dorothy Samuels--is a compromised understanding of personal liberties that not only accepts gun manufacturers' arguments, but reduces our abilities to respond to a serious crisis in public health and public safety. It is terrifying that alleged rights to legal ownership of guns have been tragically widely misconstrued as celebrating gun possession in very irresponsible ways. We deserve to try to reduce gun violence by encouraging control of access to guns: there is no real or compelling reason for allowing any assault weapons to be promoted as an individual right.
1
"there is no real or compelling reason for allowing any assault weapons to be promoted as an individual right."
There is no more fundamental human right than that of the defense of one's own person, family or community. For this to be meaningful in concrete terms, the right to reasonable means of exercising it must be recognized as well. On the level of retail crime, a fit and accomplished martial artist might be able to fight off an assault without resorting to weapons, but a frail, elderly person deserves the right to an equalizer (Thank you, Col. Colt and Comrade Kalashnikov.)
And the death toll from retail level crime and war is dwarfed by that of states killing their own people (AKA - "democide"). Given the fire and other power of a modern state, an assault rifle hardly amounts to an equalizer but more like bare minimum.
No, liberty does not "equal" owning a gun, but owning one has often, historically, been key to achieving or retaining liberty.
Not to mention life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
There is no more fundamental human right than that of the defense of one's own person, family or community. For this to be meaningful in concrete terms, the right to reasonable means of exercising it must be recognized as well. On the level of retail crime, a fit and accomplished martial artist might be able to fight off an assault without resorting to weapons, but a frail, elderly person deserves the right to an equalizer (Thank you, Col. Colt and Comrade Kalashnikov.)
And the death toll from retail level crime and war is dwarfed by that of states killing their own people (AKA - "democide"). Given the fire and other power of a modern state, an assault rifle hardly amounts to an equalizer but more like bare minimum.
No, liberty does not "equal" owning a gun, but owning one has often, historically, been key to achieving or retaining liberty.
Not to mention life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
Perhaps if poor quality of life in the cities was addressed and activities and better education for urban youth was addressed, the cities, and yes the suburban drug problems also, would not exist.
I do not like being around guns, but many of my relatives who live in the south have guns in the home and I can not judge them poorly for having a gun in the home; just make it inaccessible to those in the home who might harm them self or others unintentionally.
We have to address illegal gun purchases and straw gun purchases and background checks on all gun purchases.
Smart guns, also might help.
I do not like being around guns, but many of my relatives who live in the south have guns in the home and I can not judge them poorly for having a gun in the home; just make it inaccessible to those in the home who might harm them self or others unintentionally.
We have to address illegal gun purchases and straw gun purchases and background checks on all gun purchases.
Smart guns, also might help.
1
Why is this yet another "left/right" issue? I don't get it. This is partly an urban vs. rural issue and people in cities tend, as noted stunningly the other night the Republican debate, to be more liberal than those living in rural zones.
This is, first, a cultural/tribal issue that has been neatly sliced up for political conflict. It consists of people who've never handled or been around guns, having lived in cities, vs. people who grew up around guns and don't see them as any big deal, unless someone is imagined to be coming to take them away
I grew up mainly in Texas, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. In the latter case, it is a big gun state outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh because deer hunting, beer drinking and all male retreats into hunting cabins the fall woods are a long tradition. The NRA has framed our national, sputtering dialog in a way that gun safety never gets discussed. They win, we lose
Thousands of gun deaths could be stopped through education. While our Constitution provides the govt. can work for "the general welfare", we don't, as a society or a govt., take much or any responsibility for actual, individual well being. Perhaps we need an additional yr. of school, or a more practical orientation to high school rather than assuming everyone is going to be an academic or a failure. People are not told about the dangers of suicide and spouse murder, so they keep guns in their houses as if they were just another appliance. One day, the appliance bites back.
This is, first, a cultural/tribal issue that has been neatly sliced up for political conflict. It consists of people who've never handled or been around guns, having lived in cities, vs. people who grew up around guns and don't see them as any big deal, unless someone is imagined to be coming to take them away
I grew up mainly in Texas, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. In the latter case, it is a big gun state outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh because deer hunting, beer drinking and all male retreats into hunting cabins the fall woods are a long tradition. The NRA has framed our national, sputtering dialog in a way that gun safety never gets discussed. They win, we lose
Thousands of gun deaths could be stopped through education. While our Constitution provides the govt. can work for "the general welfare", we don't, as a society or a govt., take much or any responsibility for actual, individual well being. Perhaps we need an additional yr. of school, or a more practical orientation to high school rather than assuming everyone is going to be an academic or a failure. People are not told about the dangers of suicide and spouse murder, so they keep guns in their houses as if they were just another appliance. One day, the appliance bites back.
6
How about a few common sense measures? Let the government subsidize the purchase of quality gun safes which will drastically cut the theft of guns. Require purchasers to take a course in gun handling/safety and also require those with carry permits to qualify at least once per year in the same manner police officers do. The ATF ought to more closely monitor that very small number of dealers who sell a disproportionate number of the guns later used in the commission of crimes. Enforce the myriad laws and regulations already on the books as opposed to burdening lawful, responsible gun owners with ever more regulations and expense.
2
Appliances don't bite. They are sometimes misused as are knives, hammers, baseball bats, and other utensils. I have a friend's 30-06 rifle in my closet and it hasn't threatened anyone, didn't load itself and a round. It is just an inanimate object much like the razor sharp sushi knife in my kitchen.
Until people grow up and accept that firearms are merely objects and do not cause harm by themselves any more than does my sushi knife. Until folks stop demonizing guns as if they had a will of their own, there can be no rational discussion about them.
Until people grow up and accept that firearms are merely objects and do not cause harm by themselves any more than does my sushi knife. Until folks stop demonizing guns as if they had a will of their own, there can be no rational discussion about them.
1
'Nearly 70% of homicides were committed with firearms from 2007 to 2011, according to the U.S. Justice Department. Firearms were used in roughly 26% of robberies and 31% of aggravated assaults according to the Small Arms Survey.
Civilians in the United States own about 270 million guns, according to a 2007 report by the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey. That's almost the population of Indonesia, the world's fourth most-populated country. America ranks number one in firearms per capita.'
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/gun-deaths-united-states/
Since 1997, there have been 51 mass killings in the United States (defined as 4 or more people killed in one incident) compared to 0 in Australia, 3 in Germany, 3 in Switzerland, 0 in Japan, 1 in the United Kingdom.
Civilians in the United States own about 270 million guns, according to a 2007 report by the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey. That's almost the population of Indonesia, the world's fourth most-populated country. America ranks number one in firearms per capita.'
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/gun-deaths-united-states/
Since 1997, there have been 51 mass killings in the United States (defined as 4 or more people killed in one incident) compared to 0 in Australia, 3 in Germany, 3 in Switzerland, 0 in Japan, 1 in the United Kingdom.
5
Suicide by gun is a defining problem of our time in the U.S., and I'm concerned that it gets only referenced in passing here. About twice as many people commit suicide with firearms as the number of homicides. In a country in which (unlike better countries in Western Europe) mental illness and poverty have a complex and mutually reinforcing relationship, the prevalence of suicide by firearm among economically and socially oppressed people is a real problem.
We need to fight suicide. It leaves families devastated, and darkly colors the lives of whole communities. About 1% of American deaths are gun suicides, and for people who knew the dead, they are deeply painful. We need to crush the networking of poverty, mental illness, gun culture, and death that plagues us, and I wish columnists said it.
We need to fight suicide. It leaves families devastated, and darkly colors the lives of whole communities. About 1% of American deaths are gun suicides, and for people who knew the dead, they are deeply painful. We need to crush the networking of poverty, mental illness, gun culture, and death that plagues us, and I wish columnists said it.
9
If you remove access to guns, suicide will drop. Israel was able to reduce the suicide rate of their soldiers by 40% after they disallowed the soldiers to take their guns to their home during vacations,
1
The last time I checked, the most prevalent way to kill oneself in New York City was jumping in front of subway trains. Do we close down mass transit as a result? I didn't think so.
Kristof is right about how liberal sanctimony can anger the people whose minds need to change. And I don't question the statistical support of his argument. At the same time, the other side of the gun debate needs to recognize that the ubiquity of guns increases gun deaths, even if it is just from suicide (people who attempt suicide using a gun are much more likely to be successful) and from criminals who steal guns (more guns means more criminals can steal).
Additionally, I would like to believe that gun advocates would like to live in a society where a handgun is not needed for personal protection; so ideally, we would be better off if there were no handguns (other than collectors and gun ranges for competitions). I'll admit that while I think we would be safer with no handguns now, I can see how someone else might be afraid to leave security to the authorities, and want to own a gun (though for home protection, a shotgun would be a more appropriate weapon). But if they will agree that we would all be better off without handguns (in an ideal world), then, at least, we can discuss how we get there. On the other hand, if they actually prefer a world in which each individual carries a weapon for self-defense, then there's really no point in discussing the matter.
Additionally, I would like to believe that gun advocates would like to live in a society where a handgun is not needed for personal protection; so ideally, we would be better off if there were no handguns (other than collectors and gun ranges for competitions). I'll admit that while I think we would be safer with no handguns now, I can see how someone else might be afraid to leave security to the authorities, and want to own a gun (though for home protection, a shotgun would be a more appropriate weapon). But if they will agree that we would all be better off without handguns (in an ideal world), then, at least, we can discuss how we get there. On the other hand, if they actually prefer a world in which each individual carries a weapon for self-defense, then there's really no point in discussing the matter.
3
Well this is an interesting comment and a good article by Kristof. I am a conservative and I support the right to own a handgun, although I don't have one. The idea that an ideal world is possible is the central weakness of the above comment. The ideal world is not possible. There will always be people who turn to crime and it is fair to allow citizens to protect themselves. There will always be governments that run amok and want to disarm the people. See how much trouble you get into if you bring a gun into Mexico. I have chosen not to have a gun, but I don't think I should be able to choose for others. This right is one of the restraints we have on our governments power. Let us hope we never need to use it.
4
Kent,
Your comments about suicide are interesting. Yes, in the US of the 30,000 or so gun deaths last year, about 20,000 were suicides from firearm use. But it should be noted that in Australia, the country that is pointed out as a model for gun control, somehow the number per capita of young men who commit suicide is higher than in the US. Then Japan, which has never had firearms available to the populace, has a suicide rate that is much, much higher than in the US. It is my opinion, reinforced by global statistics, that suicide is typically means-independent. That is, if guns are not available, then rope, poison, sleeping pills, suicide by cop, cutting one's wrists, sitting in a car in a garage while the car idles, jumping off a bridge, stepping in front of a train, and so on will be used.
Like you, I would like to live in a society where guns are not necessary for personal protection. But we will never, ever have such an ideal world. We will always have criminals, sadists, psychopaths, drug users, and so on - and there will be people who will use a knife or a baseball bat, or even a brick if that is all they can get. Unfortunately, the old saw that "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" is always true.
Your comments about suicide are interesting. Yes, in the US of the 30,000 or so gun deaths last year, about 20,000 were suicides from firearm use. But it should be noted that in Australia, the country that is pointed out as a model for gun control, somehow the number per capita of young men who commit suicide is higher than in the US. Then Japan, which has never had firearms available to the populace, has a suicide rate that is much, much higher than in the US. It is my opinion, reinforced by global statistics, that suicide is typically means-independent. That is, if guns are not available, then rope, poison, sleeping pills, suicide by cop, cutting one's wrists, sitting in a car in a garage while the car idles, jumping off a bridge, stepping in front of a train, and so on will be used.
Like you, I would like to live in a society where guns are not necessary for personal protection. But we will never, ever have such an ideal world. We will always have criminals, sadists, psychopaths, drug users, and so on - and there will be people who will use a knife or a baseball bat, or even a brick if that is all they can get. Unfortunately, the old saw that "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" is always true.
1
Please don't cherry-pick numbers like this, going from per capita rigures for young men to overall stats, so you can distort the reality that Australia's overall suicide rate is lower than ours.
You may also want to pay attention to another little stat: the rate for the UK is half ours, and for China it's also lower.
You may also want to pay attention to another little stat: the rate for the UK is half ours, and for China it's also lower.
Let's just enforce both parts of the Second Amendment, and require all those who bear arms to belong to a "well regulated militia" whose primary purpose would be to forcibly confiscate the guns of those gun owners who refuse to belong to the militia.
And to regulate the militia well, I think it should be required to drill for eight hours a day on the weekends.
And to regulate the militia well, I think it should be required to drill for eight hours a day on the weekends.
51
The militia is composed of individuals, and the legal definition of "well-regulated" simply means trained. It doesn't specify a number of hours required for training.
3
Indeed! The distortion of second amendment "rights" as a defense of individual possession of firearms has been so long distorted by pro-gun groups that the actual law has been distorted as if it were a guarantee of open access to firearms. The vehement defense of gun rights--see http://wp.me/p36T6t-4vN, for an over-extended discussion--has led the Second Amendment to be dangerously misconstrued. Joining a local militia might also be a wonderfully regimented release of energy . . .
5
The Supreme Court has spoken, but evidently you choose not to listen.
I think there are two important issues with respect to firearms regulation. The first is that the Supreme Court has changed the historically accepted interpretation of the amendment. The amendment states a premise relating to the security of the nation and that premise is self evidently false. Second, the amendment is an anachronism and should be repealed.
The questions Americans need to ask themselves is why our murder rate is so much higher than other nations. 300,000,000 guns haven't made us safer. What will?
The questions Americans need to ask themselves is why our murder rate is so much higher than other nations. 300,000,000 guns haven't made us safer. What will?
4
Very disappointed at Mr. Kristof's article whom I respect a lot. As a gun aficionado himself, he may have became seduced with gun lobby's arguments. Astonishingly, he is even blaming the gun-control lobby's lack of timid politeness. Will the gun lobby's imperviousness to reasons be cured if we submit ourselves to their feet and beg them?
Also note, guns should NOT be regulated like cars. Cars are necessity but guns are not. Understandably some people just love guns. There are target practice shooting places where gun lovers can go and rent guns to exercise their love.
Also note, guns should NOT be regulated like cars. Cars are necessity but guns are not. Understandably some people just love guns. There are target practice shooting places where gun lovers can go and rent guns to exercise their love.
9
The Constitution does not mention target shooting or hunting...
firearms are a right (remember the Bill of Rights?), cars are not.
firearms are a right (remember the Bill of Rights?), cars are not.
The Clinton campaign wants to pound Senator Bernie Sanders on gun control, but doesn't recognize that Vermont is a rural, traditional hunting state, with a very low crime rate, including the lowest gun murder rate (2010 statistics) in the US. Like his other proposals, Sanders takes an educated and reasonable position that represents his state. Clinton's smears will not work, and she risks alienating potential Sanders voters should she win the Democratic primaries.
10
Bernie is running for President of the US -- he needs to have policies for the US, not for Vermont.
Also, frankly, the numbers from Vermont didn't make sense until recently -- a very low ratio of gun murders to total murders, in a state with lax gun laws. Put bluntly, Vermont's numbers were bogus, not all gun murders were being reported to the FBI ... omit 2 or 3 and that's a big change in a very small state.
Look here:
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/09/vermont-domestic-violence-suicide-gun-de...
"... the Violence Policy Center released the newest iteration of its continuing study tracking the number of women murdered in the United States by men. As it turns out, Vermont has the eighth-highest rate of any state, with 1.58 victims killed per 100,000 people. Of those slain by men they knew, three-quarters were intimates (wives, ex-wives, or girlfriends) of their killers, and two-thirds were shot to death."
Also, frankly, the numbers from Vermont didn't make sense until recently -- a very low ratio of gun murders to total murders, in a state with lax gun laws. Put bluntly, Vermont's numbers were bogus, not all gun murders were being reported to the FBI ... omit 2 or 3 and that's a big change in a very small state.
Look here:
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/09/vermont-domestic-violence-suicide-gun-de...
"... the Violence Policy Center released the newest iteration of its continuing study tracking the number of women murdered in the United States by men. As it turns out, Vermont has the eighth-highest rate of any state, with 1.58 victims killed per 100,000 people. Of those slain by men they knew, three-quarters were intimates (wives, ex-wives, or girlfriends) of their killers, and two-thirds were shot to death."
8
I am a Bernie supporter. But Bernie and Hillary are equally weak on gun control. Hillary's arguments against Bernie's pro-gun-ness is bogus. Bernie always gets D- rating from NRA.
"The total number of women murdered by men in the state was just five in 2013, the year covered by the VPC’s most recent data, and only two were killed with guns"
To be more precise, there were just nine homicides total in Vermont in 2013. One of which was an abusive ex-spouse who shot and killed his former wife.
Tragic, but hardly an epidemic. Or an indictment of Bernie. Or of Vermont's libertarian gun laws.
Nine homicides would be a slow weekend in Chicago...
To be more precise, there were just nine homicides total in Vermont in 2013. One of which was an abusive ex-spouse who shot and killed his former wife.
Tragic, but hardly an epidemic. Or an indictment of Bernie. Or of Vermont's libertarian gun laws.
Nine homicides would be a slow weekend in Chicago...
If every liberal, or other concerned citizen, were responsible for crafting laws regarding guns, I would worry more about them having a lack of technical knowledge about the guns being regulated. However, for most of us, all we need to know is that guns enable killing and should be regulated as such. Our legislators are failing us miserably in this regard.
Regarding assault weapons, compare them with other weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons haven't killed anyone lately. So why bother banning them? The assault weapons ban was a mess because the NRA was able to leave gaping holes in it. The recent San Bernardino killings were a perfect example of criminals taking advantage of loopholes in a similar ban. The people of this nation deserve a comprehensive ban that can be strengthened as needed, not just abandoned at the first whiff of imperfection.
Regarding assault weapons, compare them with other weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons haven't killed anyone lately. So why bother banning them? The assault weapons ban was a mess because the NRA was able to leave gaping holes in it. The recent San Bernardino killings were a perfect example of criminals taking advantage of loopholes in a similar ban. The people of this nation deserve a comprehensive ban that can be strengthened as needed, not just abandoned at the first whiff of imperfection.
10
Banning guns would be politically impossible, being opposed by the majority of citizens. It would be legally impossible, as the Supreme Court has already clearly ruled that it would be unconstitutional. Even if the courts allowed it, and a majority approved it, it could not be done because ten of millions of guns would not disappear, and tens of millions of gun owners would not co-operate, and many of them would be the very people charge with enforcement. Just read something about this history of alcohol prohibition.
The question is how do we ensure that the presence of so much deadly force does as little damage as possible? To begin with, require all gun owners to do the things that conscientious and responsible gun owners do already: keep their guns in secure storage when not in use, preferably a place not easily found or broken into by thieves, let alone by children; do not provide guns to anyone you have not confirmed is eligible to have them; learn the proper use of your guns, and treat them with respect and not as toys or status symbols.
Gun owners should be held responsible in part for the deeds done with their guns, even if not by themselves, unless they have reported the weapon stolen. They should be held responsible if they do not take the precautions mentioned above.
And gun owners ought, along with the rest of us, support the creation of improved means to create a system of background checks that will be as good as it can be.
The question is how do we ensure that the presence of so much deadly force does as little damage as possible? To begin with, require all gun owners to do the things that conscientious and responsible gun owners do already: keep their guns in secure storage when not in use, preferably a place not easily found or broken into by thieves, let alone by children; do not provide guns to anyone you have not confirmed is eligible to have them; learn the proper use of your guns, and treat them with respect and not as toys or status symbols.
Gun owners should be held responsible in part for the deeds done with their guns, even if not by themselves, unless they have reported the weapon stolen. They should be held responsible if they do not take the precautions mentioned above.
And gun owners ought, along with the rest of us, support the creation of improved means to create a system of background checks that will be as good as it can be.
8
Bejay,
I agree with your first paragraph, but I do not believe in holding people accountable for the misuse of their property. For example, if you hold gun owners responsible for the misuse of a gun that was stolen from them, then you open the door to holding car owners responsible for traffic accidents caused when someone steals their car. Same reasoning can apply to those who have axes or knives stolen from their garage.
Please note that if some punk sneaks into Auntie Em's house and finds her deceased husband's .38 special that she thought was hidden in her lingerie drawer, then she might never know the gun was stolen until the police swat team breaks down her door at 2AM.
I agree with your first paragraph, but I do not believe in holding people accountable for the misuse of their property. For example, if you hold gun owners responsible for the misuse of a gun that was stolen from them, then you open the door to holding car owners responsible for traffic accidents caused when someone steals their car. Same reasoning can apply to those who have axes or knives stolen from their garage.
Please note that if some punk sneaks into Auntie Em's house and finds her deceased husband's .38 special that she thought was hidden in her lingerie drawer, then she might never know the gun was stolen until the police swat team breaks down her door at 2AM.
The majority of gun deaths are suicide by a margin of 2 to 1 for all other deaths caused by the use of firearms. Notice I didn't say caused by guns please. You may call it a cliche', but guns do not cause the death of anyone. They may be the instrument to bring about the destruction of another human being, but they are not the cause.
I find it odd and ironic that the left who support the so-called "Right to Die" movement would be so against, not just any suicide, but GUN suicide because guns are so much more effective than other means. They have promoted physician assisted suicide (PAS) and at the same time decry gun suicide. California just passed a law that has no accountability for the PAS of a patient even if the family demands an accounting of the decisions and the actual act of putting Grandma down, the law prevents any investigation into the matter. The "Doctor" who actually euthanized the "patient" (victim for all we know) is supposed to write down the underlying condition for the murder of the patient as cancer or some other reason. We cannot investigate what actually happened to Grandma. You see her grandson who was in her will could have bribed the "good" Dr. to put grandma down and he will pay off some student loans for said "doctor". Can't investigate.
Why would the same people who pass laws like that suddenly complain about suicides, to them, caused by guns? They promote suicide.
I find it odd and ironic that the left who support the so-called "Right to Die" movement would be so against, not just any suicide, but GUN suicide because guns are so much more effective than other means. They have promoted physician assisted suicide (PAS) and at the same time decry gun suicide. California just passed a law that has no accountability for the PAS of a patient even if the family demands an accounting of the decisions and the actual act of putting Grandma down, the law prevents any investigation into the matter. The "Doctor" who actually euthanized the "patient" (victim for all we know) is supposed to write down the underlying condition for the murder of the patient as cancer or some other reason. We cannot investigate what actually happened to Grandma. You see her grandson who was in her will could have bribed the "good" Dr. to put grandma down and he will pay off some student loans for said "doctor". Can't investigate.
Why would the same people who pass laws like that suddenly complain about suicides, to them, caused by guns? They promote suicide.
3
There's a world of difference between doctor-assisted suicide of an extremely ill or terminally ill patient, and a young person who in a bout of depression impulsively kills himself because a gun is handy. But I'm sure the NRA appreciates your argument.
If we wanted to reduce gun deaths, we'd legalize medically-assisted suicide and let people end their life in a controlled environment. That's about the only type of gun-related killings that we can actually control.
3
Nice attempt at false equivalence, Mr. Kristof, but- as you do acknowledge in the middle of your piece- President Obama's recent actions call for nothing beyond the closing of loop-holes in those gun-control (okay, "gun safety") laws. And yet, most of the NRA's paid constituents in Congress immediately began fighting him even on these measures. "They're coming for our guns, folks! From our cold dead hands!! Remember the Alamo!!!" How do you reason with those who prefer to swallow the lies and phony alarums offered by the same people whose bank accounts are dependent upon gun sales to hunters and felons alike?
31
There is no gun show loophole. The same laws apply inside the building as outside.
That "40%" number for non-dealer transfers is not accurate. It is quite old and it is from a small sample set. It includes gifts and inheritances. It is also misleading from the standpoint that any particular individual may acquire gun A from a dealer, gun B from grandpa's will, and gun C from the guy at the shooting club. The number is worthless.
If a study were done, the question to investigate is how many people who are prohibited from acquiring guns are able to purchase one from someone who is not a dealer and who thinks he is selling it to someone who is allowed to buy it.
Note that this never applies to interstate sales, as all interstate sales by law must go through a dealer.
That "40%" number for non-dealer transfers is not accurate. It is quite old and it is from a small sample set. It includes gifts and inheritances. It is also misleading from the standpoint that any particular individual may acquire gun A from a dealer, gun B from grandpa's will, and gun C from the guy at the shooting club. The number is worthless.
If a study were done, the question to investigate is how many people who are prohibited from acquiring guns are able to purchase one from someone who is not a dealer and who thinks he is selling it to someone who is allowed to buy it.
Note that this never applies to interstate sales, as all interstate sales by law must go through a dealer.
1
First, Kristof didn't mention gun shows. Second, see the part about the new research confirms?
I think you have to begin by not adopting an equal and opposite stance. This issue will not advance until the fear of each other's motives is eliminated.
1
Mr. Kristof appears unaware of these inconvenient facts:
1. Almost two-thirds of gun deaths in USA are due to suicide. Suicide-by-gun, not homicide, is the major gun menace.
2. Those who live in homes with a firearm are 2-3 times more likely to commit suicide than those who live in homes without a gun. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2014.
3. Although the homicide rate has declined dramatically (7.0 to 3.4 per 100,000 from 1993 to 2014), the suicide rate has not (7.3 to 6.7 per 100,000 from 1993 to 2014). Indeed, the suicide rate has increased linearly since its recent nadir in 2006. Pew, 2015.
4. Although there are many more guns than ever, the rate of household gun ownership is declining, and has been doing so for decades. For example, in 1973, 47% of homes had firearms. The percentages decreased to 42% in 1993 and 31% in 2014. Likewise, individual gun ownership rates are falling, from 28% in 1980 to 21% in 2014. General Social Survey: Trends in Gun Ownership in the United States, 1972-2014.
5. The surge in gun purchases is primarily due to current gun owners buying additional firearms, even as the rates of home and individual gun ownership decline. General Social Survey and Gallop, 2015.
6. The risk for the great majority of gun owners is death-by-suicide, not death-by-homicide.
7. To reduce the risk of death-by-gun, remove all firearms from the home.
Mr. Kristof would do well to provide all the facts, not just those he perceives as inconvenient for liberals.
1. Almost two-thirds of gun deaths in USA are due to suicide. Suicide-by-gun, not homicide, is the major gun menace.
2. Those who live in homes with a firearm are 2-3 times more likely to commit suicide than those who live in homes without a gun. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2014.
3. Although the homicide rate has declined dramatically (7.0 to 3.4 per 100,000 from 1993 to 2014), the suicide rate has not (7.3 to 6.7 per 100,000 from 1993 to 2014). Indeed, the suicide rate has increased linearly since its recent nadir in 2006. Pew, 2015.
4. Although there are many more guns than ever, the rate of household gun ownership is declining, and has been doing so for decades. For example, in 1973, 47% of homes had firearms. The percentages decreased to 42% in 1993 and 31% in 2014. Likewise, individual gun ownership rates are falling, from 28% in 1980 to 21% in 2014. General Social Survey: Trends in Gun Ownership in the United States, 1972-2014.
5. The surge in gun purchases is primarily due to current gun owners buying additional firearms, even as the rates of home and individual gun ownership decline. General Social Survey and Gallop, 2015.
6. The risk for the great majority of gun owners is death-by-suicide, not death-by-homicide.
7. To reduce the risk of death-by-gun, remove all firearms from the home.
Mr. Kristof would do well to provide all the facts, not just those he perceives as inconvenient for liberals.
11
Half of suicides are conducted by means using other than guns. Over the past 7 years, the number of suicides using guns has increased significantly. The number of suicides using something other than guns has increased over twice as much.
The solution to reducing the number of people who kill themselves with guns is to make it easier for people to obtain lethal drugs to kill themselves with.
No one knows how many households actually own guns. The surveys are flawed. I personally know someone who was called regarding such a question. She lied and said they did not have a gun, when they have a whole safe full of them.
Suicide is not a risk. It is a choice.
The solution to reducing the number of people who kill themselves with guns is to make it easier for people to obtain lethal drugs to kill themselves with.
No one knows how many households actually own guns. The surveys are flawed. I personally know someone who was called regarding such a question. She lied and said they did not have a gun, when they have a whole safe full of them.
Suicide is not a risk. It is a choice.
There is no single solution. However, easy access to a gun at home is a risk factor for suicide, as evidenced by many empirical studies. Suicide attempts are often impulsive, frequently borne of acute and/or chronic emotional pain.
Suicide attempts by gun are especially lethal (85% "success") as opposed to attempts by pill (1-3% "success"). Thus, the combination of emotional distress, an impulsive decision and access to a gun is frequently lethal. Not so with overdose.
Of course surveys are imperfect. However, the trends are clear. Fewer households and individuals own more and more firearms.
Recognize that the purchase of a gun entails a significant risk of suicide. Get rid of the firearm and reduce the risk of suicide, for yourself and your loved ones.
Suicide attempts by gun are especially lethal (85% "success") as opposed to attempts by pill (1-3% "success"). Thus, the combination of emotional distress, an impulsive decision and access to a gun is frequently lethal. Not so with overdose.
Of course surveys are imperfect. However, the trends are clear. Fewer households and individuals own more and more firearms.
Recognize that the purchase of a gun entails a significant risk of suicide. Get rid of the firearm and reduce the risk of suicide, for yourself and your loved ones.
4
"The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half."
Which brings us to the question of what has been done that reduced the gun homicide rate?
For example, the number of automobile deaths has decreased while the number of cars increased. The number dying from food poisoning has decreased as the quantity of food has increased.
Which brings us to the question of what has been done that reduced the gun homicide rate?
For example, the number of automobile deaths has decreased while the number of cars increased. The number dying from food poisoning has decreased as the quantity of food has increased.
2
Better policing. NYC is a big part of the crime reduction, which is entirely to the credit of Mayor Guiliani.
Longer sentences. 3 strikes laws in California, minimum sentencing for drug crimes.
Obama is undoing part of it. He is releasing thousands of drug criminals from prison early. Watch for it... some will kill people.
Longer sentences. 3 strikes laws in California, minimum sentencing for drug crimes.
Obama is undoing part of it. He is releasing thousands of drug criminals from prison early. Watch for it... some will kill people.
Read articles carefully. I checked the assertion that a Harvard study CONFIRMED that 40% of firearms are acquired without background checks.
The article cited is only a report on the study, which, as I read the article, has not been completed. The article makes it clear that the "study" was a survey (always suspect for accuracy) of just over 2000 firearms owners. That is a small number in relation to the number of firearms in the US. I am not even sure that this small sample group would rise to any meaningful statistical significance. Even given that the survey only found that the LAST firearm acquired by each of the 2072 who answered the survey no background check was performed. SO if each owner had 2 firearms (probably a low number) the percentage of all firearms owned by this population could be as low as 20% acquired without background checks or as high as 70%. The result is meaningless. Not a very specific study, especially from Harvard. And there is no indication to how many, iWhere any of the 800 firearms acquired used for any criminal activity. Without such correlation the result is again essentially meaningless. There is no indication how the population was chosen leaving questions as to statistical bias. Each state has different requirements for back ground checks so unless the survey population was carefully chosen the study could be seriously flawed.
This makes everything in the article suspect for accuracy.
The article cited is only a report on the study, which, as I read the article, has not been completed. The article makes it clear that the "study" was a survey (always suspect for accuracy) of just over 2000 firearms owners. That is a small number in relation to the number of firearms in the US. I am not even sure that this small sample group would rise to any meaningful statistical significance. Even given that the survey only found that the LAST firearm acquired by each of the 2072 who answered the survey no background check was performed. SO if each owner had 2 firearms (probably a low number) the percentage of all firearms owned by this population could be as low as 20% acquired without background checks or as high as 70%. The result is meaningless. Not a very specific study, especially from Harvard. And there is no indication to how many, iWhere any of the 800 firearms acquired used for any criminal activity. Without such correlation the result is again essentially meaningless. There is no indication how the population was chosen leaving questions as to statistical bias. Each state has different requirements for back ground checks so unless the survey population was carefully chosen the study could be seriously flawed.
This makes everything in the article suspect for accuracy.
4
While yes, Kristof shouldn't have used an unpubloshed study (or been more careful about reporting it), 2000 people is a lot of people for such a study. Most polling's conducted on about half that.
And you should be careful about speculation too, since you've no idea about any of the flaws you claim are there.
Wait and read the study.
And you should be careful about speculation too, since you've no idea about any of the flaws you claim are there.
Wait and read the study.
I applaud your instinct to check statistical accuracy! That said, there are some errors in your reasoning.
"That is a small number in relation to the number of firearms in the US" ~ size of sample in relation to total population does not matter if sample is unbiased and reasonably large.
"I am not even sure that this small sample group would rise to any meaningful statistical significance" ~ not sure what you mean by statistical significance, but the errorbars on the 40% figure (assuming a Bernoulli variable with n = 2000, p = 40%) are +/- 1%.
"if each owner had 2 firearms (probably a low number) the percentage of all firearms owned by this population could be as low as 20% acquired without background checks or as high as 70%. The result is meaningless" ~ even though 40% of people are getting THEIR FIRST GUN without a background check, 100% might be getting THEIR SECOND GUN with one? Seems implausible; we'd expect gun acquiring methods + background check rates to be similar. Regardless, we can still say that 40% OF THE POPULATION has acquired a gun without a background check...and you really only need one gun to kill people.
"Not a very specific study, especially from Harvard" ~ full methodology has not yet been released.
"The result is again essentially meaningless" ~ criminal activity is not the focus of the study.
Two final points: a) result agrees with previous survey; b) if you do not like surveys and want more research, support gov-funded gun research!
"That is a small number in relation to the number of firearms in the US" ~ size of sample in relation to total population does not matter if sample is unbiased and reasonably large.
"I am not even sure that this small sample group would rise to any meaningful statistical significance" ~ not sure what you mean by statistical significance, but the errorbars on the 40% figure (assuming a Bernoulli variable with n = 2000, p = 40%) are +/- 1%.
"if each owner had 2 firearms (probably a low number) the percentage of all firearms owned by this population could be as low as 20% acquired without background checks or as high as 70%. The result is meaningless" ~ even though 40% of people are getting THEIR FIRST GUN without a background check, 100% might be getting THEIR SECOND GUN with one? Seems implausible; we'd expect gun acquiring methods + background check rates to be similar. Regardless, we can still say that 40% OF THE POPULATION has acquired a gun without a background check...and you really only need one gun to kill people.
"Not a very specific study, especially from Harvard" ~ full methodology has not yet been released.
"The result is again essentially meaningless" ~ criminal activity is not the focus of the study.
Two final points: a) result agrees with previous survey; b) if you do not like surveys and want more research, support gov-funded gun research!
Instead of trying to limit the availability of guns on the market, the effort should be at keeping them out of the hands of the grossly irresponsible, morally incorrigible, criminally inclined, and mentally disturbed. This requires more stringent licensing of gun owners, and not guns themselves.
Unfortunately, uninformed liberals want to limit the number of guns in public hands. That is like trying to have safer roads and highways by making it harder to buy a car. We need better licensing of the owners.
r
Unfortunately, uninformed liberals want to limit the number of guns in public hands. That is like trying to have safer roads and highways by making it harder to buy a car. We need better licensing of the owners.
r
6
Trying to limit guns and control guns, is tantamount to trying to solve drunk driving, by making it harder for legal car owners to buy cars. If an irresponsible person drives drunk and gets into an accident, people blame the person. No one tries to ban or make it harder to buy alcohol or cars.
But if the same irresponsible person accidentally kills a person, all of a sudden, liberals target the gun, instead of the persons.
But if the same irresponsible person accidentally kills a person, all of a sudden, liberals target the gun, instead of the persons.
1
Mr. Kristof's piece has the potential to move the gun debate in a direction more fertile for addressing firearm misuse. That feat was achieved because Mr. Kristof is yet another voice from the gun control Left who has conceded a few important facts that we in the gun rights movement have known for years.
It is very difficult to have a productive conversation with those who do not accept that: (a) the number of firearms has increased, but homicides are down (b) concealed gun permits have not led to every dispute resulting in a shooting and (c) "assault weapons" are responsible for only a tiny fraction of firearm victimization.
But certainly, I am not so naive to believe that all those in favor of more gun control will endorse Mr. Kristof's concessions, even as he speaks as one of them.
It is very difficult to have a productive conversation with those who do not accept that: (a) the number of firearms has increased, but homicides are down (b) concealed gun permits have not led to every dispute resulting in a shooting and (c) "assault weapons" are responsible for only a tiny fraction of firearm victimization.
But certainly, I am not so naive to believe that all those in favor of more gun control will endorse Mr. Kristof's concessions, even as he speaks as one of them.
5
Fair enough, but one point: assault weapons, and they are assault weapons, along with semi-auto fancy pistols that have large-capacity mags, are the weapons of choice in all mass shootings.
If you don't commit suicide, are not an inner-city young black male involved in a dispute, are not a victim of a crime of passion, and don't carelessly store your guns, the chances of being a victim or knowing a victim of a gun murder are extremely low.
Suicide is virtually impossible to stop, and rates are much higher in countries such as Japan and Korea, where there are no guns. More people drown in backyard swimming pools than are accidentally killed by guns. Crimes of passion are addressed by Mr. Kristof, but are extraordinarily difficult to reduce.
So the focus of our efforts should be on the tragic inner-city gun-death rate. If that death rate were similar to the rest of the country, the US would have an enviably low murder rate.
But for some reason, the gun control advocates, including President Obama, refuse to address this issue in any meaningful way. What a shame.
Suicide is virtually impossible to stop, and rates are much higher in countries such as Japan and Korea, where there are no guns. More people drown in backyard swimming pools than are accidentally killed by guns. Crimes of passion are addressed by Mr. Kristof, but are extraordinarily difficult to reduce.
So the focus of our efforts should be on the tragic inner-city gun-death rate. If that death rate were similar to the rest of the country, the US would have an enviably low murder rate.
But for some reason, the gun control advocates, including President Obama, refuse to address this issue in any meaningful way. What a shame.
13
I am wondering about your source for the assertion that suicide is virtually impossible to stop. And I wonder if you are familiar with the British coal gas experience. Certainly suicide by firearm is much, much more successful than most other means, with about an 80% success rate per attempt.
4
Suicides may be prevented by removing all guns from the home. Those who live in a home with a gun are two to three times more likely to commit suicide than those who live in a home without a firearm. That risk is not for 'suicide-by-gun' but for total suicide.
To understand why, recognize that suicide attempt by gun is usually "successful" (85% of the time) while other attempts are less so (pill overdose is "successful" only 1-3% of the time). Moreover, if a suicide attempt does not result in death, there is a 90% chance of living without future suicide.
Combine an acute emotionally painful event and/or depression with access to a gun, and the risk of suicide goes up.
In our neighborhood about a year ago, a 13 year old boy received an email from his school regarding a late homework assignment, retrieved his family's heirloom rifle, left his home and shot himself, all within 30 minutes. Several days later, the authorities found his dead body buried in the snow at the far edge of his family's property.
His parents are now working to inform others of the risks of owning a gun.
To understand why, recognize that suicide attempt by gun is usually "successful" (85% of the time) while other attempts are less so (pill overdose is "successful" only 1-3% of the time). Moreover, if a suicide attempt does not result in death, there is a 90% chance of living without future suicide.
Combine an acute emotionally painful event and/or depression with access to a gun, and the risk of suicide goes up.
In our neighborhood about a year ago, a 13 year old boy received an email from his school regarding a late homework assignment, retrieved his family's heirloom rifle, left his home and shot himself, all within 30 minutes. Several days later, the authorities found his dead body buried in the snow at the far edge of his family's property.
His parents are now working to inform others of the risks of owning a gun.
1
A recent Johns Hopkins University study disproves your argument that suicides are virtually impossible to stop. The study found that suicide rates dropped in Connecticut following new restrictions on handgun purchases, while in Missouri they increased after that state repealed handgun restrictions.
Reference: http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/suicide-by-firearm-rates-sh...
Reference: http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/suicide-by-firearm-rates-sh...
Some public health approaches to reducing gun violence have nothing to do with guns.
Let's work on those.
I don't know why domestic violence is treated differently from other violence. If a person commits felony assault, prosecute that person and if you get a conviction, you've got a prohibited person. No gun.
I'd rather see shelters available to women with restraining orders with no place to stay than gun confiscation based on an ex parte judicial proceeding.
Also, let's be clear that we are talking about a 10% reduction of 10% of murders, which make up 30% of gun deaths, so the benefit is 100 lives per year out of the 30,000 total gun-related deaths. That's great for the 100 women killed by violent exes, but it might make even more sense to focus on the 20,000 gun suicides every year.
Obviously you can't address suicide with gun control unless you want rolling, continuous background checks and psych evaluations which would be ridiculously expensive.
I don't know how to reduce suicide incidence, but it would be a great area to work on along with stiffer sentences for violent offenders.
There is so much that can be done to reduce homicide and suicide rates without bringing guns into the discussion, why not work along those avenues?
Let's work on those.
I don't know why domestic violence is treated differently from other violence. If a person commits felony assault, prosecute that person and if you get a conviction, you've got a prohibited person. No gun.
I'd rather see shelters available to women with restraining orders with no place to stay than gun confiscation based on an ex parte judicial proceeding.
Also, let's be clear that we are talking about a 10% reduction of 10% of murders, which make up 30% of gun deaths, so the benefit is 100 lives per year out of the 30,000 total gun-related deaths. That's great for the 100 women killed by violent exes, but it might make even more sense to focus on the 20,000 gun suicides every year.
Obviously you can't address suicide with gun control unless you want rolling, continuous background checks and psych evaluations which would be ridiculously expensive.
I don't know how to reduce suicide incidence, but it would be a great area to work on along with stiffer sentences for violent offenders.
There is so much that can be done to reduce homicide and suicide rates without bringing guns into the discussion, why not work along those avenues?
6
You can reduce the risk of suicide for yourself and your loved ones by removing all firearms from home.
2
IT would be wonderful for the liberals to stand up and go in front of the sheriffs and police and help confiscate the guns from gangs, criminals , and other people who misuse guns.
When a person mis use a car, you blame the person , not the car. When a person mis use a gun, you target the person, not the gun.
When a person mis use a car, you blame the person , not the car. When a person mis use a gun, you target the person, not the gun.
1
They did not poll 74 percent of the American people about universal background checks, nor did they poll 62 per cent about Obama's executive actions on gun control. They polled a relatively small number of select people who had nothing better to do than talk on the phone or surf the internet. That's how these polls are conducted, and they therefore cannot reflect an accurate view of the population on any given issue. And including suicides in gun death statistics is a bogus argument. There is no way background checks can ever stop people from using guns, knives, pills or tall buildings to commit suicide. In addition to all this, we already have background checks in place; what Liberals want is to make your Uncle Joe do a background check on Grandpa before he sells him a gun, because the federal government is a much better judge of Grandpa's fitness to handle a firearm than Uncle Joe could ever be. And if Grandpa needs help handling his finances, that makes him a "risk" under a regulation that is already on the books for senior citizens.
8
And what conservatives want to do is make certain that Uncle Jack, who has five priors and has already served time for committing homicide, can immediately visit the internet and purchase a brand new gun because the Second Amendment (which never mentions Uncle Jack, the internet or even guns) somehow "guarantees" his right to do so. And when Uncle Jack visits your home and blows your head off because he's faster on the trigger than you are, your survivors can plead with the NRA to assist with the burial expenses.
12
How can you say there are background checks, when many guns are acquired at shows or though private exchange where no checks are required (and you probably have to pay cash).
Marain, I'll bet you'd believe any poll that said 74% opposed background checks, and especially any poll that said 62% opposed Obama on anything. Especially if it was reported on Fox. Yes, people who want to kill themselves will, but a gun death is still a gun death. Actually, I'm not opposed to gun ownership. Licensing and background checks are not liberal ideas. They are common sense ideas.
Actually, why not do a background check on your Grandpa? Are we sure Uncle Joe would be a proper judge of Grandpa's mental veracity? Would Uncle Joe be honest enough to keep the gun away from Grandpa if Grandpa had a rather shady history? Family members cover up for other family members all the time.
Actually, why not do a background check on your Grandpa? Are we sure Uncle Joe would be a proper judge of Grandpa's mental veracity? Would Uncle Joe be honest enough to keep the gun away from Grandpa if Grandpa had a rather shady history? Family members cover up for other family members all the time.
Yes, by all means let's treat gun ownership as a public health issue, like car ownership, similar to other countries with wider spread of guns in society (e.g Israel and Switzerland). In addition to mandatory background checks, let's have:
- a mandatory exam on basic gun safety before getting a gun license, like for a driver license; requirement for regular renewal of the license, say every 5-10 years (not every 90-years old can be trusted with a gun)
- different level of gun licenses, e.g. for assault weapons (you can't drive an 18-wheeler without a special license)
- one should be able to buy any amount of ammo, but only for the gun(s) s/he already owns; this means mandatory registration of guns
- a car used as an accessory for a crime can be easily traced by the police. Same should be true about guns and ammo.
And I wouldn't even touch the subject of mandatory liability insurance, required by most states from a car driver - I don't think that my not-yet born grandchildren will live long enough to see that one.
- a mandatory exam on basic gun safety before getting a gun license, like for a driver license; requirement for regular renewal of the license, say every 5-10 years (not every 90-years old can be trusted with a gun)
- different level of gun licenses, e.g. for assault weapons (you can't drive an 18-wheeler without a special license)
- one should be able to buy any amount of ammo, but only for the gun(s) s/he already owns; this means mandatory registration of guns
- a car used as an accessory for a crime can be easily traced by the police. Same should be true about guns and ammo.
And I wouldn't even touch the subject of mandatory liability insurance, required by most states from a car driver - I don't think that my not-yet born grandchildren will live long enough to see that one.
24
Car ownership is not a Constitutionally protected right.
What would the statistics be without suicides? So many of the deaths are part of the 30.000+ annual suicides. Why include them here? Suicide is a separate issue as those touched by it know well.
5
Data as of 2010 bear you out. But there's a lot of evidence that suicide is more likely to be fatal (a suicide and not just an attempt) where guns are readily available.
"Since the CDC began publishing data in 1981, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. But as gun homicides have declined sharply in recent years, suicides have become a greater share of all firearm deaths: the 61% share in 2010 was the highest on record. That year there were 19,392 suicides by firearm compared to 11,078 homicides by gun (35% of all firearm deaths). The rest were accidents, police shootings and unknown causes."
"Since the CDC began publishing data in 1981, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. But as gun homicides have declined sharply in recent years, suicides have become a greater share of all firearm deaths: the 61% share in 2010 was the highest on record. That year there were 19,392 suicides by firearm compared to 11,078 homicides by gun (35% of all firearm deaths). The rest were accidents, police shootings and unknown causes."
5
Ed C,
When the easy availability of firearms is the issue on the table, suicides are obviously relevant. Suicide attempts by other methods are often reversible, with suicide by gun, they are not so reversible.
When the easy availability of firearms is the issue on the table, suicides are obviously relevant. Suicide attempts by other methods are often reversible, with suicide by gun, they are not so reversible.
6
Nice empathetic flourish at the end, there, but I don't think you really get it. "Touched" sounds so, ummm, soft and gentle. My son shot himself to death. He's just as dead as if someone else had shot him. Touched? He's dead.
Devastated is not enough word to describe what has happened to me.
Count them all.
Devastated is not enough word to describe what has happened to me.
Count them all.
Much of this column seems aimed at attacking a strawman: Kristof blames "supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed" liberals for the right's extreme resistance to even common-sense gun safety laws that most Americans support (as he later notes). Yes, there are "liberals" who meet that description; but I don't think their "inadvertent antagonism" is doing much to empower the NRA and extreme right. The latter have succeeded in stirring up wild fears of gun confiscation, and pushing through legislation to relax gun laws in state after state, without any assistance from the "supercilious" liberals upon whom Kristof places so much blame.
176
There are no "wild fears of confiscation" -- they are legitimate. A little history lesson: the position most liberals held in the 1970s and 1980s to ban the private possession of handguns and really all guns. In fact, a majority of people favored banning handguns at one point in time. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns was a big force, even the ACLU was a member of it.
The NRA came forward with the strategy of opposing all gun control, realizing that if it could stop even small gun control measures, the government would never be able to get to confiscation. And it worked -- a majority now oppose banning guns, and liberals are fighting like mad to get small measures passed. But many liberals still would love to ban all guns -- check out some op-eds being written the past few months. Obama and Hillary praise Australia for its confiscation of guns. There are good reasons to believe Kristof and many others would ban guns if they could.
The NRA came forward with the strategy of opposing all gun control, realizing that if it could stop even small gun control measures, the government would never be able to get to confiscation. And it worked -- a majority now oppose banning guns, and liberals are fighting like mad to get small measures passed. But many liberals still would love to ban all guns -- check out some op-eds being written the past few months. Obama and Hillary praise Australia for its confiscation of guns. There are good reasons to believe Kristof and many others would ban guns if they could.
7
There is nothing "wild" about the fear of gun confiscation. Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democrat nominee, is on record just a month ago praising Australian-style buy-back programs. Those were mandatory turn in events where the government gave their citizens a pittance in return for confiscating their property. It is pretty clear what the long-term goal of many on the left is.
The problem, from the perspective of gun owners, is that the mandatory background checks turn into a defacto gun registry. There is not a national database but each FFL is required to keep detailed records of the background checks including make, model, serial numbers and names of seller and purchaser. Firearms registries do nothing to prevent crime and do almost nothing to assist in solving crime. The only thing they accomplish is to set the stage for future confiscation.
The devil is in the details. I might support a background check where the sole role of the FFL was to do a background check on the buyer and the only records which got kept was the buyer's Name and Identifying Information (SSN, DL Number) and whether or not he passed the background check. At that point, he should be cleared to make a purchase and it should not matter if he buys a shotgun, rifle, or pistol or half a dozen of each. No records should be kept of the transaction details because he is one of the "safe" responsible owners and it is none of the governments business what firearms he chooses to purchase.
The problem, from the perspective of gun owners, is that the mandatory background checks turn into a defacto gun registry. There is not a national database but each FFL is required to keep detailed records of the background checks including make, model, serial numbers and names of seller and purchaser. Firearms registries do nothing to prevent crime and do almost nothing to assist in solving crime. The only thing they accomplish is to set the stage for future confiscation.
The devil is in the details. I might support a background check where the sole role of the FFL was to do a background check on the buyer and the only records which got kept was the buyer's Name and Identifying Information (SSN, DL Number) and whether or not he passed the background check. At that point, he should be cleared to make a purchase and it should not matter if he buys a shotgun, rifle, or pistol or half a dozen of each. No records should be kept of the transaction details because he is one of the "safe" responsible owners and it is none of the governments business what firearms he chooses to purchase.
3
NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Local police officers began confiscating weapons from civilians in preparation for a forced evacuation of the last holdouts still living here, as President Bush steeled the nation for the grisly scenes of recovering the dead that will unfold in coming days.
New York Times
8 September 2005
New York Times
8 September 2005
1
As a responsible gun owner, and a person with a CCW permit, I have no issues with more robust background checks. One of the sad facts about the gun lobby is that if you Google "responsible gun ownership" none of the major organizations, such as the NRA, NSSF, etc. The NRA's "zero sum" approach repels me and, in my opinion, does nothing to advance gun safety or address gun-related crimes. Obama is probably the gun industry's best pitchman after after every gun-related tragedy makes the news, and the industry does not hesitate to whip up its members with fear-mongering and fund raising appeals. The demographics of the nation are changing, and the tone of the conversation has also changed. Unless the NRA and other organizations realize this and engage in meaningful dialogue to address many of the issues Kristof raises, they will probably lose the battle after a critical tipping point of gun-related violence has been reached.
14
@Blackstone,
Could you please elaborate a bit more on "critical tipping point"?
1-16-16@11:27 pm est
Could you please elaborate a bit more on "critical tipping point"?
1-16-16@11:27 pm est
1
Mandatory gun safety training, prior to allowing the acquisition of a firearm, and the attendant time required for same, might go along way to curbing impulsive acts of violence. It would also satisfy the Constitutional requirement of a "well regulated militia" that is almost universally ignored by the NRA and other gun rights zealot organizations.
11
See, that's part of the problem; you think that a constitutional right should be doled out by some government entity. Why do I say that? That pesky document says a citizens right "shall not be infringed."
I do however support increased background checks, making illegal possession or use of a firearm in the commission of a crime harsh sentences and lastly, the modification to HIPAA so that troubled minds can be identified in the background check process and denied.
The Left wants to attack law-abiding citizens with passage of more restrictive legislation, when those people are NOT the problem. It's akin to banishing alcohol and automobiles because a few have problems with drinking and driving.
I do however support increased background checks, making illegal possession or use of a firearm in the commission of a crime harsh sentences and lastly, the modification to HIPAA so that troubled minds can be identified in the background check process and denied.
The Left wants to attack law-abiding citizens with passage of more restrictive legislation, when those people are NOT the problem. It's akin to banishing alcohol and automobiles because a few have problems with drinking and driving.
3
Hal,
The original Right "not to be infringed" was for a State to continue to command and control its "People's" militia deployed for slave-patrol missions, without any interference from Congress. I'm guessing that your State no longer has that particular need, and hasn't had it since 1864.
The original Right "not to be infringed" was for a State to continue to command and control its "People's" militia deployed for slave-patrol missions, without any interference from Congress. I'm guessing that your State no longer has that particular need, and hasn't had it since 1864.
7
I will also back background checks, when the left supports voter ID's.
Actually, it is the NRA that is responsible for getting the almost instant, free NCIS check used by most states. If you want universal checks, require your police departments to conduct that check for private party transfers. Convenient, free, fast. Maryland does not use the NCI system, but does do the requires background checks for transfer of regulated firearms (handguns) between private parties but I believe there is a charge for that.
Actually, it is the NRA that is responsible for getting the almost instant, free NCIS check used by most states. If you want universal checks, require your police departments to conduct that check for private party transfers. Convenient, free, fast. Maryland does not use the NCI system, but does do the requires background checks for transfer of regulated firearms (handguns) between private parties but I believe there is a charge for that.
As a gun owner, I fully support universal background checks but would point out that other than inheritance, I have never seen a gun acquired at a gun show, a wildlife club banquet, or an auction without a background check. As to the harvard study and in the absence of seeing the actual study, I would question their survey. For example, almost all CCW holders have had a background check and as noted, if you did purchase a firearm at a dealer, you had a background check. it begs the question, how many of those who acquired a weapon without a background check had previously had a background check for another firearm? Second, almost all CCW holders, FFL holders, etc. have had a background check that is sufficient for another firearm purchase. Asking a survey question as to whether the most recent gun was acquired without a background check provides misleading results. The real question is whether the firearms buyer had ever had a recent background check. As usual, I support mandatory safety training with practical experience for all firearms purchases as a much more useful first step. Lastly, the article glosses over the fact that almost half of the firearms deaths are suicides, something rarely brought up in the gun debate.
6
About two-thirds of deaths involving firearms are suicides (about 22,000 per year out of a total of 33,000). Less than one-third (about 9,000 per year) are homicides. The remainder are caused by negligent discharges, are lawful killings committed by the police, and so forth.
7
It is continually brought up that 2/3 of the deaths by gun are suicides. Often it is mentioned dismissively as if those deaths don't matter because they are not accidents or homicides.
3
First, kudos on your measured comment. But, I must disagree regarding your suicide comment - to the contrary, almost all articles I've seen this last year clearly call out the correlation between access to a firearm, and suicide risk.
The thing I find strange, is that my pro gun friends seem to discount these suicides as though they somehow don't impact families and communities just like all other forms of gun violence. Why, pray tell, is suicide so unimportant a factor?
The thing I find strange, is that my pro gun friends seem to discount these suicides as though they somehow don't impact families and communities just like all other forms of gun violence. Why, pray tell, is suicide so unimportant a factor?
1
High risk persons should include persons convicted of misdemeanors involving violence, and not just those convicted of felonies which precludes gun ownership. Many persons initially arrested for felonies eventually accept prosecution deals to plead guilty to a misdemeanor which then leaves them eligible for gun ownership. But violence is violence. If you've committed a crime of violence, you have a much higher proclivity to commit another crime of violence and possibility one involving the use of a firearm. Happens all the time.
14
This is such an interesting challenge. I have used and owned guns and hunted, so they don't really bother me. However, it seems clear, when this issue comes up, that we are not able to discuss the real issues. We find ourselves immediately in a "you want to take our guns away" argument. Why is that? I suspect it is because the NRA gets it's funding from arms manufacturers, so, if they can make this about someone threatening gun ownership and, thereby, the Constitution - people run out and buy guns. Fear is such a great motivator. The NRA literature I have seen is aimed at making people afraid, very very afraid. Our only hope is to communicate that this issue is not about making guns illegal or taking them away, but it is about the public health issue of unnecessary gun deaths. Then, possibly, we could get to the real issues. There is so little research into the human elements of this catastrophe (guns don't kill people, after all) that we really don't understand why different countries have different rates of gun deaths, etc. I believe that, if this discussion could be framed in a way that would clearly profit arms manufacturers, say from retrofitting or from clearly superior and safer weapons, that we the people might find ourselves better able to discuss the actual issues and come to new solutions.
9
Maybe because Obama, Hillary, Feinstein and others have come out and said that if they could they would take our guns away?
I AM afraid. I am seeing the current administration and the courts erode the safeguards of the constitution. I fought for the constitution, as did my brother and as are my sons. So why do I need government permission to exercise my constitutional right when liberals go apoplectic at the idea of a free, easily obtainable voter ID? It is apparent that the founding fathers felt the second amendment was more important than universal suffrage.
This actually is not a firearm issue It is a cultural issue. Look at the demographics and not just the sensational media reports. Look at the breakdown of the traditional family and values. Firearms are only a side bar and distraction in a much deeper problem.
I AM afraid. I am seeing the current administration and the courts erode the safeguards of the constitution. I fought for the constitution, as did my brother and as are my sons. So why do I need government permission to exercise my constitutional right when liberals go apoplectic at the idea of a free, easily obtainable voter ID? It is apparent that the founding fathers felt the second amendment was more important than universal suffrage.
This actually is not a firearm issue It is a cultural issue. Look at the demographics and not just the sensational media reports. Look at the breakdown of the traditional family and values. Firearms are only a side bar and distraction in a much deeper problem.
3
The NRA is public Non Profit and its financials are public information, only about 5% of its budget comes from manufacturers. It does exactly what its members want.
Something Kristof seems to overlook is that it is already a felony for a criminal to have a firearm, or to have a firearm while under the influence or to have a firearm if you have been convicted of domestic abuse...which are some of the "sensible gun laws" he proposes. Also, the NRA membership list is not available outside the organization for such a poll to take place and the NRA has already confirmed that the "74% of NRA members support universal background checks" is false. For Obama's "executive action on guns", the poll only covered 0.0004% of the population, therefore the "62% of Americans are in favor of it" is doubtful considering that there are 13,000,000 CCW permits, 26 open carry States, over 320,000,000 privately owned firearms (more than every man, woman and child in the US combined) with record sales and manufacturing every year.
Even if you managed to get rid of 99% of all privately owned firearms...there would still be well over 3 million in the hands of the People, which is still a million more than every US military personnel, active duty, reserves and National guard, combined. (Keep in mind that the Colorado Registration has shown that less than 3% of gun owners would even register their firearms, and far less would surrender them altogether, therefore the 99% I mentioned is unrealistic even in the most liberal fantasy).
Even if you managed to get rid of 99% of all privately owned firearms...there would still be well over 3 million in the hands of the People, which is still a million more than every US military personnel, active duty, reserves and National guard, combined. (Keep in mind that the Colorado Registration has shown that less than 3% of gun owners would even register their firearms, and far less would surrender them altogether, therefore the 99% I mentioned is unrealistic even in the most liberal fantasy).
11
The problem is that too many fall for the "law abiding citizen" argument as if that has much to do with the sheer number of gun deaths. The fact is that a significant percentage of the gun tragedies in this country are perpetrated by yesterday's "law abiding citizen," who either flipped out, or shot their spouse or kid by accident. It's a red herring argument.
The truth is, that owning a firearm responsibly is something only a small proportion of the population is truly qualified for. This is all related to a fantasy American men maintain that possessing a firearm is a sign of potency, to put in the positive frame...
The truth is, that owning a firearm responsibly is something only a small proportion of the population is truly qualified for. This is all related to a fantasy American men maintain that possessing a firearm is a sign of potency, to put in the positive frame...
18
Nonsense.
1) It is a felony for convicted felon to have a firearm, but it is perfectly legal for one to sell him a firearm through a private sale. One is not required to verify that the buyer is not a criminal, or otherwise prohibited. From buying. The situation now is like having a law against underage people buying liquor, but having no law against selling them liquor.
2) One doesn't have to be convicted of domestic abuse to be put under a restraining order, and but while under that order one is not required to turn in his guns, nor prevented from buying guns before the order is lifted.
3) One does not have to have a member list to arrive at a figure. Pollsters ask, are you a member of the NRA? 74% of those who said yes, answer the next question this way. James doesn't seem to have any idea about how polls are taken.
4) Why is it strange to imagine the CC permit holders favor background checks? I know many gun owners who favor rigorous background checks.
5) Banning all guns IS a fantasy, but it is not "liberal" except in the sense that requiring all citizens to be white Christians is a "conservative" fantasy. Most liberals don't want the former any more than most conservatives want the latter.
6) No mention here was made of laws to prevent those judged psychologically unfit to possess deadly weapons. Background checks, ideally, would prevent those who are known to be a threat to themselves and others from buying weapons.
1) It is a felony for convicted felon to have a firearm, but it is perfectly legal for one to sell him a firearm through a private sale. One is not required to verify that the buyer is not a criminal, or otherwise prohibited. From buying. The situation now is like having a law against underage people buying liquor, but having no law against selling them liquor.
2) One doesn't have to be convicted of domestic abuse to be put under a restraining order, and but while under that order one is not required to turn in his guns, nor prevented from buying guns before the order is lifted.
3) One does not have to have a member list to arrive at a figure. Pollsters ask, are you a member of the NRA? 74% of those who said yes, answer the next question this way. James doesn't seem to have any idea about how polls are taken.
4) Why is it strange to imagine the CC permit holders favor background checks? I know many gun owners who favor rigorous background checks.
5) Banning all guns IS a fantasy, but it is not "liberal" except in the sense that requiring all citizens to be white Christians is a "conservative" fantasy. Most liberals don't want the former any more than most conservatives want the latter.
6) No mention here was made of laws to prevent those judged psychologically unfit to possess deadly weapons. Background checks, ideally, would prevent those who are known to be a threat to themselves and others from buying weapons.
3
James, Polling is different than voting.
To gather this data that Mr. Kristof says we need to take on the issue intelligently, we'd need to lift the ban on funding for the CDC's research on the issue. This ban was put in place and maintained by our friends in the gun lobby so that no sensible, data-driven reforms could ever get in the way of manufacturers' ability to sell yet more hardware. So yeah we liberals clearly haven't gotten the results we want, but, sadly, it's hard to conclude that the blame for this daily carnage lies anywhere other than at the feet of the gun lobby. If that sounds supercilious or condescending then so be it, but it is an undeniable fact that when you prevent research on an issue, then no sensible policy can ever come about.
498
There is a ban on the CDC researching gun violence?
Strange that the CDC released a report on that very thing just 18 months ago. AND the report was commissioned by Obama himself. Did you not read the report? It contained excellent data on exactly who commits the majority of violent crime and more importantly who does not. Read it here:
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3
Oh the CDC just released another study two months ago too. Weird though, since according to you, they have been banned from doing any studies by the eeeeeeeeevil gun lobby.
You are right that the facts are undeniable.
Strange that the CDC released a report on that very thing just 18 months ago. AND the report was commissioned by Obama himself. Did you not read the report? It contained excellent data on exactly who commits the majority of violent crime and more importantly who does not. Read it here:
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3
Oh the CDC just released another study two months ago too. Weird though, since according to you, they have been banned from doing any studies by the eeeeeeeeevil gun lobby.
You are right that the facts are undeniable.
2
The are plenty of studies out there. Am I to believe that you would only consider research from the CDC as credible? Hate to say it, but those are the last people that I would chose to believe.
1
Absolutely correct, Kristof!
One enhancement I would make to the universal background check provision is to make it retroactive. Just as someone deemed disqualified from buying a gun should both be prevented from buying a gun anywhere, but have the legal opportunity to become re-qualified in the future, if anyone is rendered disqualified from buying a gun, they should be subject to having any current guns in their possession at least temporarily confiscated, until and if they become re-qualified.
If someone is unqualified to buy gun, it makes little sense to allow them continued access to any guns they already own. And given the number of guns in circulation, the chances are rather good that many who should not have them, continue to have access to them.
So, absolutely, we need a thoroughly fair and universal background check provision that governs gun possession across the nation.
One enhancement I would make to the universal background check provision is to make it retroactive. Just as someone deemed disqualified from buying a gun should both be prevented from buying a gun anywhere, but have the legal opportunity to become re-qualified in the future, if anyone is rendered disqualified from buying a gun, they should be subject to having any current guns in their possession at least temporarily confiscated, until and if they become re-qualified.
If someone is unqualified to buy gun, it makes little sense to allow them continued access to any guns they already own. And given the number of guns in circulation, the chances are rather good that many who should not have them, continue to have access to them.
So, absolutely, we need a thoroughly fair and universal background check provision that governs gun possession across the nation.
11
And the drop in the quantity and the rate of firearms deaths in Australia since they enacted their comprehensive ban on most firearms? What of that? The dimmest dullard would observe that that is evidence of what works.
116
I agree that we would probably be better off if guns were harder to obtain by average citizens, but our constitution and current realities (hundreds of millions of guns in circulation) will not allow that.
Universal background checks would provide the most practical substitute, I think.
Universal background checks would provide the most practical substitute, I think.
6
Gun buybacks are always smart, and shouldn't threaten anyone's constitutional sense. Fewer unwanted guns in circulation is a statistical win that will lead to fewer accidental deaths and weapon thefts by criminals. Full stop.
59
There was no significant drop in Gun Homicides in Australia, and for at least one year the rate went up. They always had low gun homicides even before the ban.
I have seen and heard too many reports of children finding a "loose" firearm in the house and, being inquisitive, they just have to give it a go somehow. Usually the end result is bloody and sometimes deadly. I consider myself a responsible gun owner so I have bought a substantial gun safe to house all firearms (even tho I have no children and do not expect any to just drop by).
I cannot fathom why any parent, especially Law Enforcement types, would simply leave firearms unsecured and yes it does happen.
I cannot fathom why any parent, especially Law Enforcement types, would simply leave firearms unsecured and yes it does happen.
14
Because most people are incompetent when it comes to safe handling. In my estimation, at least 50% of the population are flat out too stupid to be allowed to possess something so dangerous.
Personally, I can't fathom why this isn't obvious to my responsible gun owning friends.
Personally, I can't fathom why this isn't obvious to my responsible gun owning friends.
2
One of my earliest childhood experiences that I can remember was to find a loaded gun in my parents' dresser. I began to play with it when my father, aghast, walked into the room and grabbed it from me. He immediately got rid of the gun. Guess I'm lucky
2
"Spectacularly uninformed" indeed.
"...New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less."
Should be "no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or more."
"...New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less."
Should be "no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or more."
4
The only fire arm I know with a 7-round magazine is the 1911 pistol, which takes a magazine with seven 45 cal. rounds. (Extended mags are available that take more than seven rounds.)
The most common magazines take 10 rounds or less, and 10 rounds is the most common limit that states have passed.
The most common magazines take 10 rounds or less, and 10 rounds is the most common limit that states have passed.
No, you missed the point. If there were "no such things as a magazine for 7 or more" that fit into a certain gun, then the law wouldn't apply to such guns. It only applies to those guns that will take larger magazines. But for most of those guns there is no magazine on the market that will hold no more than seven bullets.
I like this idea of making this less political. But sense you are proposing some restrictions on gun owners, lets give them something in return. The problem is this a zero sum game moving in one direction alone.
For instance, if we require that all sales of guns must have background checks by the same federal agency, then we recognize the concealed carry licence across all state boarders. A little give and take...this is easy because the courts may require eventually.
For instance, if we require that all sales of guns must have background checks by the same federal agency, then we recognize the concealed carry licence across all state boarders. A little give and take...this is easy because the courts may require eventually.
10
Nope, sorry, we do not want untrained macho gun toters wandering around Times Square packing because their State thinks it's fine for them to carry a gun anywhere. If your state wants that fine, but stay there.
98
In some states no CC permit is necessary, and in others the issuance is essentially automatic. In short a CC permit in some states means something, in other it means little or nothing. So no, I don't want every state's permits to be good in all states.
But I would heartily endorse a national CC permit that could be obtained, with proper screening, in any state, and which would then be good in every state.
But I would heartily endorse a national CC permit that could be obtained, with proper screening, in any state, and which would then be good in every state.
3
Then you in New York can keep your totalitarian gun laws within your state's borders.
2
A couple quick comments:
* Gun control activists need to quit using numbers that include suicides. Over half of gun deaths are suicides. Including suicides greatly increases numbers, which mine seem good for shock value, but is very dishonest. Suicide is a very special category of demise.
* These days, when a couple is divorcing, the woman's lawyer will typically advise her to pre-emptively get a restraining order against the man, as I understand it. This is not about safety. This is about bargaining leverage in the divorce proceedings and a larger settlement. I don't approve of domestic violence and intimate-partner violence, and I also don't approve of men losing gun rights because their wife is getting a divorce and her lawyer is playing tricky games to get a fatter settlement.
* Don't try to play word games by swapping "safety" for "control". Everyone knows what gun control is. You can't mislead people with a different-sounding word.
* Gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters are *in general* insulted and treated as if we are uncouth redneck barbarians by gun control supporters. This sort of cultural condescension and smug sense of superiority is based on ignorance, and also, well, allows gun control activists to shoot yourselves in the foot in those rare circumstances you actually do try to communicate and compromise.
* Gun control activists need to quit using numbers that include suicides. Over half of gun deaths are suicides. Including suicides greatly increases numbers, which mine seem good for shock value, but is very dishonest. Suicide is a very special category of demise.
* These days, when a couple is divorcing, the woman's lawyer will typically advise her to pre-emptively get a restraining order against the man, as I understand it. This is not about safety. This is about bargaining leverage in the divorce proceedings and a larger settlement. I don't approve of domestic violence and intimate-partner violence, and I also don't approve of men losing gun rights because their wife is getting a divorce and her lawyer is playing tricky games to get a fatter settlement.
* Don't try to play word games by swapping "safety" for "control". Everyone knows what gun control is. You can't mislead people with a different-sounding word.
* Gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters are *in general* insulted and treated as if we are uncouth redneck barbarians by gun control supporters. This sort of cultural condescension and smug sense of superiority is based on ignorance, and also, well, allows gun control activists to shoot yourselves in the foot in those rare circumstances you actually do try to communicate and compromise.
19
I'm a gun owner and NRA member, and could not disagree with you more:
* I don't know what makes suicide any more special than any other death caused using a gun.
* I'm sure many divorces occur with no resort to restraining orders for any reason. Many people do divorce amicably and without the need to make it more difficult on the opposite party. If restraining orders are being used arbitrarily to boost divorce settlements, this is hardly a reason not to confiscate the firearms of those with restraining orders because of legitimate fears of violence. Frankly, if restraining orders are being used inappropriately, the law regarding them should be revised accordingly. However, the evidence is clear that the vast majority of restraining orders are levied against those who have given partners reason to fear that violence and gun confiscation in these cases saves lives.
* While I agree with Kristof that "gun safety" is a far more accurate term than gun control, I really don't care what one calls it, or what games one plays with the term. I just care that guns are kept from those who should not have them.
* Well, it does happen that a significant minority of gun owners do act like the government is looking to take away their guns, like a rattle from a baby, who then can only cry in response. I know many responsible gun owners (hopefully, including myself), who have no problem with the kind of gun safety measures that Kristof is talking about and that you should also support.
* I don't know what makes suicide any more special than any other death caused using a gun.
* I'm sure many divorces occur with no resort to restraining orders for any reason. Many people do divorce amicably and without the need to make it more difficult on the opposite party. If restraining orders are being used arbitrarily to boost divorce settlements, this is hardly a reason not to confiscate the firearms of those with restraining orders because of legitimate fears of violence. Frankly, if restraining orders are being used inappropriately, the law regarding them should be revised accordingly. However, the evidence is clear that the vast majority of restraining orders are levied against those who have given partners reason to fear that violence and gun confiscation in these cases saves lives.
* While I agree with Kristof that "gun safety" is a far more accurate term than gun control, I really don't care what one calls it, or what games one plays with the term. I just care that guns are kept from those who should not have them.
* Well, it does happen that a significant minority of gun owners do act like the government is looking to take away their guns, like a rattle from a baby, who then can only cry in response. I know many responsible gun owners (hopefully, including myself), who have no problem with the kind of gun safety measures that Kristof is talking about and that you should also support.
22
Gun control activists may shot themselves in the foot figuratively, but there's too many accidents where gun owners literally shoot themselves in the foot (or shoot other parts of their anatomy, other people or things) while cleaning or handling their guns.
Calling one side or the other smug and ignorant gets us nowhere. Those types of insults can be applied to both sides
Also, why should we exclude suicides? Do you think we should not try to be preventing those too? Why is it dishonest to point out that there are so many of those committed with guns, when it's the most successful form of suicide?
Calling one side or the other smug and ignorant gets us nowhere. Those types of insults can be applied to both sides
Also, why should we exclude suicides? Do you think we should not try to be preventing those too? Why is it dishonest to point out that there are so many of those committed with guns, when it's the most successful form of suicide?
7
You make some good points, especially the last two. I have questions on the first one about suicides. Many, many people who are saved from a suicide attempt don't immediately try again. Many of them don't end their lives by committing suicide. So the reasoning there is that having a gun makes a suicidal impulse easier to carry out immediately and successfully. Would you lend your gun to someone terribly depressed?
Enough women die from domestic violence that judges must take requests for a restraining order seriously and cannot assume it's a legal trick in divorce proceedings. It's hard to believe making a false accusation is routinely recommended by lawyers to clients. Could it be an urban legend derived from what people say after a hostile divorce? Is evidence from participants in a hostile divorce reliable? What other evidence is there? Quick google: there's an evidentiary hearing for a restraining order when the accused gives their version of what happened in court, so there's some due process and husbands have lawyers, too.
Enough women die from domestic violence that judges must take requests for a restraining order seriously and cannot assume it's a legal trick in divorce proceedings. It's hard to believe making a false accusation is routinely recommended by lawyers to clients. Could it be an urban legend derived from what people say after a hostile divorce? Is evidence from participants in a hostile divorce reliable? What other evidence is there? Quick google: there's an evidentiary hearing for a restraining order when the accused gives their version of what happened in court, so there's some due process and husbands have lawyers, too.
1
In 2015, Indianapolis had the highest number of homicides in its history, the vast majority by guns. It seems to be even worse in 2016. In addition, there were robberies of individuals and businesses at gunpoint that fortunately did not end in death or serious physical injury, but likely terrorized the victims. The perpetrators have nothing to lose, so the possibility of prison is not a deterrent. Our guns everywhere policy also makes policing far more dangerous than it needs to be. But nothing will be done about the ready availability of guns unless and until a majority of the American people decide that something should be done.
10
So you want extremely strict gun control, just like Mexico. So we can have even more gun violence. Just like Mexico.
1
How with guns everywhere have you a problem? Every other gun owner commenting today assures that guns are the solution.
CH, I am not sure you are correct in your assumption that the possibility of prison is not a deterrent. I am not familiar with the situation in Indianapolis, but I am with Baltimore. In 2013 Maryland enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country Firearm Safety Act of 2013. In 2015 Baltimore City had a record 344 homicides, most by firearms. More disturbing is the over 650 shooting "victims" who survived largely due to the proximity and exceptional skill of University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center in Downtown. This is the most killed in Baltimore in this century. (since 1996). During the hearings it came out that 40 of homicides in Baltimore were committed by criminal on Early release. The "revolving door" justice system was cited many times. An amendment to exclude violent criminal from eligibility was soundly defeated along party lines by the vast democrat majority. Firearms violations prosecuted during the last 6 years is the owes in history. Maryland as of 2013 had only prosecuted a handful of straw purchasers in the previous 12 years. People who lie on their background check affidavit (a felony) are not even routinely charged. While you might be right, I don't think we can actually know until the laws on the book are actually enforced. I do know that if 40 % of the 250 murders committed in Baltimore in 2012 were committed by violent criminals on early real ease then there would be 100 victims alive today.
1
The objective of gun safety measures should be targeted at the study of suicides, inner city gang and drug related violence, and mass shootings. Theses 3 areas are at the core of gun violence in the US and people's fears. It's clear that the second amendment is going to keep guns in the hands of almost any American who wants one. Even if that changed, the inventory of firearms already in the possession of Americans could and would never be surrendered.
New York City has been successful in addressing gang and drug related shootings with an occasional exception. Chicago has not. We need to study and understand why. The toll from gun suicides is unconscionable. But how do we prevent it? Would these distraught souls use other means if a gun was not accessible? Again, some study is needed to better understand whether guns are the cause of this senseless loss. The mass shootings are clearly the work of severely deranged individuals in need of psychiatric help. That includes the so-called terrorists who are simply disenfranchised from civilized society in a different manner than the other mass shooters.
It's particularly shameful that Congress refuses to even study these issues because of pressure from the gun lobby and the fear that the results may lead to background checks and limits on firepower. This is where we need to begin however. There may be middle ground once these issues are better understood or perhaps even a compelling case for a particular type of gun control.
New York City has been successful in addressing gang and drug related shootings with an occasional exception. Chicago has not. We need to study and understand why. The toll from gun suicides is unconscionable. But how do we prevent it? Would these distraught souls use other means if a gun was not accessible? Again, some study is needed to better understand whether guns are the cause of this senseless loss. The mass shootings are clearly the work of severely deranged individuals in need of psychiatric help. That includes the so-called terrorists who are simply disenfranchised from civilized society in a different manner than the other mass shooters.
It's particularly shameful that Congress refuses to even study these issues because of pressure from the gun lobby and the fear that the results may lead to background checks and limits on firepower. This is where we need to begin however. There may be middle ground once these issues are better understood or perhaps even a compelling case for a particular type of gun control.
8
"Would these distraught souls use other means if a gun was not accessible?"
The answer is a proven most-definite YES. For example Japan has essentially no guns but their suicide is 50% than the US. Plenty of trains and tall buildings and ropes. There are many other similar European countries with the same results.
The answer is a proven most-definite YES. For example Japan has essentially no guns but their suicide is 50% than the US. Plenty of trains and tall buildings and ropes. There are many other similar European countries with the same results.
7
Suicide has a long and honorable tradition in Japan, unlike in America where "self-murder" was considered a crime and a sin for centuries. That might have something to do with it.
And sorry, easy and convenient means do contribute to the number of suicides. Not every suicide is carefully thought out and planned in advance. Most suicide attempts are, in fact, unsuccessful because of inadequate means. People with guns are usually successful. And many of them take others with them.
And sorry, easy and convenient means do contribute to the number of suicides. Not every suicide is carefully thought out and planned in advance. Most suicide attempts are, in fact, unsuccessful because of inadequate means. People with guns are usually successful. And many of them take others with them.
2
I cannot take my house and transfer it to another without the proper process. I cannot take my car and transfer it to another without the proper process. I cannot transfer my business to another without the proper process. If I want to give someone money, I can do so up to a limited amount, more than that I must register the transaction. I must register the transactions of purchasing stock in a company. The list goes on and on. Hopefully you get the point. If I transfer my gun, I should have to follow a procedure. I purchased it via a process, I should have to register that process of transfer. The person receiving it needs to be able to legally posses and purchase it. Just like a house, car, business, etc.
All these items, except a gun, is designed to expand one's life, earnings, etc. A gun is designed for the singular purpose of harming or killing. Either another human being, or an animal. Sure you can shoot targets, but most of those targets are human outline or animal outline. Thus simulating the killing purpose of the weapon.
If you argue otherwise, you are being disingenuous.
Lastly, the argument and fear of "Obama" is trying to take our guns away, is overblown hype from the NRA and is not a goal of Obama or any of the rational gun control proponents. It's fear mongering at its worst.
All these items, except a gun, is designed to expand one's life, earnings, etc. A gun is designed for the singular purpose of harming or killing. Either another human being, or an animal. Sure you can shoot targets, but most of those targets are human outline or animal outline. Thus simulating the killing purpose of the weapon.
If you argue otherwise, you are being disingenuous.
Lastly, the argument and fear of "Obama" is trying to take our guns away, is overblown hype from the NRA and is not a goal of Obama or any of the rational gun control proponents. It's fear mongering at its worst.
121
sorry Joe but your examples are a result of government intervention. the processes you describe ensure that things are transferred legally, but none of them are a constitutional right. want to transfer your car to someone? the state wants to know to collect a tax. transferring money? again the government believing that any amount of $10K is to be used for something nefarious.
yes a gun is designed to kill and the vast majority of folks who own a firearm use them for a variety of purposes such as sport (target shooting, skeet, etc), hunting or protection. the only ones who really use them to kill other humans are criminals. better to enforce the current gun laws on the books than to pass new ones that won't do a thing
as for fear mongering look to bloomberg, obama and others on the left. that is real fear mongering
yes a gun is designed to kill and the vast majority of folks who own a firearm use them for a variety of purposes such as sport (target shooting, skeet, etc), hunting or protection. the only ones who really use them to kill other humans are criminals. better to enforce the current gun laws on the books than to pass new ones that won't do a thing
as for fear mongering look to bloomberg, obama and others on the left. that is real fear mongering
5
Thing is, you're not given the express right to a house, car, business, nor anything else. Aside from the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, the Bill of Rights outline the ONLY guaranteed rights. Even IF being a member of a militia was a prerequisite to owning firearms (it isn't, nor was that the intention of the Founding Fathers), the purpose of the militias was to provide a check on any attempt by the US government from using the Army against the citizenry.
While I am a member of the NRA, a member of the military, and American, I can agree with a doctor's findings pertaining to mental stability, or the issuance of certain prescription drugs for specific purposes being disqualifiers from owning firearms. I say "for specific reasons" simply for the fact that if you have two people using Wellbutrin or Chantix, one as a smoking-cessation aid and the other for depression, who is the one most likely to hurt themselves? The one attempting to quit smoking, or the one with depression? To ban someone trying to improve their life / health is unfair, and frivolously infringes on their right to own a firearm.
Georgia State Senator Margaret Oliver introduced state bill HB 731, which seeks to confiscate so-called 'assault weapons', and making it felonious to even own one. Never mind that bludgeoning objects kill more people per annum than long guns of all types, but does that not constitute someone "trying to take guns away" from law-abiding citizens?
While I am a member of the NRA, a member of the military, and American, I can agree with a doctor's findings pertaining to mental stability, or the issuance of certain prescription drugs for specific purposes being disqualifiers from owning firearms. I say "for specific reasons" simply for the fact that if you have two people using Wellbutrin or Chantix, one as a smoking-cessation aid and the other for depression, who is the one most likely to hurt themselves? The one attempting to quit smoking, or the one with depression? To ban someone trying to improve their life / health is unfair, and frivolously infringes on their right to own a firearm.
Georgia State Senator Margaret Oliver introduced state bill HB 731, which seeks to confiscate so-called 'assault weapons', and making it felonious to even own one. Never mind that bludgeoning objects kill more people per annum than long guns of all types, but does that not constitute someone "trying to take guns away" from law-abiding citizens?
5
Actually, Obama's approach is basically to enforce the laws we have, and it is entirely ironic that this is exactly what needs to happen. Of course, making background checks universal just enforces the existing law that already requires background checks in only some cases.
3
There are few human rights more fundamental than to choose whether to continue living. Suicide of the irrational, the young, is perhaps a social problem, but most suicides are not; they are choices, and the gun is a common tool because our laws will not allow people to choose death humanely. Homicides by suicide should always be separated in policy discussions from other deaths.
14
Well, if my teenager were distraught, as teenagers often are, I would rather he or she had to try a little harder to die. Something not so final and quick as a gunshot.
Let's be honest. The majority of firearm-related homicides are perpetrated by a very small segment of the population, male blacks 18-25. Keeping guns out of their hands would make a huge dent in homicides. But the black community will take no ownership of this issue, blaming lawful gun owners, manufacturers and anyone or anythingbut the person pulling the trigger.
Until that issue is seriously addressed, there will not be any reasonable gun regulations passed at the state or federal level since the electorate understands the politics behind gun control and it's failures.
Until that issue is seriously addressed, there will not be any reasonable gun regulations passed at the state or federal level since the electorate understands the politics behind gun control and it's failures.
33
Actually, Gary, you are not being honest at all. If you were honest, you would have to say that all firearm-related homicides are perpetrated by a very small segment of the population, and that is the segment that has no empathy for the lives of others. You yourself at least lack sufficient empathy for the lives of male blacks 18-25, especially most of those who are victims of firearm-related homicides.
The honest truth is that many male blacks 18-25 lack their own measure of empathy for the lives of others, in large part, because of the profound racism that pervades our society, almost like the air that we all breath but cannot see. Unlike others, blacks in this (and many other countries, for that matter, including in countries that are mostly black) see this racism in many aspects of life, and it provides a much too available excuse for all youth who are easily influenced by anyone seeking an excuse to convert others to their own angry and hate-filled solutions to their own problems.
And of course, such hatred is not limited to blacks, but it is endemic to blacks where hatred of blacks has been a long-standing practice.
The honest truth is that many male blacks 18-25 lack their own measure of empathy for the lives of others, in large part, because of the profound racism that pervades our society, almost like the air that we all breath but cannot see. Unlike others, blacks in this (and many other countries, for that matter, including in countries that are mostly black) see this racism in many aspects of life, and it provides a much too available excuse for all youth who are easily influenced by anyone seeking an excuse to convert others to their own angry and hate-filled solutions to their own problems.
And of course, such hatred is not limited to blacks, but it is endemic to blacks where hatred of blacks has been a long-standing practice.
2
How about blaming gun dealers (of all races) who can't be bothered to check for background information whether at gun shows, on-line or in the backseat of stolen automobiles? And- let's be honest- the majority of firearms-related homicides committed by young black males are committed against other young black males. That's still no reason to allow for any loop-holes whatsoever in gun-safety laws, regardless of who's doing the dealing. (Wayne LaPierre was of the same opinion not so many years ago.)
3
The majority of homicides in the U.S. are committed by whites. Or at least, that was true in the two recent years that I checked, 2012 and 2014.
2
"In short, let’s get smarter". -- Excellent and prophetic words from Mr. Kristof writing for a paper full of editorials that aim to convert the people to lotus eaters without motivation and who would abandon their right to bear arms.
New York is not the only place that is "A classic of gun ignorance". In Illinois, no open-carry is allowed, except to police, military, private detectives, and a special category of armed guards. Moreover, there are more places named in the State Act where concealed carry is banned that it is allowed. In one county, concealed firearms are not allowed in public parks, but in a neighboring county they are allowed.
There is something fundamentally wrong in the association of firearms with the crime in the US society. In two countries that come to mind at the moment, Switzerland and Israel, the population is armed to the teeth, but there is much less firearm-related crime than in the US.
New York is not the only place that is "A classic of gun ignorance". In Illinois, no open-carry is allowed, except to police, military, private detectives, and a special category of armed guards. Moreover, there are more places named in the State Act where concealed carry is banned that it is allowed. In one county, concealed firearms are not allowed in public parks, but in a neighboring county they are allowed.
There is something fundamentally wrong in the association of firearms with the crime in the US society. In two countries that come to mind at the moment, Switzerland and Israel, the population is armed to the teeth, but there is much less firearm-related crime than in the US.
4
New York may be a victim of "gun ignorance," but Ted Cruz' "values" comment to the contrary, we're pretty civilized here and incidents of gun violence are down to their lowest levels in decades. Furthermore, if every state adopted New York's gun safety measures, none of us would have to worry about purchases made in other states without background inspections.
5
Interesting that you mention Switzerland as "armed to the teeth." A chart in a recent NY Times article put the rate of gun ownership in Switzerland at 45.7 per 100 people, and for the US at 88.8 per 100 people. Those were 2007 numbers. Wikipedia has the same number for Switzerland (45.7/100) put updates the US number to 112.6 per 100 people, as of 2015. Which means, I guess, that the US is twice to thrice armed to the teeth.
I'll have to take your word about Israel. The country didn't make the Times chart of the top 10 countries after the US for guns per capita, and in the Wikipedia table, Israel was ranked 79th overall with 7.3 guns per 100 people, but with a note "Figure does not include the significant number of government-owned military guns possessed by civilians."
I'll have to take your word about Israel. The country didn't make the Times chart of the top 10 countries after the US for guns per capita, and in the Wikipedia table, Israel was ranked 79th overall with 7.3 guns per 100 people, but with a note "Figure does not include the significant number of government-owned military guns possessed by civilians."
Almost precisely. You might find that among the Swiss and Israelis, everyone is expected to be armed responsibly according to the requirements of their societies. Among these requirements is rigorous military training and service, from everyone.
This is a well-reasoned article, and certainly written in the spirit of compromise, where both sides listen, examine the data, and try to focus efforts on what makes the most sense in light of the dangers.
Perhaps it is the views of liberals--or really, their tone and attitude--that drive gun owners ballistic so that they lash out with the accusation that all the left cares about is confiscation.
So, I call equal time: let's ask liberals to be more careful in their claims, but please, let's not let the right off the hook as treating every single attempt to increase gun safety as an immediate, "The President is coming to confiscate all your guns."
That is patently false, and yet, the right gets away with it over and over. In the spirit of compromise, then, please: let's ask each side to meet in the middle for a change.
Perhaps it is the views of liberals--or really, their tone and attitude--that drive gun owners ballistic so that they lash out with the accusation that all the left cares about is confiscation.
So, I call equal time: let's ask liberals to be more careful in their claims, but please, let's not let the right off the hook as treating every single attempt to increase gun safety as an immediate, "The President is coming to confiscate all your guns."
That is patently false, and yet, the right gets away with it over and over. In the spirit of compromise, then, please: let's ask each side to meet in the middle for a change.
26
"The President is coming to confiscate all your guns." , PotUS, coming for them? Probably not, but other "lawmakers"? Absolutely. Georgia State legislator Margaret Oliver very recently introduced HB 731, which would ban and confiscate so-called 'assault rifles'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like someone trying to take away firearms.
1
"The President is coming to confiscate all your guns."
If BHO isn't trying to do that than why does he keep talking about the "Australian solution"? Is it wrong for me to take him at his word?
If BHO isn't trying to do that than why does he keep talking about the "Australian solution"? Is it wrong for me to take him at his word?
3
Excellent comment to an excellent op-ed, Ms. M.
I appreciate that Kristof is trying to modulate from what were previously blatant "lies" to what he would now like to frame as "misunderstandings."
Well, it's too late.
I've been fighting this fight since the idiotic '96 AWB, myself and others like me no longer care about the public opinion fight, we care about the legal battles fought in our legal system. My time and money is spent on organizations that are winning in court. And to be honest I love that Hoplophobes are targeting the NRA. This misapplied vitriol and attention provides interference for the SAF.
Real grass-roots will always be more effective than top-down astro-turf orgs financed by urban coastal 1%-er billionaire elites.
Well, it's too late.
I've been fighting this fight since the idiotic '96 AWB, myself and others like me no longer care about the public opinion fight, we care about the legal battles fought in our legal system. My time and money is spent on organizations that are winning in court. And to be honest I love that Hoplophobes are targeting the NRA. This misapplied vitriol and attention provides interference for the SAF.
Real grass-roots will always be more effective than top-down astro-turf orgs financed by urban coastal 1%-er billionaire elites.
8
You get one life. Aren't there better things to spend your precious hours on than the worship of firearms?
Hi Jim, thanks for your concern. Taking time out of your day to help me discover what is important is quite touching. Maybe your comment is the one that will make a difference in this whole debate.
1
I'm thinking that 1%'er's and billionaires probably do need guns!.........to protect them from the otherwise sane gun owners who want their stuff. The rest of us are less likely to be targeted, except by knife owners who are looking to take our guns so that they can arm themselves and go after the 1%'er's' and the billionaires.
You see, it's not just the weapons, it's the "arms wars" that come along with the weapons that are the real problem.
You see, it's not just the weapons, it's the "arms wars" that come along with the weapons that are the real problem.
The argument of those who are against any gun regulation whatsoever, always claiming their right to defend themselves and their homes from the bad guys - such as intruders - or being harmless hunters, is laughable at best.
Statistics have clearly proven that if a person lives in a home with a gun, the probability of a family member in that household being killed by gun is 22 higher than in households without any guns.
Switzerland, the only advanced nation with a true people's militia, has recently changed its laws. Because of their gun death rate being the highest in all of Europe, members of the militia are not allowed to store their ammunition at home any more between maneuvers together with their sidearms.
And as an aside, the whole misinterpreted "well regulated milita" thingy in the Constirution has been turned into a joke when the only people who are called militias on these shores are white, Christian terrorists such as the Bundy clan et.al/
Statistics have clearly proven that if a person lives in a home with a gun, the probability of a family member in that household being killed by gun is 22 higher than in households without any guns.
Switzerland, the only advanced nation with a true people's militia, has recently changed its laws. Because of their gun death rate being the highest in all of Europe, members of the militia are not allowed to store their ammunition at home any more between maneuvers together with their sidearms.
And as an aside, the whole misinterpreted "well regulated milita" thingy in the Constirution has been turned into a joke when the only people who are called militias on these shores are white, Christian terrorists such as the Bundy clan et.al/
135
" the probability of a family member in that household being killed by gun is 22 higher than in households without any guns" of course that is true. But it also means households with guns a person is 22 times less likely to be killed with other than a gun. Such as knife, fists, etc. What matters is NOT how one is killed, what matters is whether one is killed or not. Simply switching from guns to knives still means people are dead. Gun bans will NOT stop suicides, domestic abuse murders, or home invasion murders.
2
You need to read the SCOTUS Heller decision and stop spreading nonsense about "misinterpretation." There is nothing to "interpret" if you know the facts. Militia has been defined in the Militia Act of 1792. Unorganized militia are the people; select militia is the National Guard,
1
You don't cite the source for your statement "statistics have clearly proven that if a person lives in a home with a gun, the probability of a family member in that household being killed by gun is 22 higher than in households without any guns," but it comes from an infamous "study" by Dr. Arthur Kellermann, and was one of the main reasons that Congress barred the CDC from any further work in this area. By the way, you incorrectly cite Kellermann's results. See the N Engl J Med 1993; 329:1084-1091 for the summary of what Kellermann actually reported.
Kellermann used the so-called "case control" method to reach his conclusion, which you have stated above. Apart from the methodological problems with this type of statistical analysis (a longitudinal study with a truly random national sample would be more appropriate), a major flaw is that it was restricted to one city (Seattle) for a limited period of time.
The other major flaw with Kellermann's work, and "research" in this field in general is that it typically ignores those instances, of which there are many, in which firearms are used to prevent criminal attacks. Those have been estimated to be between 1 and 2 million per year. You cannot talk about this controversial issue without looking at both sides of the picture.
Kellermann used the so-called "case control" method to reach his conclusion, which you have stated above. Apart from the methodological problems with this type of statistical analysis (a longitudinal study with a truly random national sample would be more appropriate), a major flaw is that it was restricted to one city (Seattle) for a limited period of time.
The other major flaw with Kellermann's work, and "research" in this field in general is that it typically ignores those instances, of which there are many, in which firearms are used to prevent criminal attacks. Those have been estimated to be between 1 and 2 million per year. You cannot talk about this controversial issue without looking at both sides of the picture.
3
I agree with the critics who argue that Kristof's proposals do not adequately address the problems caused by the wide availability of guns in the U.S. It is simply ludicrous for such dangerous weapons to outnumber people in a modern democratic society.
That said, in now seems to me that his limited suggestions offer the best opportunity to achieve some progress on this deeply divisive issue. While liberals have committed some errors in their aggressive approach to the gun culture, their mistakes pale in comparison to the stubborn rejection of compromise characteristic of the minority of gunowners associated with the NRA's position.
Modest proposals similar to those of Mr. Kristof's, however, could probably attract enough support from the majority of gunowners to provide political cover for jittery members of Congress. It is better to accomplish something of value than to achieve nothing by demanding measures that the country will not accept.
That said, in now seems to me that his limited suggestions offer the best opportunity to achieve some progress on this deeply divisive issue. While liberals have committed some errors in their aggressive approach to the gun culture, their mistakes pale in comparison to the stubborn rejection of compromise characteristic of the minority of gunowners associated with the NRA's position.
Modest proposals similar to those of Mr. Kristof's, however, could probably attract enough support from the majority of gunowners to provide political cover for jittery members of Congress. It is better to accomplish something of value than to achieve nothing by demanding measures that the country will not accept.
8
After 20,000 gun laws doesn't that mean that there has been quite a bit of compromise from gun owners. Can you tell me where the gun owners have got some benefit from a compromise especially since the BOR says guns "shall not be infringed".
People use guns to avoid compromising.
Personally, I worry a lot that the loudest voices in the gun lobby appear to be folks who are paranoid about the need to defend themselves against the rest of us. Sooner or later their delusion might reach a tipping point that justifies pulling the trigger, especially since paranoia itself is an indicator of mental illness.
There was a time when I believe that the NRA was an advocate of gun safety and rational gun policy.
Now, as with many other 'topsy-turvy' things going on in our society, it appears that corporate interests find it beneficial to encourage paranoia or any other emotional drivers (imcluding hate, fear, jealousy, and bigotry) that sells more guns...........to the point where we're now advocating that every one should own a gun to protect them from the 'bad people' who own guns.
At the very least, we should make the bad people wear something that allows us to readily identify them, otherwise, we might end up with a lot of dead and wounded 'good people'.
......and, I guess if we've got to be afraid of government, it would be a 'no brainer' to make sure that every government official and employee was also required to wear an appropriate identifier so that we'd know to shoot first when they looked like they were going to reach for their gun.
See! Once we have rules, it's easy to come up with a rational way to figure our who to shoot and when.
There was a time when I believe that the NRA was an advocate of gun safety and rational gun policy.
Now, as with many other 'topsy-turvy' things going on in our society, it appears that corporate interests find it beneficial to encourage paranoia or any other emotional drivers (imcluding hate, fear, jealousy, and bigotry) that sells more guns...........to the point where we're now advocating that every one should own a gun to protect them from the 'bad people' who own guns.
At the very least, we should make the bad people wear something that allows us to readily identify them, otherwise, we might end up with a lot of dead and wounded 'good people'.
......and, I guess if we've got to be afraid of government, it would be a 'no brainer' to make sure that every government official and employee was also required to wear an appropriate identifier so that we'd know to shoot first when they looked like they were going to reach for their gun.
See! Once we have rules, it's easy to come up with a rational way to figure our who to shoot and when.
1
This was much overdue. I liked it very much.
I'd suggest in addition that we see suicides as a separate problem, and that we see ALL suicides as the same problem, whether by guns or drugs or whatever.
All suicides taken together are a bigger problem than even guns, as much as four times more killed, over 40,000 per year vs 10,000 per year. Almost 30 people murdered on an average day by gun is disgusting, but then another 120 killing themselves every day is what?
We must do both, guns and suicides. This is not a suggestion to sidetrack gun safety, but to see part of it as a piece of something bigger and just as urgent.
Suicide is a huge problem that has not gotten the same attention, yet deserves it. Consider what it means that so many are in such despair that they kill themselves. It is awful.
Do both. Urgently. With similar urgency.
I'd suggest in addition that we see suicides as a separate problem, and that we see ALL suicides as the same problem, whether by guns or drugs or whatever.
All suicides taken together are a bigger problem than even guns, as much as four times more killed, over 40,000 per year vs 10,000 per year. Almost 30 people murdered on an average day by gun is disgusting, but then another 120 killing themselves every day is what?
We must do both, guns and suicides. This is not a suggestion to sidetrack gun safety, but to see part of it as a piece of something bigger and just as urgent.
Suicide is a huge problem that has not gotten the same attention, yet deserves it. Consider what it means that so many are in such despair that they kill themselves. It is awful.
Do both. Urgently. With similar urgency.
18
Unfortunately, when a gun is involved, suicide becomes just another gun issue. Some of it could be a result of "mental illness" that occurred either BEFORE or AFTER the victim acquired his or her gun, and some might be the victims only alternative given the laws against assisted suicide. In all cases, we'd stand a much better chance of helping these folks if they knew that they had an alternative.
The bottom line is that it's currently easier to get a gun or use the one already in ones possession than it is to get help.
That said, a gun is a convenient excuse to kill, or at best, something one might use to practice killing. For hunting and target shooting, more primitive weapons offer much more 'sport' to anyone with the ability to develop the skills. That might leave the 10 or 12 people who still use guns to support subsistence living high and dry, but I'm sure that we could come up with a solution to help them survive.
The bottom line is that it's currently easier to get a gun or use the one already in ones possession than it is to get help.
That said, a gun is a convenient excuse to kill, or at best, something one might use to practice killing. For hunting and target shooting, more primitive weapons offer much more 'sport' to anyone with the ability to develop the skills. That might leave the 10 or 12 people who still use guns to support subsistence living high and dry, but I'm sure that we could come up with a solution to help them survive.
1
As a card-carrying liberal, NRA Life Member, competitive shooter, and social worker I applaud efforts to bring some sanity to what has become a total mudfest with both sides shouting past each other. One cannot look at the statistics concerning violence involving firearms and NOT notice two empirical truths:
(1) blacks comprise just 13% of the population, but 53% of homicide offenders from 1980 through 2008. This disproportionate representation is especially true of young black men aged 14 to 24: they accounted for only about 1% of the population, but by 2008 27% of all homicide offenders. Because of where these young men live, about 58% of all murders take place in large cities. These places are also disproportionately more likely than other places to experience drug (67%) and gang (70%) related homicides. Black victims are over-represented in homicides involving drugs, with 62% of all drug-related homicides involving black victims and 67% involving black offenders. Again, blacks comprise about 13% of the U.S. population. The solution? Operation Ceasefire. It has proven effective in some 60 cities over 20 years.
The other fact that jumps out from these numbers is that firearms-involved suicides are concentrated among older white men living outside of big cities. Established public health approaches would reduce all suicides, including those involving firearms.
Let's try these approaches first.
(1) blacks comprise just 13% of the population, but 53% of homicide offenders from 1980 through 2008. This disproportionate representation is especially true of young black men aged 14 to 24: they accounted for only about 1% of the population, but by 2008 27% of all homicide offenders. Because of where these young men live, about 58% of all murders take place in large cities. These places are also disproportionately more likely than other places to experience drug (67%) and gang (70%) related homicides. Black victims are over-represented in homicides involving drugs, with 62% of all drug-related homicides involving black victims and 67% involving black offenders. Again, blacks comprise about 13% of the U.S. population. The solution? Operation Ceasefire. It has proven effective in some 60 cities over 20 years.
The other fact that jumps out from these numbers is that firearms-involved suicides are concentrated among older white men living outside of big cities. Established public health approaches would reduce all suicides, including those involving firearms.
Let's try these approaches first.
66
Deprive people of opportunity, and they'll find a way. It has nothing to to do with color, except perhaps in the discrimination, bigotry, and other social drivers that might help to drive people to look for opportunity in all the wrong places.
That's not an excuse, just a fact of human nature. The problem with statistics is that all too often it's too easy to conflate hypothesis with fact.
The odds are pretty good that anyone who 'acts out' through gun violence is or was salvageable sometime before they acted. The gun itself is a symbol and tool of violence. The motivation behind it's use is driven by a broad spectrum of human motivations. Most acts of gun violence are most likely preventable.
In short, as with most behaviors that are detrimental to society, it is our responsibility (as a society) to do everything that we can to protect the innocent and the vulnerable against themselves, their guns, and our guns.
That's not an excuse, just a fact of human nature. The problem with statistics is that all too often it's too easy to conflate hypothesis with fact.
The odds are pretty good that anyone who 'acts out' through gun violence is or was salvageable sometime before they acted. The gun itself is a symbol and tool of violence. The motivation behind it's use is driven by a broad spectrum of human motivations. Most acts of gun violence are most likely preventable.
In short, as with most behaviors that are detrimental to society, it is our responsibility (as a society) to do everything that we can to protect the innocent and the vulnerable against themselves, their guns, and our guns.
1
There is no such thing as a "competitive shooter". Until the days arrives when the paper targets are armed and can return fire. Or when all wild animals are armed and loaded and permitted to "carry". Whatever that is. Interesting concept, though.........
Thank you. You say the same thing that another person did, but without the vitriol, or the large dose of implied racism.
The country is failing its black citizens, and has done so for a long time.
The country is failing its black citizens, and has done so for a long time.
If liberals wanted to save lives a good law would be to require guns be locked up when not in use. (In use includes being kept at hand for defense against home invasion.) That would protect children and mentally unstable, it would reduce number of stolen guns available to criminals. NRA already encourages it as part of gun safety. But liberals don't seem to care about saving lives, they don't want common sense laws like this. Just confiscation and the deaths of many in the resulting civil war. Started by patriots defending themselves from criminals with badges. Law enforcement would be wise to ignore illegal gun grab laws.
6
Enjoy making things up? Because your post is filled with lies and hysteria. You know you just can't make stuff up and expect anyone to take you seriously.
Sorry, but gun worship and ready-to-shoot consciousness has zero to do with patriotism. In addition, 'patriotism' is not enough to make someone a good person. There were multitudes of 'patriotic' Germans from 1934-1945.
Regarding the non-conservative attitude toward guns: any regulation that serves the public interest is accepted by thinking people.
Regarding the non-conservative attitude toward guns: any regulation that serves the public interest is accepted by thinking people.
1
@Earl Turner,
"Liberals don't seem to care about saving lives, they don't want common sense laws like this..." Could you please specify which liberals or the percentage of liberals (and/or progressives) you have in mind? I ask because, with respects, if you're going to make an insulting generalization such as that, how's that supposed encourage a liberal to ponder your point of view? FYI, even the idea of guns makes me nervous. I've never touched one before in my life.
But, I saw President Obama's Town Hall talk on gun control via CNN this month; heard him mention FLOTUS Michelle Obama's recognition of the need-desire of families in isolated farming communities to have what they deem appropriate protection. And, I understood. Also, I understand your reference to locking guns to protect children and mentally vulnerable people, because it makes sense.
If you could consider not prejudging or making assumptions about people like me, it might just make it a tad easier to come (at least somewhat) closer to what Sanders's speaks of re: a middle ground on guns.
I bid you peace.
1-16-16@11:13 pm est
"Liberals don't seem to care about saving lives, they don't want common sense laws like this..." Could you please specify which liberals or the percentage of liberals (and/or progressives) you have in mind? I ask because, with respects, if you're going to make an insulting generalization such as that, how's that supposed encourage a liberal to ponder your point of view? FYI, even the idea of guns makes me nervous. I've never touched one before in my life.
But, I saw President Obama's Town Hall talk on gun control via CNN this month; heard him mention FLOTUS Michelle Obama's recognition of the need-desire of families in isolated farming communities to have what they deem appropriate protection. And, I understood. Also, I understand your reference to locking guns to protect children and mentally vulnerable people, because it makes sense.
If you could consider not prejudging or making assumptions about people like me, it might just make it a tad easier to come (at least somewhat) closer to what Sanders's speaks of re: a middle ground on guns.
I bid you peace.
1-16-16@11:13 pm est
3
"Just since 1970, more Americans have died from guns"
You really should break out suicides.
"Research suggests that the most important practical step would be to keep guns away from high-risk individuals, such as criminals,"
This suggests "Stop and Frisk", less plea bargaining on violent, crimes, and serving maximum terms.
" 40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check. "
How much of that 40% is criminals buying illegal guns? They will never do background checks. Also, in trying to keep guns from criminal hands we need to realize heroin is illegal in every state and also available to a determined user.
"more driven by evidence o f what works."
What percent of gun crimes are committed by people who would still be incarcerated were the maximum sentence served?
You really should break out suicides.
"Research suggests that the most important practical step would be to keep guns away from high-risk individuals, such as criminals,"
This suggests "Stop and Frisk", less plea bargaining on violent, crimes, and serving maximum terms.
" 40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check. "
How much of that 40% is criminals buying illegal guns? They will never do background checks. Also, in trying to keep guns from criminal hands we need to realize heroin is illegal in every state and also available to a determined user.
"more driven by evidence o f what works."
What percent of gun crimes are committed by people who would still be incarcerated were the maximum sentence served?
7
Every time gun control people declare want they want to ban, limit, register, prohibit, regulate, permit, not permit, outlaw and confiscate all they do is enrage ordinary sportsmen and women who hunt, collect, target shoot, shoot competively or otherwise use guns legally and with safety and respect for others.
And those same gun control people set off a rush to buy guns and ammunition because they create fear that they will demand that innocent law abiding citizens will be made criminals of, and also, the right of self-defense or the right to hunt and even the right to transfer guns between family members will become a criminal offense. In other words gun users and enthusiasts are afraid gun banners will disarm them and leave them defenseless against criminals, civil war, looters and even the Zombie Apocolapse (which basically is an inside joke).
Gun users believe that if guns are banned only criminals will have guns. They believe that gun free zones invite crime and criminals. And they believe that they have the right to stand their ground and not retreat in the face of armed criminals or others who would harm them or their families.
Its scary. Its a no-win situation. Until both sides can sit down and calmly reach a mutually beneficial agreement the discord, the fear and the run on gun shops will continue. In the meantime criminals will continue to get guns and use them indiscriminately. Laws don't stop them. Armed citizens don't stop them, nor do gun free zones.
And those same gun control people set off a rush to buy guns and ammunition because they create fear that they will demand that innocent law abiding citizens will be made criminals of, and also, the right of self-defense or the right to hunt and even the right to transfer guns between family members will become a criminal offense. In other words gun users and enthusiasts are afraid gun banners will disarm them and leave them defenseless against criminals, civil war, looters and even the Zombie Apocolapse (which basically is an inside joke).
Gun users believe that if guns are banned only criminals will have guns. They believe that gun free zones invite crime and criminals. And they believe that they have the right to stand their ground and not retreat in the face of armed criminals or others who would harm them or their families.
Its scary. Its a no-win situation. Until both sides can sit down and calmly reach a mutually beneficial agreement the discord, the fear and the run on gun shops will continue. In the meantime criminals will continue to get guns and use them indiscriminately. Laws don't stop them. Armed citizens don't stop them, nor do gun free zones.
13
Has anyone else noticed that the only people who talk about banning guns are the gun owners? These people seem to just make stuff up because otherwise they have no rational arguments.
2
How does gun control become banning guns?
2
The writer argues erroneously that liberal-minded people want to confiscate guns. What they do say is that the uglier gun lover attitudes become the more sane regulations are desirable.
The 'confiscate' word is thrown around to whip visceral passion into the hearts of very gullible gun lovers. Lose it, and join the real discussion.
The 'confiscate' word is thrown around to whip visceral passion into the hearts of very gullible gun lovers. Lose it, and join the real discussion.
4
Thank you, Mr. Kristof, for some reasoned and balanced commentary on guns - it's very hard to find these days. The rhetoric on both sides of this issue is so overblown that I generally just tune it out entirely.
I grew up around guns - used for hunting, not self-defense - and I have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns for sport or for self-defense. However, modest requirements for registration and background checks, and some limits on the types of weapons ordinary citizens can own don't seem to me as though they would impose any unreasonable restrictions on the sort of gun-owner folks I grew up with.
At the same time, I'm happy to see you challenge the anti-gun crowd on some of their not necessarily well-founded assumptions about guns, too. The folks who want to ban guns entirely (apart from the practical impossibility of that, at this point) seem to have an overblown sense of the impact that would have on our society.
I grew up around guns - used for hunting, not self-defense - and I have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns for sport or for self-defense. However, modest requirements for registration and background checks, and some limits on the types of weapons ordinary citizens can own don't seem to me as though they would impose any unreasonable restrictions on the sort of gun-owner folks I grew up with.
At the same time, I'm happy to see you challenge the anti-gun crowd on some of their not necessarily well-founded assumptions about guns, too. The folks who want to ban guns entirely (apart from the practical impossibility of that, at this point) seem to have an overblown sense of the impact that would have on our society.
15
“In fact, the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected). Liberals were closer to the truth, for the increase in carrying loaded guns does appear to have led to more aggravated assaults with guns, but the fears were overblown.”
Not if the most common form of positive defensive gun use is legitimately factored in. The largest number of lawful defensive gun uses there is no shot fired. With not shot fired there is quite often no police report filed so most of these events go uncounted in these studies.
Not if the most common form of positive defensive gun use is legitimately factored in. The largest number of lawful defensive gun uses there is no shot fired. With not shot fired there is quite often no police report filed so most of these events go uncounted in these studies.
15
I would very much like a citation and evidence for what you say.
4
Give us a few examples of what you are talking about.
5
Brandishing guns is a crime too.
3
Mr. Kristoff- You have my deepest respect, but I must state quire firmly-- if our state legislature succeeds in passing open carry gun laws, particularly on our college campus, I resign. Period. I will not teach in that atmosphere. I will not support the pure idiocy of encouraging guns to be even more accessible to young people whose many life challenges can seem suddenly overwhelming and impossible.
We take many actions to protect the quality of our civic life : We do not allow lit candles in dorms. Our state has a real time registry for every sale of pseudo-ephedrine as an ingredient for making crystal meth so the police can monitor for criminal activity. Guns are not permitted at professional sports events.
Yet I am expected to be comfortable with a portion of people carrying guns in our usual social areas? I'm supposed to be ok when I see a picture in the news of someone with the clearly hostile and provocative gesture of carrying a gun on his hip while protesting something about President Obama? I'm supposed to be understanding when dad wants to bring a gun into elementary school when he brings the child into class because it is too inconvenient to leave it in the trunk of the car? Walkers on the trail 2 blocks away have been robbed at gun point. Life is getting more unsettling Even though I realize that gun violence statistics are down--but with sales climbing, i just don't see how this is a stable equilibrium. This situation makes me want to move away.
We take many actions to protect the quality of our civic life : We do not allow lit candles in dorms. Our state has a real time registry for every sale of pseudo-ephedrine as an ingredient for making crystal meth so the police can monitor for criminal activity. Guns are not permitted at professional sports events.
Yet I am expected to be comfortable with a portion of people carrying guns in our usual social areas? I'm supposed to be ok when I see a picture in the news of someone with the clearly hostile and provocative gesture of carrying a gun on his hip while protesting something about President Obama? I'm supposed to be understanding when dad wants to bring a gun into elementary school when he brings the child into class because it is too inconvenient to leave it in the trunk of the car? Walkers on the trail 2 blocks away have been robbed at gun point. Life is getting more unsettling Even though I realize that gun violence statistics are down--but with sales climbing, i just don't see how this is a stable equilibrium. This situation makes me want to move away.
573
Mom,
Thank you for speaking out what is on the minds of many parents and teachers. I believe many of those pro-gun women in President Obama's town hall meeting, have guns because they fear their attackers having one, and would prefer to fend them off with a pepper spray.
In the larger picture, responsible gun owners are a majority who should not be coerced to live in fear by a "freedom loving", assault weapon toting minority. What we need is for our congress representatives to stand up for the majority that they represent.
Thank you for speaking out what is on the minds of many parents and teachers. I believe many of those pro-gun women in President Obama's town hall meeting, have guns because they fear their attackers having one, and would prefer to fend them off with a pepper spray.
In the larger picture, responsible gun owners are a majority who should not be coerced to live in fear by a "freedom loving", assault weapon toting minority. What we need is for our congress representatives to stand up for the majority that they represent.
10
Hello Mom,
One sympathizes. You do not have to idly accept this open-carry movement. This is a movement birthed from ideology without practicality. A key component to undermining an impractical law is challenging its enforceability.
I encourage anyone and everyone who sees a person carrying a gun in public to call the authorities on-the-spot, regardless if he or she lives in an open-carry jurisdiction. Since open-carry is an invitation to public profiling, you are not asked to trust that person, you are forced to trust that person. Do not feel coerced into assuming good intentions when you see an armed civilian. I hate to say this, but assume the worst and call the authorities in so they can prove the situation otherwise.
Your concerns are valid, but I don't think this movement is a dealbreaker. The real point of no return is when society's peacekeepers deem a person's fear of a gun-toting stranger as irrational. I believe the big dealbreaker moment will hit if/when concerned citizens like you and I are painted as the nuisance.
All the best.
One sympathizes. You do not have to idly accept this open-carry movement. This is a movement birthed from ideology without practicality. A key component to undermining an impractical law is challenging its enforceability.
I encourage anyone and everyone who sees a person carrying a gun in public to call the authorities on-the-spot, regardless if he or she lives in an open-carry jurisdiction. Since open-carry is an invitation to public profiling, you are not asked to trust that person, you are forced to trust that person. Do not feel coerced into assuming good intentions when you see an armed civilian. I hate to say this, but assume the worst and call the authorities in so they can prove the situation otherwise.
Your concerns are valid, but I don't think this movement is a dealbreaker. The real point of no return is when society's peacekeepers deem a person's fear of a gun-toting stranger as irrational. I believe the big dealbreaker moment will hit if/when concerned citizens like you and I are painted as the nuisance.
All the best.
21
45 states with open carry and no "blood in the streets" exists despite all the hysteria from the Hoplophobic Left EVERY time another state decides to join the norm of open carry.
1
It makes no sense to fail to ban assault weapons just because mass shootings using them are statistically rare. They are still harder to commit if such weapons are not so readily available. Just as we don't decide after a plane crash to do nothing to prevent another one just because plane crashes are rare, neither should we decide that the occasional Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech or Charlotte is rare and therefore unpreventable. Other civilized nations that do ban such weapons do not have the mass shootings that characterize the U.S. That's evidence that we can live by.
522
Yeah, except that they do.
"Other civilized nations that do ban such weapons do not have the mass shootings that characterize the U.S."
San Bernardino (via CA state laws) and France have such weapons bans in place, but tragically mass shootings still occurred there. Same for Norway, a country with strict gun control laws in which one of the worst mass shootings in history occurred.
Criminals, by definition, do not abide by laws. Gun control laws only prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns. Criminals do not buy their guns at Dick's Sporting Goods.
America has over 300M guns. The only gun control law that could potentially cut the criminal use of guns would be a law which allowed the seizure of all guns privately held in the United States and prevent citizens from buying any guns in the future. Fortunately, the 2nd Amendment precludes such a law. Short of that, any gun control laws won't have any effect on crime. Just like the war on drugs has never stopped the sale or use of drugs.
San Bernardino (via CA state laws) and France have such weapons bans in place, but tragically mass shootings still occurred there. Same for Norway, a country with strict gun control laws in which one of the worst mass shootings in history occurred.
Criminals, by definition, do not abide by laws. Gun control laws only prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns. Criminals do not buy their guns at Dick's Sporting Goods.
America has over 300M guns. The only gun control law that could potentially cut the criminal use of guns would be a law which allowed the seizure of all guns privately held in the United States and prevent citizens from buying any guns in the future. Fortunately, the 2nd Amendment precludes such a law. Short of that, any gun control laws won't have any effect on crime. Just like the war on drugs has never stopped the sale or use of drugs.
2
Those so-called assault weapons are just castrated semi-auto copies of real assault rifles. They can shoot no faster than any handgun. They are larger than handguns and impossible to hide. We already know that our government supplied them to Mexican killers to justify a ban on them. Search web for "fast and furious victims".
1
Appeals for more regulations after losing a loved one to gun violence brought about by the easy and irresponsible access to so many guns is not sanctimonious. It's the voice of heartbreak.
Ignoring pleas for sensible gun laws by using diatribes about freedom and individual rights cased in sneers and threats is the true sanctimony here.
Ignoring pleas for sensible gun laws by using diatribes about freedom and individual rights cased in sneers and threats is the true sanctimony here.
62
To be consistent, we should pare back the many regulations and restrictions on vehicle owners. We need to protect the right of all Americans to own cars and trucks. If we register vehicles, the next step is that the government will come and take them away. And we certainly don't want to study vehicle safety. That could lead to tyranny. We need our cars to drive away when the government comes after us.
See how ridiculous that sounds?
See how ridiculous that sounds?
539
Taxes and Insurance..See how bad that sounds?
1
There is no Constitutional right to own or operate a vehicle. Your comment does sound ridiculous, but not for the reason you think.
4
What BOR amendment exactly is the one dealing with cars?
1
The first rule of gun safety is: do not carry a loaded weapon around. This one simple rule (the 2nd is don't point a weapon at anyone, loaded or unloaded) has been abandoned by:1.) the NRA. 2.) gross misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment. 3.) a growing number of pandering state and federal legislators. Also, the idea of using evidence that guns are dangerous is absurd since little data is collected since the proliferation of military grade weapons verses hunting weapons due to the dissimulaion and chicanery of conservative politicians and gun manufacturing lobbies.
43
@ boson777, Utter baloney.
These are the four rules of gun safety:
1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Always be sure of your target.
The rest of your post is just more of the same poppycock that Kristof's article is highlighting.
These are the four rules of gun safety:
1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Always be sure of your target.
The rest of your post is just more of the same poppycock that Kristof's article is highlighting.
4
-- "gross misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment. "
Sure, you know better than the Supreme Court.
Sure, you know better than the Supreme Court.
1
Erm, I do believe that you are completely wrong on your "first rule of gun safety".
The first rule is to, "Treat every firearm as if it were loaded."
The second, "Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to shoot."
Third, "Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire."
Fourth, "Keep your firearm on 'SAFE' until you intend to fire"
Fifth (generally referred to as the "unwritten" rule), "Know your target and what lies beyond your target."
Also, please define "Military-grade"?
The M16 (also, the M249 light machine gun) uses the same caliber cartridge as a .223 Remington-chambered hunting rifle. The M14 (inceidentally, the M60 belt-fed machine gun as well) uses the same .308 caliber cartridge as a regular hunting rifle.
Aside from belt-fed machine guns, the ONLY differences between the M16 / M4 kept in the armory of the base I am stationed at, and the M4 I have in my closet is the armory has select-fire rifles, and mine is semi-auto only. I'm fairly certain that if there WAS a proliferation of your claimed "military-grade" firearms, there would be a heck of a lot more applications for NFA licenses, and purchases of the extremely expensive NFA-regulated select-fire and automatic firearms.
The first rule is to, "Treat every firearm as if it were loaded."
The second, "Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to shoot."
Third, "Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire."
Fourth, "Keep your firearm on 'SAFE' until you intend to fire"
Fifth (generally referred to as the "unwritten" rule), "Know your target and what lies beyond your target."
Also, please define "Military-grade"?
The M16 (also, the M249 light machine gun) uses the same caliber cartridge as a .223 Remington-chambered hunting rifle. The M14 (inceidentally, the M60 belt-fed machine gun as well) uses the same .308 caliber cartridge as a regular hunting rifle.
Aside from belt-fed machine guns, the ONLY differences between the M16 / M4 kept in the armory of the base I am stationed at, and the M4 I have in my closet is the armory has select-fire rifles, and mine is semi-auto only. I'm fairly certain that if there WAS a proliferation of your claimed "military-grade" firearms, there would be a heck of a lot more applications for NFA licenses, and purchases of the extremely expensive NFA-regulated select-fire and automatic firearms.
3
Sure, there are technical and statistical data that muddy the conversation about just how safe guns are. But that is hardly the only issue. Anyone who is not a gun lover is horrified to see aggressive-looking men swaggering under the weight of a sidearm tied to the thigh, along with a 10" knife belted on the other side. There is something unambiguously ugly about "open carry". It is pugnacious, to say the least. If you haven't seen it --- you will if the current trends are continued. I have seen it, in a peaceful grocery store. It's ugly --- especially the f-u swagger that goes with it. It has absolutely zero correspondence with the 2nd Amendment.
That notwithstanding, gun suicide statistics should be removed from this discussion, except for cases where the perpetrator also harms others.
That notwithstanding, gun suicide statistics should be removed from this discussion, except for cases where the perpetrator also harms others.
75
What are these open carry people so afraid of? They all seem to be afraid of their own shadows, like three year olds.
2
Open carry is just their phallic symbol.
4
Marvinsky, I strongly disagree that suicide should be removed from statistics on gun violence. My eleven year old cousin took a gun out of her parents night stand, walked down the street to a church and shot herself in the head. That was violent. If you don't think that is gun violence, talk to my family or the people who cleaned up the bits of bone, brains and pools of blood on the pew and carpets.
5
I think it's naïve to expect the right to compromise, though of course they ought to. To be frank, I've grown sick and tired of hearing liberal politicians bend over backwards on this issue. The best thing that could happen right now in the politics of guns would be for Martin O'Malley (specifically him) to come out in favor of the gun policy that would actually work – a total ban on private ownership of all firearms except hunting rifles. Sure, it's politically impossible, but apparently so are universal background checks, which 90% of Americans support. I'm not so foolish as to think a majority of Americans would support a ban on firearm ownership, but I think 20% might, and the number will grow if nothing keeps being done about gun violence. If we manage to convince conservatives and "reasonable gun owners" that the choice is compromise now or total defeat in a generation, maybe then they'll be interested in compromise. But this constant politics of appeasement isn't working, and I'm sick and tired of being unrepresented in national politics. No one I know keeps a gun at home. No one I know wants to keep a gun at home. I'm sick of being told by rural Americans again and again, with their generous federal subsidies and sense of cultural entitlement, that we city dwellers have to "understand" their culture. At some point they have to understand our culture too, and recognize that there are more of us and this is supposed to be a democracy.
264
"The best thing that could happen right now in the politics of guns would be for Martin O'Malley (specifically him) to come out in favor of the gun policy that would actually work – a total ban on private ownership of all firearms except hunting rifles."
The 2nd Amendment is in the context of arms of military value, not hunting.
"I'm not so foolish as to think a majority of Americans would support a ban on firearm ownership,"
If you follow the Constitution, you have your Second Amendment rights whether or not a majority support them unless the 2nd amendment is repealed.
"No one I know wants to keep a gun at home. "
You probably live in a safe area.
"we city dwellers have to "understand" their culture. "
We all should understand the constitution and why we have the Bill of Rights. We don't live in a tyranny now, and probably won't soon, but perhaps the Germans felt the same way before WWII and the Chinese before Mao. How many millions of innocent citizens were killed by their own governments in the previous century considering Hitler, Stalin / communist Russia, and early communist China.
that there are more of us and this is supposed to be a democracy."
Part of the Constitution's role is to protect minorities from the Tyranny of the majority. We can't, for example, establish a majority religion, or outlaw religion, even if a bigoted majority wanted that.
The 2nd Amendment is in the context of arms of military value, not hunting.
"I'm not so foolish as to think a majority of Americans would support a ban on firearm ownership,"
If you follow the Constitution, you have your Second Amendment rights whether or not a majority support them unless the 2nd amendment is repealed.
"No one I know wants to keep a gun at home. "
You probably live in a safe area.
"we city dwellers have to "understand" their culture. "
We all should understand the constitution and why we have the Bill of Rights. We don't live in a tyranny now, and probably won't soon, but perhaps the Germans felt the same way before WWII and the Chinese before Mao. How many millions of innocent citizens were killed by their own governments in the previous century considering Hitler, Stalin / communist Russia, and early communist China.
that there are more of us and this is supposed to be a democracy."
Part of the Constitution's role is to protect minorities from the Tyranny of the majority. We can't, for example, establish a majority religion, or outlaw religion, even if a bigoted majority wanted that.
3
Mexico bans all but hunting rifles and some shotguns. Yet they have far more gun violence. Since the southern border might as well not exist our country and Mexico are more alike every day. Do you liberals want mass murders, cartels having fire fights in cities, hundreds of unarmed women kidnapped and murdered every year? If so keep up the gun bans and may your higher power have mercy on your soul. I'm certain appropriate reward for the deaths you cause will be yours eternally.
1
In our highly mobile, interconnected world, it is silly to assume that one doesn't understand another because of where one is domiciled. Your post is as asinine as it is presumptuous. I 'get' the urban lifestyle with its grand cultural opportunities and diversity; yet, I also understand the rural citizen who enjoys the turkeys, deer, mink and eagles that frequent the back forty. For what it's worth, I can listen to Beethoven in the solitude of my backyard overlooking the farm pond while I read my favorite book. The choices life can present are grand. Guns are a problem in the wrong hands, but so are booze, processed foods and many, many commodities. If we are serious about gun crime, we must become serious about substance abuse and mental illness. Tax all illicit substances and increase the tax on booze (especilly your preferred wine!) and embark on an education program that addresses the real issue-mental illness, and attendent rural and urban anomie and nihilism.
1
NK: "One of the puzzles of American politics is that most voters want gun regulation, but Congress resists."
Congress resists because it is an easy issue to scare any sitting member of the House or Senate in his/her upcoming primary. A more rabid gun-lover is always in the wings waiting to pounce.
Congress resists because it is an easy issue to scare any sitting member of the House or Senate in his/her upcoming primary. A more rabid gun-lover is always in the wings waiting to pounce.
2
Let's have greater balance in the political arguments on gun violence.
President Obama and candidate Hillary are being politically biased against candidate Sanders on the subject - deploring gun violence while not giving equal weight to vehicle violence. Vehicles create more deaths and injuries.
See http://www.careforcrashvictims.com/blog-hillaryguns.php
President Obama and candidate Hillary are being politically biased against candidate Sanders on the subject - deploring gun violence while not giving equal weight to vehicle violence. Vehicles create more deaths and injuries.
See http://www.careforcrashvictims.com/blog-hillaryguns.php
You're kidding, right. Please be kidding.
4
I am not kidding. Just check out the facts, please.
http://www.careforcrashvictims.com/blog-hillaryguns.php
http://www.careforcrashvictims.com/blog-hillaryguns.php
1
This is exactly the kind of commentary that's needed on this issue -- one that recognizes its complexity and challenges both sides to begin by acknowledging all the messy fact, not simply the ones that support their position.
26
What concerns most gun owners is the words gun control. As we've seen from Obama, Hillary and others is the latest drum banging of lets adopt the Australian model. In Australia the pro gun lobby did nothing as "common sense" gun laws were enacted. Eventually overnight the anti gun proponents enacted a law basically confiscating most firearms under the term of "buy backs". Of course the government never owned the guns so "buyback" is sort of a strange term. Allegedly gun owners were compensated however compensation was determined by the government. The most valuable guns were sold by the government to collectors. Today to acquire a firearm is expensive and time consuming. Obama and the liberals see confiscation as the "end game".
Long guns including the AR15 account for .07% of the homicides in the US. AR stands for Armalite not assault to my anti gun friends. However, this particular firearm is considered "evil" because it is painted black and has a pistol grip.
Smart guns. Any technology can fail. Whether it's your car not starting, your cell phone not working. Except in those instances your life is not at risk. It's telling both state and federal and state police have rejected this technology.
I once said to a friend who was arguing to bann guns that he should set an example by putting a sign in his window "this is a gun free house".
Long guns including the AR15 account for .07% of the homicides in the US. AR stands for Armalite not assault to my anti gun friends. However, this particular firearm is considered "evil" because it is painted black and has a pistol grip.
Smart guns. Any technology can fail. Whether it's your car not starting, your cell phone not working. Except in those instances your life is not at risk. It's telling both state and federal and state police have rejected this technology.
I once said to a friend who was arguing to bann guns that he should set an example by putting a sign in his window "this is a gun free house".
13
Bad guys don't want to break into your house because they suspect you're home. Burglars rob homes where they think no one is around and expect to find valuables that are able to quickly steal. Guns and ammo are easy to sell on the street at high prices, and according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 58 percent of stolen guns are taken during burglaries. So having a sign that states "Gun Free House" is actually a pretty good idea. Maybe I'll add another sign that reads "No Cash on Premises" for good measure. If I do that, will you please put a sign in your front yard that says, "Lots of expensive firearms inside" along with the hours you're usually away? Let's see who gets a visit from Mr. Bad Guy first.
7
Well, if I had children, I certainly wouldn't allow them into your home, because they would be twenty times more likely to die by firearm by being in your presence. But I'm glad it gives you this completely misplaced sense of security.
4
The argument looses much credibility when the numbers are grossly inflated and confused by including suicides. Many gear spending years incapacitated in a nursing home of suffering unnecessarily from a terminal disease and a gun is a comforting option to have.
10
If MP thinks that the numbers would be more informative with suicides excluded, then s/he should present the numbers s/he finds most informative.
If MP thinks that people use guns rather than, say, poison to avoid suffering from a terminal disease, then s/he should present numerical data to back up that claim.
If MP thinks that people use guns rather than, say, poison to avoid suffering from a terminal disease, then s/he should present numerical data to back up that claim.
8
Most people who commit suicide suffer from mental illness and their loss is the same agony to their families as anyone else who dies violently. They should absolutely be included in gun violence statistics.
Suicides go down when readily available means of killing oneself are eliminated. People who try to kilo themselves and cannot readily do so often live.
Their families pretty much wish they were alive. To state that gun deaths which are suicide are somehow less "violent" than accidental deaths or murders is ridiculous.
Suicides go down when readily available means of killing oneself are eliminated. People who try to kilo themselves and cannot readily do so often live.
Their families pretty much wish they were alive. To state that gun deaths which are suicide are somehow less "violent" than accidental deaths or murders is ridiculous.
5
Medical practice, properly managed, can remove virtually all of the suffering from a terminal disease simply by using a wide array of powerful drugs, not all of which are morphine-based. If I had a terminal disease, I would make sure I had medical help that knew how to manage pain with the full palate of drugs and other options.
Tightening things up remains a challenge.
It may be that 40% of gun sales in the U.S. are transacted without a background check; but many if not most of those sales are between individuals – Clem buying an old shotgun from Billy Gene Bob. I just donated a car to charity, and it was a matter of a few minutes and no inconvenience whatsoever, including the pick-up. Yet one of the issues that sank Sen. Feinstein’s efforts at greater “gun safety” a few years ago was the insistence that Clem go through the inconvenience and expense of a background check of Billy Gene Bob just to sell that old shotgun. And if Billy Gene Bob were a criminal, how would that inconvenience prevent the sale if the identity he provided Clem was a false one (Google “obtain false identity” and see the MANY hits on advice as to how to obtain illicit identity documents)?
But Kristof’s column is an excellent start to sensitizing gun control advocates in how to avoid shooting themselves in the foot when seeking greater “gun safety” legislation. It needs to start with respect for people who simply disagree and who are supported by a constitutional right. I support him in this effort, as I’ve been flogging the same approach for years in this community.
It may be that 40% of gun sales in the U.S. are transacted without a background check; but many if not most of those sales are between individuals – Clem buying an old shotgun from Billy Gene Bob. I just donated a car to charity, and it was a matter of a few minutes and no inconvenience whatsoever, including the pick-up. Yet one of the issues that sank Sen. Feinstein’s efforts at greater “gun safety” a few years ago was the insistence that Clem go through the inconvenience and expense of a background check of Billy Gene Bob just to sell that old shotgun. And if Billy Gene Bob were a criminal, how would that inconvenience prevent the sale if the identity he provided Clem was a false one (Google “obtain false identity” and see the MANY hits on advice as to how to obtain illicit identity documents)?
But Kristof’s column is an excellent start to sensitizing gun control advocates in how to avoid shooting themselves in the foot when seeking greater “gun safety” legislation. It needs to start with respect for people who simply disagree and who are supported by a constitutional right. I support him in this effort, as I’ve been flogging the same approach for years in this community.
9
Richard, you accept the estimate of the high percentage of gun sales that go unrecorded because they involve transactions between individuals. Then, you attempt to downplay the importance of these sales by implying they involve nothing more than the purchase of weapons ("old shotgun") that no one would consider much of a threat. Any effort to identify the kind of firearms exchanged in this sector of the market obviously involves speculation. But the volume of the sales (40% of total) makes it highly likely that many new handguns and even assault weapons change hands in this manner.
Reasonable gun legislation requires far more than sensitizing its advocates to the need to respect gunowners. In addition to that, it demands the registration of guns, as a means to track the kind of sales that now go unrecorded. In order to donate your car, your title had to be transferred. As many readers have argued, a similar requirement should apply to guns.
The fear of many gunowners that registration leads to confiscation is a problem that gun control advocates must address. But your own analysis suggests that no other approach will enable the government to track gun sales.
Reasonable gun legislation requires far more than sensitizing its advocates to the need to respect gunowners. In addition to that, it demands the registration of guns, as a means to track the kind of sales that now go unrecorded. In order to donate your car, your title had to be transferred. As many readers have argued, a similar requirement should apply to guns.
The fear of many gunowners that registration leads to confiscation is a problem that gun control advocates must address. But your own analysis suggests that no other approach will enable the government to track gun sales.
4
James:
I don't buy your conclusions at all. It's been estimated that there are over 110 MILLION guns in general circulation in the U.S., and that as many as half of our households possess at least one gun. The sheer volume of transactions in such a number that involve one gun, one buyer and one seller, would be immense in a background check system that is notoriously buggy and inconvenient. Your argument that it's worth the trouble and expense TO OTHERS has already lost among those whose support is required to pass such requirements.
I'm in favor of requiring all COMMERCIAL transactions between professional gun sellers and citizens to require background checks, including those at gun shows. But to require Clem to go get one for Billy Gene Bob for an old shotgun? Forget it -- the cost of the inquiry could exceed the value of the old gun and the funds exchanged; and I wouldn't wish the inconvenience of dealing with the Feds on this matter on anyone.
Given the diminishing consequences arising from these sales, documented by this column, it seems to me that insistence on background checks of all such personal, one-on-one transfers, is merely an attempt by some to disincentivize them in the specious name of seeking to count every bean.
And forget about registration. It's this persistent insistence on securing the objectives that caused Feinstein to crash and burn that convinces me that we're not going to greatly improve "gun safety" in America during my lifetime.
I don't buy your conclusions at all. It's been estimated that there are over 110 MILLION guns in general circulation in the U.S., and that as many as half of our households possess at least one gun. The sheer volume of transactions in such a number that involve one gun, one buyer and one seller, would be immense in a background check system that is notoriously buggy and inconvenient. Your argument that it's worth the trouble and expense TO OTHERS has already lost among those whose support is required to pass such requirements.
I'm in favor of requiring all COMMERCIAL transactions between professional gun sellers and citizens to require background checks, including those at gun shows. But to require Clem to go get one for Billy Gene Bob for an old shotgun? Forget it -- the cost of the inquiry could exceed the value of the old gun and the funds exchanged; and I wouldn't wish the inconvenience of dealing with the Feds on this matter on anyone.
Given the diminishing consequences arising from these sales, documented by this column, it seems to me that insistence on background checks of all such personal, one-on-one transfers, is merely an attempt by some to disincentivize them in the specious name of seeking to count every bean.
And forget about registration. It's this persistent insistence on securing the objectives that caused Feinstein to crash and burn that convinces me that we're not going to greatly improve "gun safety" in America during my lifetime.
2
Since you claim to have been "flogging the same approach for years in this community" - of "sensitizing gun control advocates" - presumably you also have lots of ideas to share with us on how to "sensitively" institute gun control. But those were missing from your self-congratulatory comment. Please, share with us.
2
This Liberal is willing to compromise. Let's build in safety features into the gun sale and gun use in America. Rigorous background checks and a biosensor that allows only the "cleared" purchaser to use the gun. Like a fingerprint sensor that recognizes the rightful owner. Maybe a code secured device that must be activated before the gun can be used. If nothing else, let's try our best to eliminate innocent children from playing with a loaded gun and avert that disaster. It's a start.
15
So you think 380 million firearms should be retrofitted for biosensors!
1
KH -your talk about biosensors in guns is precisely the sort of ignorance that Mr. Kristof warns liberals against. Complex electronics are too unreliable to depend upon in a life or death situation. Your notion of entering a code is even more absurd - will you ask your assailant to hang on while you log in? Your suggestions are nonstarters and simply demonstrate how little you understand. If you want to have intelligent input on complex issues, please educate yourself about firearms. That means actually talking to people who understand them, not just gun banners.
4
Here's some more inconvenient truth that Kristof wouldn't dare mention: a hugely disproportionate amount of gun homicides are committed by blacks and Hispanics. When controlling for race, America's gun crime is about the same as Europe's. That's why, when Obama tries to pass gun control laws (that don't work) whites feel targeted even though they aren't the problem. Whites mainly use gun for suicide, not homicide. State by state, gun ownership is not strongly correlated with gun homicides. It is higly concentrated in black Democratic areas that have very restrictive gun controls.
60
a - the vast majority of gun homicides are perpetrated in densely populated getos that exist due to generations of neglect, red lining, and a fundamentally racist sentencing program instituted by racists in the 80s.
But do go on with your purely racist analysis. It's fascinating.
But do go on with your purely racist analysis. It's fascinating.
11
In fact more gun deaths in the US are suicides than homicides. Should we not try to prevent those as well?
6
If gun homicides are committed by non-whites, then, what is your proposal? Deport all non-whites, or fix the laws that cause the mayhem.
3
The gun lobby money has skewed the discussion....
Gun safety regulation requires the same 3 legged stool as auto safety regulation: certificates of title registries with licences for the safe use and storage of guns; liability insurance to promote these ends; and 'rules of the road'.
Gun murders are not even the biggest cause of deaths by gunshot..
suicides are.
The gun owners must assume a modicum of responsibility for gun safety. This is where that starts.
Impulse and opportunity are the two sources of gun harm that safety regulation will address: the gun casually left at bedside, under the car seat; or on top of a refrigerator. These turn teenage burglars, despondent folks, children, and ne ' do wells from the merely troublesome to deadly
Gun safety regulation requires the same 3 legged stool as auto safety regulation: certificates of title registries with licences for the safe use and storage of guns; liability insurance to promote these ends; and 'rules of the road'.
Gun murders are not even the biggest cause of deaths by gunshot..
suicides are.
The gun owners must assume a modicum of responsibility for gun safety. This is where that starts.
Impulse and opportunity are the two sources of gun harm that safety regulation will address: the gun casually left at bedside, under the car seat; or on top of a refrigerator. These turn teenage burglars, despondent folks, children, and ne ' do wells from the merely troublesome to deadly
11
The same should be used for posting public comments!
Are you serious? You want to regulate suicide? Blame the suicidal person for lack of responsibility of maintaining gun safety?
There must be other ways to prevent suicide. The last thing I would want is take that gun away and hand over the car keys - a frontal crash does it just as well, but it takes at least 1 more person along for the ride.
There must be other ways to prevent suicide. The last thing I would want is take that gun away and hand over the car keys - a frontal crash does it just as well, but it takes at least 1 more person along for the ride.
I have to say that I find Mr. Kristof's op-ed rather offensive on many levels. While he is correct that many liberals are naive about what gun legislation can accomplish and that many are not very knowledgeable about guns in general he pretty much lets the gun culture and gun industry off the hook.
In the past the great concern was how to protect that rights of hunters. Now the gun rights groups claim a 2nd Amendment right to rebel agains the government, wear guns on their hips to Starbucks for the sole purpose of intimidating other people, people they don't like. They carry assault rifles to sites outside of events where President Obama will speak. The problem is that we do not have a mature and responsible attitude about guns and gun safety.
Purchasing a gun is a not like purchasing a toy. It carries responsibilities. Well regulated can mean that people can be trained how to use guns appropriately, that some kind be denied a gun. No civilian needs an assault weapon for protection.
Candidates for President who stride into gun shows and shops to show off their love of guns are immature. It is an obscenity. Marco Rubio's purchase of a gun on Christmas Eve is a sign that we are lost. Kristof also lets the gun sale industry off the hook when it comes to assault weapons purchased in the US ending up in Mexico. Guns for El Chapo.
Gun fetish is the problem, gun fantasies of good "white" guys with guns are killing people.
In the past the great concern was how to protect that rights of hunters. Now the gun rights groups claim a 2nd Amendment right to rebel agains the government, wear guns on their hips to Starbucks for the sole purpose of intimidating other people, people they don't like. They carry assault rifles to sites outside of events where President Obama will speak. The problem is that we do not have a mature and responsible attitude about guns and gun safety.
Purchasing a gun is a not like purchasing a toy. It carries responsibilities. Well regulated can mean that people can be trained how to use guns appropriately, that some kind be denied a gun. No civilian needs an assault weapon for protection.
Candidates for President who stride into gun shows and shops to show off their love of guns are immature. It is an obscenity. Marco Rubio's purchase of a gun on Christmas Eve is a sign that we are lost. Kristof also lets the gun sale industry off the hook when it comes to assault weapons purchased in the US ending up in Mexico. Guns for El Chapo.
Gun fetish is the problem, gun fantasies of good "white" guys with guns are killing people.
813
Mr. Duffy.. From where do your assumptions articulated in your second paragraph derive? I have to take exception to what appears to be overreaching, inaccurate characterizations. Oh, and the 2nd amendment does not mention hunting.
Paragraph 3: By what expertise are you qualified to know what type of firearm I need for protection? Personally I would like to be as least as well armed as any threat. And true assault rifles are already federally banned, but I realize on a spin, emotional level the term assault rifle would garner more misplaced sympathy than calling them semiautomatic medium power rifles that are usually black and look mean.
As to your final conclusion (that gun fetish (whatever that is) is the problem), look above at A's comments. As unpopular as it is to articulate, the vast majority of homicide victims and the murderers are of one particular minority. I do not feel this is racial as per se, but a cultural phenomenon cultivated in areas, such as many inner cities, where the residents grow up with little hope, no family influence and poor role models exacerbated significantly by drugs and alcohol. THAT and mental health is where in my opinion our efforts are best focused.
Paragraph 3: By what expertise are you qualified to know what type of firearm I need for protection? Personally I would like to be as least as well armed as any threat. And true assault rifles are already federally banned, but I realize on a spin, emotional level the term assault rifle would garner more misplaced sympathy than calling them semiautomatic medium power rifles that are usually black and look mean.
As to your final conclusion (that gun fetish (whatever that is) is the problem), look above at A's comments. As unpopular as it is to articulate, the vast majority of homicide victims and the murderers are of one particular minority. I do not feel this is racial as per se, but a cultural phenomenon cultivated in areas, such as many inner cities, where the residents grow up with little hope, no family influence and poor role models exacerbated significantly by drugs and alcohol. THAT and mental health is where in my opinion our efforts are best focused.
11
Mr. Skip I do apologize to your semiautomatic medium power rifles for referring to them as assault weapons. A common naive liberal mistake which I am sure was your point.
Just how powerful is medium power by the way? Is it powerful enough to massacre a room of first graders in just a few minutes? The emotional spin from the Newtown massacre was pretty strong.
As for A's comments, well they are not as unpopular to articulate as you suggest. You seem to have signed on to that. As for his belief that controlling for race our gun homicide is virtually the same as Europe's is simply untrue. Gun homicide is rare in Europe, practically non existent in Japan. The police in the UK do not carry guns, since the citizens don't have them. 1 or 2 officers are killed per year if at all and the police rarely kill anyone.
Guns for protection? The Vice President seems to feel that a shotgun is sufficient. Perhaps some martial arts classes or the most effective device, man's best friend, a dog. They eat more and do have to be licensed but more fun.
I agree with you on mental health but I feel that we should have a strong mental health program for the sake of mental health in general.
The 2nd amendment also does not mean personal protection. It means that our local states can raise a militia. The guns could be kept in an armory and it begins with the words "A well regulated" and includes the term a "security of a free state".
Just how powerful is medium power by the way? Is it powerful enough to massacre a room of first graders in just a few minutes? The emotional spin from the Newtown massacre was pretty strong.
As for A's comments, well they are not as unpopular to articulate as you suggest. You seem to have signed on to that. As for his belief that controlling for race our gun homicide is virtually the same as Europe's is simply untrue. Gun homicide is rare in Europe, practically non existent in Japan. The police in the UK do not carry guns, since the citizens don't have them. 1 or 2 officers are killed per year if at all and the police rarely kill anyone.
Guns for protection? The Vice President seems to feel that a shotgun is sufficient. Perhaps some martial arts classes or the most effective device, man's best friend, a dog. They eat more and do have to be licensed but more fun.
I agree with you on mental health but I feel that we should have a strong mental health program for the sake of mental health in general.
The 2nd amendment also does not mean personal protection. It means that our local states can raise a militia. The guns could be kept in an armory and it begins with the words "A well regulated" and includes the term a "security of a free state".
14
Good discussion Duffy! My point on the "assault rifle" is to point out the emotional spin to color the perception of what someone is trying to say. The power part was for accuracy in describing the rifle accurately. Some states do not allow the .223 round for deer hunting as they consider it not have insufficient power, yet I see firearms referred to as "high power when by usual measure they are not.
My point is if you refer to "them" as assault rifles then they somehow sound and are perceived as more dangerous and lethal than other rifles of similar caliber and function and capacity that are not called "assault rifles. Then you can more easily "control them" or "ban them" . They are no more dangerous than other similar rifles. For example, the only functional difference between a Ruger mini14 (nowhere called an assault rifle) and an AR15 is one has a gas impingement system, and the other an operating rod system. And they look different. And the AR looks more menacing, more scary. Easier to get people to fear. So we come down to defining an "assault rifle" as a rifle with a pistol grip, a flash hider, a grenade launcher (????) a bayonet lug. or some combination of these. (My son commands a marine infantry company and they don't even carry their bayonets).
So lets call them what they are and get to the meat of the discussion.
My point is if you refer to "them" as assault rifles then they somehow sound and are perceived as more dangerous and lethal than other rifles of similar caliber and function and capacity that are not called "assault rifles. Then you can more easily "control them" or "ban them" . They are no more dangerous than other similar rifles. For example, the only functional difference between a Ruger mini14 (nowhere called an assault rifle) and an AR15 is one has a gas impingement system, and the other an operating rod system. And they look different. And the AR looks more menacing, more scary. Easier to get people to fear. So we come down to defining an "assault rifle" as a rifle with a pistol grip, a flash hider, a grenade launcher (????) a bayonet lug. or some combination of these. (My son commands a marine infantry company and they don't even carry their bayonets).
So lets call them what they are and get to the meat of the discussion.
3
Before anything about this can be addressed, we have to face the fact that American citizens possess over 300,000,000 guns. An article recently said that we now have more guns in private hands than there are people in the United States. Kristof makes no mention of the multitudes of accidental shootings, many involving small children. Nor does he address the emerging trend of people solving all kinds of minor altercations with gunfire, often fatal. In short, guns have become part of the vernacular of our culture. Frankly, I worry more these days about 'good guys with guns' than I do 'bad guys with guns'.
244
Hi, John. I share your concern about there being as many guns as people in the U.S., but of course that doesn't mean every American has a gun. In fact, according to University of Chicago researchers, only 31% of American households reported having a firearm in 2014, and 22.4% of adults personally owned a firearm. The percentage of American households with a firearm has fallen 17 percentage points since 1977-80. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership...
So, I don't agree that guns have become part of the vernacular of our culture, at least not for most Americans, and despite what we see in the movies. Gun owners are a minority that's gradually declining. The U of Chicago researchers also report declining percentages of Americans who hunt. My father grew up on a farm where guns were part of everyday life. He tells about getting his first rifle at age 11 and learning to shoot birds and small game for the family dinner. Nick Kristoff has told similar stories about the guns on his family's farm. But none of the younger generations in my family own guns or have any interest in them. We all moved to the city. This pattern may well be typical for many families across America.
All that said, the horror of 30,000 gun deaths a year, of which almost 700 are deaths of children under age 11, is completely unacceptable. As is the stranglehold grip the NRA has on Congress.
So, I don't agree that guns have become part of the vernacular of our culture, at least not for most Americans, and despite what we see in the movies. Gun owners are a minority that's gradually declining. The U of Chicago researchers also report declining percentages of Americans who hunt. My father grew up on a farm where guns were part of everyday life. He tells about getting his first rifle at age 11 and learning to shoot birds and small game for the family dinner. Nick Kristoff has told similar stories about the guns on his family's farm. But none of the younger generations in my family own guns or have any interest in them. We all moved to the city. This pattern may well be typical for many families across America.
All that said, the horror of 30,000 gun deaths a year, of which almost 700 are deaths of children under age 11, is completely unacceptable. As is the stranglehold grip the NRA has on Congress.
8
I Don't!
There is no "emerging trend". You're just spewing hyperbole to frame your ideological narrative. If anyone should be worried, it should be about people like you who have no qualms about violating my Second Amendment rights. You're just a 'bad guy' without guns who has no issue with Americans living in fear of the bad guys with guns. Vernacular indeed!
1
When I was 12 years old, my father gave me a Winchester Model 12 16-gauge shotgun for a birthday present. We were a bird-hunting family and receiving my own gun was Rite of Passage. But my father had also taught my brother and me that a gun was a sacred object of sorts: it took life (killing birds, in this case) and in order to sustain life, because we ate what we killed. He also took pains to show us the destructive power of our firearms. I remember going out to an old rock quarry where he had us shoot watermelons and boards nailed together so that we could get a sense of what happened to a human body when it was hit by lead. (As a WWII veteran, he had seen carnage up close and personal.) And though, like many teenagers, I had my times of extreme anger, I never thought to assuage it with my gun. It was just unthinkable, out of the range of my imagination. I simply lived in a different culture. I don't have that gun now and I don't hunt. But I think those who oppose regulations have a point: guns don't kill people, people do. Yes, we need background checks, at the very least. But unless and until we address the violent anger and resentment that flows in our American sub-consciousness like an underground stream of molten lava and the resulting disrespect for human life that has caused so much pain in recent years, we will not effectively blunt the ongoing tsunami of killing that ravages our homes, our cities and our nation.
525
Background check do nothing, If you still owned that 16 gauge would a background check keep you from using it in a violent manner?!
You make a very good point. However it will also help to keep guns out of the hands of these violent resentful people.
1
Saying guns don't kill people but that it's people doing the killing is the same illogic that would say it's not cars that kill people. Of course people do the killing. The issue is what instruments are easily available to do that or what needs to be done (background checks, licenses, speed/ammunition limits) so that those instruments (cars, guns) do not contribute to the ongoing slaughter.
2
There are many costs incurred by taxpayers when gun owners make mistakes. These are the financial and emotional costs from mistakes of theft, mistakes of forgetfulness, mistakes of irresponsibility, mistakes of passion, and more.
If this society insists on allowing, in effect, unfettered gun ownership, it should at least insist on spreading the risk of financial losses by gun ownership mistakes by requiring the purely capitalistic mechanism of insurance. Gun ownership puts one into a pool of higher risk of loss. Maybe it is suicide, maybe it is fratricide, maybe it is homicide. The public costs of cleaning up the messes, physically, psychologically, emotionally, are enormous. Insurance can help mitigate these costs.
Let the capitalist insurers crunch the money numbers and figure out the details. That is their expertise, no political ideology needed in that space. They are the experts of risk and all of the costs associated with risks.
To require insurance for gun ownership is consistent with the notion of having personal responsibility for one's choices; requiring gun ownership property and casualty insurance can help pay for today's public subsidies that are presently in effect when dealing with the aftermath of gun ownership mistakes.
If this society insists on allowing, in effect, unfettered gun ownership, it should at least insist on spreading the risk of financial losses by gun ownership mistakes by requiring the purely capitalistic mechanism of insurance. Gun ownership puts one into a pool of higher risk of loss. Maybe it is suicide, maybe it is fratricide, maybe it is homicide. The public costs of cleaning up the messes, physically, psychologically, emotionally, are enormous. Insurance can help mitigate these costs.
Let the capitalist insurers crunch the money numbers and figure out the details. That is their expertise, no political ideology needed in that space. They are the experts of risk and all of the costs associated with risks.
To require insurance for gun ownership is consistent with the notion of having personal responsibility for one's choices; requiring gun ownership property and casualty insurance can help pay for today's public subsidies that are presently in effect when dealing with the aftermath of gun ownership mistakes.
201
This would be great for insurance companies, but otherwise I doubt it would do any good. Insurance policies exclude intentional acts, so suicides and homicides (that is, most deaths involving firearms) wouldn't be covered. Injuries involving negligent discharges might be covered, but in many cases they're already covered by existing homeowners' policies.
9
Won't the cost of insurance burden poor people disproportionately more than it will burden wealthier people, regardless of how careful the particular individual is? Is that an outcome we would be comfortable with?
11
Insurance is a contract. So the contract can cover intentional acts. And, I think, the insurance should be no fault. Mere damage by a gun (perhaps except self-inflicted) should entitle the damaged party to recover from the insurance pool and from the party wielding or owning the gun if they are at fault. And the damages should include allocated costs of police departments, emergency and hospital personnel, etc. Of course, the costs of the insurance would encourage many people not to own guns in the first place. The Second Amendment does not say that gun owners should not pay for the damage they inflict.
13
Thank you, Mr. Kristof for an informed and informative analysis. I am, perhaps unfortunately, one of those "condescending liberals" that believes guns have no place as a consumer product, and we need to greatly reduce the sheer number of guns in circulation. However, we are where we are, and your approach will at least put us on a path to less gun violence. I can work with that.
22
Thank you for this article, but the naivete shown by "gun safety" advocates takes my breath away Mr. Kristoff. My dad was not a criminal - never arrested or prosecuted - he would pass a background check. He abused alcohol but no one knew to what extent. Outwardly he was the All American, big, strong, intelligent, capable, told a great story, loved huntin', fishin', hard drinkin' and he was gun totin'. And while he he didn't "beat up" his "domestic partner" aside from some pushing and slapping and threats to cut her throat in her sleep, he did use his small daughter as his personal sex toy.
Those latter traits were enforced - often - with his gun, or the threat of it being in the house. If he didn't get what he wanted, from what was on the table to what was in his bed, he used it to terrorize his family.
He would wave it and point it and sit on the couch with it ranting and raving and "clean it", and pass out with it in his hand, and sleep with it. From my earliest age I knew we could get away from him, but not that gun. He could kill us from across the room, or in the next room or upstairs in our beds. And who would believe us about good old Jim?
My story repeats itself ad nauseum across the country every single night. Guns should only be in the hands of the members of a "well regulated militia".