Journalism in the Public Interest

Graphing the Great Gun Debate

Some of the best graphics on guns, from where they’re purchased to the laws governing how they’re used.

In Tuesday’s State of the Union address, President Obama again called for Congress to take quick action on gun control. “These proposals deserve a vote,” he said. “Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.”

In the two months since Sandy Hook, debate has surged over how to address America’s epidemic of gun violence. In late January, the Senate Judiciary Committee began ongoing hearings on proposals to tighten restrictions on gun sales.

We’ve dug into the NRA’s efforts to block gun control policycompared spending on both sides of the issue, and laid out five gun laws you probably never heard of. But with so much media coverage, it can be hard to keep facts straight. To help, we've compiled some of the best graphics on guns, from where they’re purchased to the laws governing how they’re used.

Gun sales:

Tracing the national flow of guns, Washington Post, October 2010

A 2010 graphic from The Washington Post shows how "states with strong gun laws import [guns] from states with weaker laws." The map uses 2009 data of firearms recovered by police.



Where 50,000 Guns Recovered in Chicago Came From, New York Times, January 2013

There have been nearly 50 homicides in Chicago already this year, despite some of the strictest gun ordinances in the country. So where are the guns coming from? This New York Times map traces the origins of 50,000 guns recovered by police from 2001 to March 2012.



Gun laws and politics:

Gun laws in the US, state by state, The Guardian US, December 2012

Any conversation on regulation is complicated by the huge variation in gun laws from state to state. This Guardian US interactive lays out regulations by state, from concealed handgun laws to background checks.



Where Congress Stands on Guns, ProPublica, January 2013

Do you know where your representative stands on gun control? This chart details NRA and ratings and contributions, Brady scores and votes on the 1994 assault weapons ban.




Gun Rights Campaign Contributions, Slate, January 2013

Find out how much gun rights advocates donated to members of Congress in the last election cycle.




How the NRA exerts influence over Congress, Washington Post, January 2013

The Washington Post visualizes which members of Congress "get the most--and least--support" from the NRA.





This is Your Representative on Guns, The Daily Beast, February 2013

Input your address and get an overview of your representative’s positions on gun control as well as NRA contributions for each. The Daily Beast is also aggregating gun-related tweets by politicians at @YourRepsOnGuns.



Gun violence:

Long Weekend of Gun Deaths, NBC News, January 2013

A tick tock of gun deaths over the MLK holiday weekend details incidents by type, including accidental shootings, murders, police shootings, self defense and suicide.




Gun Homicide Rates, The Washington Post, December 2012

A detailed look at firearm homicides across the United States and around the world.





The U.S. Shooting Epidemic, The Daily Beast, July 2012

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence estimates a multiple-victim shooting happens once every 5.9 days in the U.S. That totals at least 431 such shootings since 2005. The Daily Beast mapped the Brady Campaign’s data to see where such violence occurs.



America Under the Gun, Mother Jones, December 2012

Over 140 people were killed or injured in seven mass shootings in the U.S. last year. As part of a special report, Mother Jones compiled a series of graphics on the victims of mass shootings, and the spread of looser gun laws across the country.



U.S. Gun Crime, The Guardian, December 2012

Gun laws vary across the country, but how much difference is there in gun crime? The Guardian has a state-by-state comparison, charting stats including firearm murders as a percent of all murders, and the number of gun robberies per 100,000 people.




How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?, Slate, January 2013

So far, Slate has recorded at least 1,795 victims of gun violence since the morning of December 14th, the day of the Sandy Hook shooting. Slate is also crowdsourcing gun death reports on Twitter with @GunDeaths. As they point out, “the data is necessarily incomplete,” but they attempt to give a name to each recorded victim.

Well, you’ve done a fine job of presenting one side of the gun debate but, the word “debate” implies two sides.

You use mother jones as a reference what a load of crap. What happened to unbiased journalism.

Clark Baker (LAPD ret)

Feb. 15, 2013, 1:54 p.m.

John Lott’s book MORE GUNS – LESS CRIME (1998) is probably the most definitive examination of how the 2nd Amendment protects communities from crime and how “gun control” results in gun violence. 

Despite the fuzzy theoretical arguments presented by a few leftist academics, Lott’s clarity is consistent with what police officers, soldiers and historians (not revisionists) report all over the country. 

You don’t need a Stanford professor to tell you why gun-toting criminals prey on gun-controlled communities like Chicago.  The 2nd Amendment is why cities like Culver City, Simi Valley and Santa Clarita have very little crime when compared to neighboring gun-controlled cities like Compton, Inglewood and Los Angeles.

If you want to distinguish safe cities from unsafe cities, look no further than their “gun-control” policies.  The problem is not where people buy guns, but where leftists have disarmed law-abiding citizens.

Propublica has proven itself to be just as diseased as mainstream media. Where are the charts and graphs showing how many lives have been saved by firearms. This sort of lopsided reporting is the reason I first subscribed to Propublica. But no more.

Really, there is no logical argument against reasonable control.  Guns are an inherently item.  We regulate much less dangerous things all the time.  More guns DO NOT equal safety.  More guns equal more suicides, more domestic disputes ending tragically, more inquisitive kids killing them self or others accidentally, etc., etc.

@MMS Dave - what else would you expect from Soros-funded “journalists” who rely on Berkeley’s good humor for a place to write.  I like some of their reporting but, like any blog, you’ve got to verify their work.

Clark Baker (LAPD ret)

Feb. 15, 2013, 2:41 p.m.

@David M - I’m not sure how many violent crimes you’ve investigated, but your EMOTIONAL appeal does not comport with the evidence.

If Ghetto Jews or Sudanese Christians owned rifles and handguns, how easily do you think their Nazi and Muslim murderers would have fared in rounding them up for slaughter?

As a former US Marine and LAPD officer, I will trust armed citizens before I would ever trust the US Government.  The 2nd Amendment is the only thing between freedom and tyranny - which is why the 2nd Amendment is not the 32nd afterthought.  Those who disagree simply do not understand tyranny - or why they are free.

How about a map depicting how gun laws and gun deaths correlate?

And how would you “Reason” with an emotional lot like Feinstein? They are every bit as diseased as those who we have in our jails now. The “Takers” are fueling their cause with emotion. Logic is not in their arsenal. The logic of “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”? How am I supposed to defend myself from an emotional charge like they are putting up. Am I going to spend time in jail for standing up for my rights? The innate right to protect myself, loved ones and neighbors from all takers. These people will NOT stop until they have control over every bodily function. I say NO!

Interesting how I’m accused of reacting emotionally (as if one shouldn’t care that folks are dying needlessly) but no one addresses the points made.  Sorry, but screaming “Second Amendment” and “Protecting my family” are NOT magical incantations that dispel the ability of others to use logic and rationality.  Nor do they hide the death toll.  Nor do they disguise the fact that the only possible way for criminals to get guns and gun tragedies to occur is thru the negligence and irresponsibility of “law abiding citizens” exercising their “rights” all the while denying their responsibilities.

The NRA and the Gun Nutter
Were walking hand in hand;
They wept like anything to see
So few guns across the land:
“If only everyone was armed,”
They said “it would be grand!”

“If seven Colts with seven Glocks
Worked overtime for a year.
Do you suppose,” the Gun Nutter said
“That they could get it geared?”
“I doubt it!” said the NRA,
And shed a bitter tear.

“O Citizens, come and walk with us!”
The NRA did beseech:
“A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk
Along the bloody beach:
We cannot do too much more
Than sell ten guns to each.”

“The time has come,” the NRA said,
“To talk of many guns:
Of Brownings—Sig Sauers—and Winchesters—
Of Bushmasters—and Remingtons—
And whether ‘tis better to stand your ground
Or shoot while on the run.”

“A gun in each hand,” the NRA said
“Is what you chiefly need
To stop a ‘bad guy with a gun’
And make him dearly bleed:
But if you miss him first time round,
Stay calm, reload, and proceed.”

“Please hold your fire!” the Citizens cried,
Turning a kind of blue.
“’Til we get ourselves to the safety of
A gun-free zone school.
Or least wait ‘til we take cover:
If that’s okay with you.”

“We weep for you,” the NRA said:
“We deeply sympathize.”
With sobs and tears they sorted out
Guns of the largest size,
Holding their bulging wallets
Before their streaming eyes.

“O Citizens,” said the Gun Nutter
You’ve had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?”
But answer came there none—
And this was scarcely odd,
Because they’d shotten everyone. 

(With apologies to Lewis Carroll)

David M - If, like me, you responded to thousands of calls from the innocent victims of violence (guns, knives, fists, bats), you would know that most could have prevented their injuries and deaths if they lived in cities where leftists (usually protected with firearms) didn’t prevent them from carrying concealed weapons.  I’ve held people as they died in my arms, so I don’t need lectures from the uninformed.

If given to opportunity to assault armed women in Culver City or unarmed women in Los Angeles, which target do you think that criminals would prefer?  And if you think that’s a trick question, you should focus on something other than the 2nd Amendment… maybe fashion and celebrities.

Kathleen Keesling

Feb. 15, 2013, 3:28 p.m.

I see the kool-aid smudge on your upper lip, ProPublica.

I’ve been noticing a slant in your journalism for a while now. This article has me convinced you are now just as yellow as the rest of them.

Unsubscribing today.

@G - as moved as I am by your eloquent prose, my experience and common sense tends to side with George Washington who said:

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”

Any idea why leftists want to remove the teeth of Liberty?

gun permits
everyone who owns a gun or desires to own a gun
including public employees no exceptions
should have a psychological evaluation as part of the application process
and should be reevaluated every three years

this places the requirement on the gun lobby to step up to what they want

Two names that should be part of any real anti-crime discussion, to distinguish it from merely anti-gun.

First, Chris Dorner.  Contrast the ex-LAPDer’s coverage with every other crime.  The cops were actually trying to stop him (because it’s their fat in the fire), and there’s none of this crap of inventorying his guns for public scrutiny to illustrate the danger he represented.

By the way, he’s also exactly the kind of guy (ex-military, good cop) that we’re supposed to trust to protect us without any guns of our own.

Second, David E. Kennedy.  Check out the “Boston Miracle” in the ‘90s.  Gang violence plummeted not because of strong gun control, but by making room for gang members in the community.  Duplicated in Cincinnati in 2006.

Turns out, the crime rate drops like a rock when you tell criminals not to make asses out of themselves.

The discussion is also not complete when the role of antipsychotic and other psychoactive prescription drugs is ignored.  They’re good tools, but they do seem to have the wrong effects in many.  If (as seems to be the case) most mass shooters are also suicidal, we won’t stop them from releasing sulfuric acid into air vents or blowing up a building.

I’m personally anti-gun, but only in the sense that I hope to never need to use one, don’t own one, and won’t let them into my home.  Nasty, conspicuous things that make great targets of theft and seem to be impossible to test except through horrifying failure.  I also think people who say they want guns so they can murder criminals are exactly the people who should be kept from guns.

But since it’s never not a possibility that a church or community will come under literal fire from the government itself (Waco, for example), weapons are the only possible defense against that sort of overreach.  Imagine an extreme (but not impossible) case, where the next Bush decides, oh, hey, let’s round up and execute Muslims, because “they” are a danger.  We protect human life with, what, vigorous public debate?  If you happen to hate Muslims, keep in mind that other “risk groups” according to various government agencies are the patriotic, the religious of any sort, people who carry cash, home-schoolers, and probably dozens of others I can’t remember off the top of my head.

That said, I do think one facet of “gun control” would be very useful:  Liability.  If you sell a gun, if you loan a gun, if you allow a gun to be stolen from you, and that gun gets used in a crime, you should be prosecuted.  If you forget that a gun is loaded, that bullet is your fault.

But, then, I don’t just think that about guns.  “Know your customer.”  When a kid walks into a hardware store asking how much rat poison would kill his parents, I want that kid kicked out, too.  If you leave a machete on your front stoop and someone is stabbed with it, you should be held responsible for your idiocy.

I don’t mean that as some sort of punitive measure.  I mean that in the same sense that the gun owners want to keep their guns:  It’s all of our responsibilities to prevent killings.  The closer you are to a potential danger, the more responsible you should be.

@Clark, I find it odd that you attributed the difference in crime rates between Culver City and Compton solely to the 2nd Amendment and not, say, to the disparity in demographics (Culver, 56% white, Compton 16% white), or the differences in average income and employment.

More crime in disadvantaged neighborhoods? Alert the media.

And John Lott? This would be the same John Lott that claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash?

The John Lott who financed his groundbreaking survey himself while keeping no financial records whatsoever?

The same John Lott who has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms…

Using survey software Lott can’t identify or produce?

That John Lott?

@Clark: “If Ghetto Jews ... owned rifles and handguns, how easily do you think their Nazi ... murderers would have fared in rounding them up for slaughter?”

According to the census of June 16, 1933, the Jewish population of Germany was approximately 505,000 people out of a total population of 67 million, or somewhat less than 0.75 percent.

So, 505,000 men, woman, and children? Outnumbered over 100-to-1 in a state that overwhelmingly supported the Nazi party, and by a military machine that took the combined might of over half the planet to stop and bring down?

Yep. A few more hunting rifles and shotguns would have made all the difference…

And finally, if you want to throw quotes around:

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” - Thomas Jefferson

The Supreme Court said in DC vs Heller that 2A rights, like all rights, are not absolute and can be regulated and controlled. And as Jefferson himself indicates, freedom and rights are always in tension, your rights verses those of others.

Can you add in a population/gun crime ratio, and information about which States have the death penalty? That would help non-US readers like me.

This is an amazing piece of journalism - congratulations.

@ J Mania - Anyone who knows anything about psychiatry (and the pharmaceutically-funded psychiatrists who write the DSM) know that ANYONE can be identified as mentally-impaired at any time for virtually anything.  The DSM is written not to categorize mental disabilities, but to sell drugs.  Subjecting US citizens with no history of psychological impairment to subjective pseudoscientific evaluations is akin to the competency tests Democrats used to prevent voters from voting. 

Note that Christopher Dormer passed numerous psychological exams when he joined the US Navy and LAPD.  Subjective evaluations are not nearly as effective as the 2nd Amendment, which allows law-abiding citizens to protect themselves when someone like Dormer inte3nds to do harm.

@ Michael Long – to your point about the demographic differences between Culver City and Compton… those differences are primarily political, which is why affluent black, brown and white residents prefer to live and work in Culver City than Compton.

Having worked for many years in what you would call “low-income ethic neighborhoods”, I support gun rights in neighborhoods regardless of class and ethnicity.  Unfortunately, the LEFT thinks that low-income black and brown people cannot be trusted the way lighter-skinned – more “upscale folks” can be trusted.

But when leftists control the local politics, people who can escape do, leaving those who cannot behind.  Suspending the civil rights of low-income black and brown people to appease their political owners is blatantly racist.

Jefferson’s opinion about gun ownership was unequivocal:

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

If forcing black, brown and white low-income people to submit to special laws created by the LEFT is not tyranny, I don’t know what is.

Remarkable posts in response to the collection of “facty” charts. Thanks ProPublica! It would be nice if the anti-regulation folks posting here actually read them and became INFORMED before pounding out their canned, outraged responses.

A common theme on the part of NRA supporters here seems to be the assumption that “they” (the evil government they want to arm themselves against) will take all their weapons away. Thus they refuse to acknowledge or care about the very high rate of gun violence in this country, refuse to trust in the legislative process involved in reducing it - instead continue to build their arsenals of defense.

Highest order paranoia and utter lack of concern for their fellow humans. Any understanding of statistics and correlation will prove their “logic” is flawed. Isn’t that why they refuse to read real facts which help connect the dots to the truth? Much easier to dismiss facts as worthless and hang onto myths, oft-repeated self-delusional lies, and “research” by de-bunked self-described “experts”, such as John Lott (Thanks Michael Long).

It all boils down to the way we regard our government, our fellow citizens: “Me” My” Mine” Them” versus “us” and “we”.

Bill Mattingly

Feb. 15, 2013, 7:26 p.m.

Gun control?  The problem is crime.  Drug crime is mostly from prohibition. Why isn’t there a debate about the real problem?

@ Carolyn - I’m not sure what you’ve done with your life, but I cared enough about my fellow citizens to spend six years in the Marine Corps (3.5 years overseas) and twenty on the LAPD, where I served mostly low-income minority neighborhoods.  As a private investigator, I saved dozens of factually innocent people from going to prison - many potentially for the rest of their lives.  The oath that I recited - and was prepared to die for - required my willingness to uphold the US Constitution and to protect and defend ALL US Citizens from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.

The last time I checked, the 2nd Amendment was part of our Constitution - an inalienable right bestowed by our Creator that is just as valuable as your right to anonymously insult people who disagree with you.

Then again, if I was defending the leftist objective of taking away the rights of low income minorities because they are somehow less qualified or deserving of their Constitutional rights than other people, I would probably be too embarrassed to use my full name too.

@ Clark Baker: Apparently we disagree about the extent to which our 2nd amendment rights extend. Gun control measures are being considered which would place responsibility on gun owners and would restrict sales to legitimate gun dealers. There are no talks underway that I know of which demand confiscation of your guns or targeting the removal of guns belonging to minorities.

Since you disagree with that, apparently you want all people, regardless of their mental fitness and criminal history, to be able to purchase, borrow, or steal guns at any time, any place they wish. I disagree.

Why is this a debate? The 2nd Amendment is the supreme law of the land.

I was talking to this gun nutter type and he said, “I want to have a gun to protect myself in case a bad guy sticks a gun in my ear and demands my wallet!” and I was like, “Dude, you do realize that if a bad guy sticks a gun in your ear then he got the drop on you bro and it’s too late to do anything about it?” and he was like all flabbergasted and didn’t have a good comeback so he just said “Okay G, then just hand over your wallet to him like the liberal pussy you are” and I was like “oh no, Dude, you’re right, better to Live Free and Die Hard!”.

That was right before my personal drone (which I always have hovering over for me for protection) armed with two mini-Hellfire missiles took out the gun nutter type as he was acting a bit threatening towards me. (But don’t worry, he never saw it coming and I doubt if he felt a thing.)

Moral of the story: Get yourself a personal drone as they’ll beat an armed gun nutter type any day of the week, hands down!

Ammunition control should be on the agenda, not gun control. Without ammo a gun is not much but a fashion accessory.

Laws should prohibit selling ammo to the general public without NRA, or some other relevant sporting associations approval. The reasoning here is that the onus would be on the gun club to filter out the nutters. For example a scenario might be, a pistol enthusiast who frequents the range is a trusted member therefore is entitled to a quantity of ammo. An unknown person who makes a spur of the moment decision to purchase a large quantity of ammunition would not be able to do so.

Something to consider anyway….

Also, this Pro Publica story is so lopsided and biased that it didn’t even mention the fact that guns are only a “tool” that:

a) can be used to shoot family members and/or neighbors that you mistakenly identify as home intruders,

b) your children can use to accidentally shoot themselves and/or their friends,

c) you can use to accidentally shoot yourself (e.g., when cleaning them, removing them from a carrying case or holster, etc.),

d) you can use to accidentally shoot your friends (e.g., in a hunting accident) or innocent bystanders (e.g., when trying to stop a ‘bad guy with a gun’), and

e) are a very efficient means of committing suicide (although they do tend to make a mess of things, but that’s okay cause you won’t be the one who has to clean up the mess).

Fatboy, I do believe as reported by many that DHS is purchasing ammo. This is not a solution. If all guns were banned this would not stop gangs and the like from acquiring weapons.

We have a right to own guns. We have a government that is moving ever closer to tyranny.

I am always amazed all these many years of being on this earth how the liberal left believes if you just pass a law all will be well. Doesn’t work that way. When laws are passed to control guns the guns they will be controlling are those owned by law abiding citizens not the guns of gangs and the like.

You didactic sots can pound sand. I have had first hand experience with the 911 system. And after being transferred from Canada back to the US to a jurisdiction that was 2 hours away and finally to the county I was in. 27 minutes after initiating the call I was finally in contact with an officer. Then I had to explain where I was and all the particulars of the situation.

Automobiles murder way more people than firearms. We must initiate a back ground check as well as a mental fitness exam for motor vehicle owners. And license and register every component that can be attached thereto. And a tax to cover every conceivable conveyance of possession. Tax for initiating an investigation into your fitness for such possession. Tax for exotic types because no one should have any more than 57 horsepower under the hood. A tax for transferring to a member of your family.

And as for laws, hell yea we need more laws. The over 10,000 already on the Federal books are not enough. So many that even our all knowing government can’t tell us how many there are. What makes you think that thugs are going to pay attention to some more?

In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.

Source: The Atlantic - Jul 23 - Max Fisher

Many factors can influence gun violence, so the impact of the Australian reforms is oft debated. However, one thing is clear – the number of firearm homicides and firearm suicides has dramatically decreased. The Australian homicide rate is only 1.2 per 100,000 people, far lower than the American homicide rate of about 5 per 100,000 people. Firearms are used in less than 15 percent of homicides in Australia, compared with 67 percent of homicides in America.

Prior to the introduction of the gun laws, 112 people were killed in 11 mass shootings in Australia. Since the implementation of the gun laws, there have been no comparable gun massacres in Australia.

Source-  CNN

These graphs do paint an ugly picture of a gun violence issue. It would be nice to include graphs that show how many times a gun has been used legally for defense and saved lives to get a more accurate view of the cost/benefits of guns in our society.

Not that it counts for much, but from personal experience (living in several states, many solo cross country drives, lots of time in cities) I haven’t seen any gun violence in my life except for on the news.

There are anti-gun proponents that have clearly stated they seek a ban on all guns…eventually. They know it can’t be done outright, but think it can be done one step at a time.

Along with notions from some anti-gun proponents of this urge toward a ban of all guns, I think many pro gun supporters are frustrated with the current proposals attempting to prevent future gun violence, because they don’t seem to be effective options. So a no compromise stance is postured up.

Universal background checks, limited capacity magazines, and banning rifles used in 2% of gun crimes don’t seem like very effective future gun crime reduction proposals….

Of course there is no good in arguing “criminals don’t listen to laws so why make them”.

Here are some alternatives proposals that I believe would be more effective:

-Monitor past and current criminals better, reduce their rights, and have something like random quarterly searches of their residence and vehicles for guns, maybe even financial monitoring.

-Enforce current guns laws to the extreme, put the needed money into the correct places and make examples out of all offenders, zero tolerance.

-Parental liability of their child until that child reaches a certain age (40-50?). With proportionally reduced liability as an offspring gets closer to the determined age. Meaning parents are partially charged along side their offspring if they commit a crime. (This could possibly help our society in more ways than one)

-Strong promotion of peaceful problem solving/conflict resolution skills in schools along with more prominent gun awareness programs to prevent accidents. (I remember D.A.R.E. in elementary school, slightly touched on guns, main focus on drugs)

What this gun debate really points out, is how little trust we have in each other.

Heres a map of Gun Self defense stories:

John Smith, Thanks for sharing the link. Now I am wondering how do folks come up with the data? Don’t get me wrong not trying to say it is not true.

pgillenw, you are right, you have the right to own guns and thats why the ammo should be strictly controlled. What I am getting at here is that the avenues for obtaining ammunition should be buried under bureaucracy.

This might take the form of a permit system for example. To enable you to purchase ammunition you will need a permit. But before that you will need to obtain permit for the permit, and a permit before that and so on and so forth. Bringing in draconian measures such as banning guns is just going to get a lot of people off side isnt it? Bureaucracy in this situation can be a very useful tool….

Here’s another link to self-defense stories…

pgillenw, the data at the website I linked? I found it quickly but It seems they pull from articles published by various news organizations from around the country. I think the map locations are a generalization because of this. I’ll see what else ican find, but at least it gives an idea of guns being used for defense instead of purely the negatives.

Fatboy, you can’t regulate ammo very effectively for several reasons:

-individual rounds have no serial number (private sells would be untraceable and very profitable to the seller)

-you can load your own rounds, so regulation of the equipment and materials to do that would be required.

-to prevent or keep tabs on stockpiling ammo you would have to require individuals to report when they have used those rounds, if their goal is to stockpile, how do you prevent them lying? ( my ammo got wet and rusty so I threw it away…)

Enforcement would be key in ammo regulation, but it seems like we don’t enforce current gun laws strongly enough as is, what would be different about additional ones?

Again, focusing on an item rather than the criminal individuals using the item to harm others is counter productive in reducing crime.

We have a crime problem that leads to a gun problem. The guns are taking the brunt of the blame because then we aren’t as responsible for setting up such a shoddy system to deal with crime.

Can criminals be reformed? I think some of them can, let’s push more programs that promote this.

How do we deter would be criminals?  I think a lot of them seek monetary gains, let’s give them some responsibility and easy access to entry level jobs that would be more profitable than criminal activities.

“1. Avoid worsening the problem through increased community “rehabilitation” and other “therapeutic” treatments instead of prison terms.
2. Repeal the laws which make the crime problem worse than necessary, such as drug laws, gun control laws, rules restricting the use of prison labor, and those granting coercive privileges to organized labor.
3. Revise the exclusionary rules, suppression of evidence, inordinate delays, technical reversals, instability in criminal procedures, bias in favor of criminal defendants, and disregard for the rule of law by Supreme Court majorities.
4. Make greater use of private incentives and private contractors for police, prosecution, and corrections work, so that the taxpayers get more for their money.
5. Make sentencing fit the crime, not the criminal: Punishment should be usual, even-handed, determinate, prompt, shorter, more severe (though not cruel) and served in full.”

Read more:

With rights comes responsibilities. Once upon a time in this country taking someones life by murder would get a rope placed around your neck in the public square. Justice done, statement made and the healing process would begin.

It’s really not that hard for both sides to have what they want. Leave the second amendment alone and lets do justice for the slain. In 6 months the murder rate would plummet.

albert micozzi

Feb. 17, 2013, 4:27 p.m.

“There’s no such thing as a good gun. There’s no such thing as a bad gun. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a very dangerous thing. A gun in the hands of a good person is no danger to anyone except the bad guys.” -Charlton Heston        
Remember Good guys out number bad guys, but don’t give the bad guys the edge by taking guns away from good people. Bad people will find a way to exploit that!
I am a simple man with simple ideas!    That Work for me!
There is no doubt the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. What arms meant at that time was what was available at the time. The intent was to stop government from oppressing its people and people to remain the leaders of its government. We all know power corrupts and total power corrupts totally.  We see that in our government and police forces and unfortunity in Congress. Government wants us to rely on them for our protection yet we are being robed blind by them. They don’t play by the rules we have to play by. Today’s government corruption and economic climate are such that people cannot allow their guns to be taken away. Beware! That is from a peace loving, God fearing Christian man that would not hurt anyone unless forced to defend himself or his family and even then it would hurt me.

Look at Canada, very high gun ownership and low regulation, very low crime. Don’t walk into someone’s home with bad intent. Be respectful!

Look at England; they had a civilian uprising that they have a right to have. They don’t have guns, the police don’t have guns.??? So what did the government do? They gave the police guns! They must feel like Chumps!
Don’t get me wrong I love English people, but do they love themselves enough to guard their freedoms? Not very English if you ask me.
The people in England better follow the rules of any one in power. The people are lam ducks. Their government belongs not to the people but to those in power. They don’t seem to know that! If things heat up they will find out soon. A few rubber bullets will send you home with your tail between your legs and if that doesn’t work a few well-placed 223 rounds will send a message. Then good people will be selling out better people to stay in the government’s good side. England wake up!

Australia did away with guns for the general population, they want them back. Good Luck! Not going to happen without a lot of needless bloodshed. Don’t look at the reduction of Gun crime as the effect of fewer guns in good people hands. Look at the rise in overall crime when guns are taken from law abiding people.
Now who serves who, in Australia? They must feel like Chumps as well!

A very wise person once told me… If you put a frog in hot water he will jump out! If you put him in warm water and turn the heat up slowly, you will have him for lunch.
A bad guy once tried to convince me to do something wrong in my view. His reasoning to me was …
When you have them by the Nuts their hearts and minds follow. That is true of the weak ones only. The strong ones get up and fight back! Without guns it is alot tougher. Believe me!

Don’t give up your rights! You will not get them back without paying a dear price!
Don’t give up your guns you will never get them back!

Why do the states with the toughest gun control laws have the highest crime rates? Not just gun crime rates, overall crime rates? Washington DC, Cali, Detroit, Chicago,
Why does Texas and New Hampshire with open carry laws have some of the lowest crime rates in the country? Don’t walk into thier homes with bad intent!

If you were a criminal and you knew it was very unlikely that any one in the corner store has a gun, does that put you at ease? If you could buy a black market or make a homemade gun would that increase your odds of success?
Now if you knew that 20 percent of the people in the store along with the owner had a gun, would you rob that store? I would think you would look for a store with an owner that does believe in guns. Now those people that don’t have guns will hide behind the person with the gun.
Never run from tierney, good people out number bad people in this world. Bad people rely on good people not taking action! You want a good world, stand up, and don’t hide!

Simply True!

albert micozzi: You wrote a really, really, really ... long post which boils down to:

1. You need guns to protect yourself from people with guns. The more guns we have, the safer we’ll all be.

2. All views of self-described God-fearing Christian men should be taken seriously.

3. Canada: (correction High regulation, not low).

4. England and Australia are full of really stupid people since they agreed to gun control measures which make their citizens safer (they hold only a tiny fraction of US rates in gun deaths). They should be have taken your advice to be more like us and arm themselves against the probability their governments will take over.

5. Give in even an inch, your “freedoms” will be destroyed inch by inch until they’re gone. The government will take over.

6. Texas: (correction: A chart is worth a thousand words. Please scroll up in this article and click on the “Gun Homicide Rates” link.

albert micozzi: I should also have included the statistics below which you can find using the same link “Gun Homicides Rates” link provided in the article you’re responding to.

Homicide Rates per 100,000:

New Hampshire: .38
Texas: 3.19
United Kingdom: .07

Where homicide rates are high a look see at demographics I think telling in the U.S.

I am very interested to see this product published by ProPublica.

Not three days prior to publication I requested them to compile a list of resources that would factually attempt to deal with the gun debate, specifically inquiring as to the veracity of the following Harvard study that posits gun control as being less than effective at violence reduction.

They wrote the above article instead. Very interesting. Harvard is not really recognized as a bastion of conservative thought, so I have no idea why they left out this study. I think it is very relevant to the conversation. Here is a less dry opinion piece on the big picture of gun control failing to quell violence, referencing the article cited above.

Albert Micozzi

Feb. 18, 2013, 7:35 a.m.

Hi Carolyn, it goes without saying fewer guns fewer gun issues. Look at total crime increase. Really a no brainer there! We need to think deeper. Less guns more power for rapist and criminals in general. Violent crime went up 44 Percent after Australia’s buy back. Gun crime went down. Innocent defenseless people got attacked. That is the elderly. Black market guns are then sold to criminal and good people who fear. Banning alcohol did not work! Banning Marijuana did not work! What makes you think banning guns will? It will only make us more reliable on slow to respond government officials.
You see it is all about respect, some have it some don’t. Fear is the biggest motivator. If criminals know there are no guns. God Help us.
The honest person is much less likely to stab someone in self-defense.
A criminal could care less. The honest person is more likely to use a gun in self-defense. God help the criminal! I respect your opinion but until people are respectful across the board your idealism will not work. I truly hope someday we can get rid of Guns. Your ideas are admirable but naive. We are a product of a strong nation that allows people to be naive. Take guns from the general public and many people will be calling for help too little too late. Police just cannot respond quickly enough.
A very wise person once told me… If you put a frog in hot water he will jump out! If you put him in warm water and turn the heat up slowly, you will have him for lunch.
A bad guy once tried to convince me to do something wrong in my view. His reasoning to me was …
When you have them by the Nuts their hearts and minds follow. That is true of the weak ones only. The strong ones get up and fight back! Without guns it is a lot tougher to fight back!
Don’t give up your rights! You will not get them back without paying a dear price! That price was paid once, keep it that way.
Don’t give up your guns you will never get them back!
Why do the states with the toughest gun control laws have the highest crime rates? Not just gun crime rates, overall crime rates? Washington DC, Cali, Detroit, Chicago?
Why does Texas and New Hampshire with open carry laws have some of the lowest crime rates in the country? Don’t walk into their homes with bad intent! Respect is the name of the game.
If you were a criminal and you knew it was very unlikely that any one in the corner store had a gun, does that put you at ease? If you could buy a black market or make a homemade gun would that increase your odds of success?

Albert Micozzi

Feb. 18, 2013, 7:42 a.m.


Now if you knew that 20 percent of the people in the store along with the owner had a gun, would you rob that store? I would think you would look for a store with an owner that does believe in guns. Now those people that don’t have guns will hide behind the person with the gun.
Never run from tyranny, good people out number bad people in this world. Bad people rely on good people not taking action and being naive! You want a good world, wake up, stand up, and don’t hide!

Albert Micozzi

Feb. 18, 2013, 8:12 a.m.

Hitler once said, if you want to conquer a nation, 1st disarm it’s people!

Let’s see a chart that shows where VIOLENCE is high and what political party runs the city/state.

The LEFT is a societal immune deficiency, where opportunistic societal infections are allowed to fester, resulting in high taxes, expensive union-controlled public schools that cripple students intellectually, leading to high dropout rates, teen pregnancy, crime and low property values.  These conditions harm everyone, leaving only the populations that cannot get out.  Guns are a leftist canard, nothing more.

Get Updates

Our Hottest Stories