10 Ways To Spot a False Flag Mass ShootingByJoe Wright After the Sandy Hook shooting, Connecticut passed strict gun laws and theyre trying to pass invasive homeschooling laws because alleged shooter Adam Lanza was reportedly homeschooled. After the Chattanooga hoax, several Governors signed executive orders allowing the National Guard to be armed at all times. The Charleston church shooting hoax resulted in the banning of the Confederate flag. And all of them have been used to demonize the free flow of information of the Internet. The message is that the shooters were radicalized on the Internet and that type of content must be censored. These lone-wolf shooting eventsalways seem to follow a perfect problem-reaction-solution sequence. Problem = Lone wolf shoots up innocent people for no reason. On psych meds. Radicalized on the Internet. Probably racist. Reaction = Outrage that a crazy person had access to a gun. Solution = More gun control laws and ammo restrictions. Its such an easy and effective formula, how could gun grabbers not use false flags? For those who dont know, False flags are covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them. The most recent televised shooting was clearly a staged event. At this point anyone who wants toconfirm that it was a hoax can see my previous posts here, here, and here. Many, many other shooting events share the exact same script that expose them asprobablefalse flags events. In fact, its starting to become obvious for those who know what to look for. The national media doesnt care about people getting killed with guns unless they can frame it within a gun control agenda. When all of the establishment media is amplifying a particular shooting, you can be certain that nefarious things are afoot. How are drugged-out losers performing withRambo-like prowess and accuracy? Adam Lanza allegedly killed all those kids and teachers with no first-hand survivors. No injuries? Do you know how rare that is in combat? The human body is very resilient, and even trained soldiers miss their target in the heat of battle.This is a major red flag seen in almost every shooting event. When the victims family is immediately interviewed by CNN with dry eyes saying things like, Ive got nothing but love in my heart for the shooter less than 24-hours after their brutal murder, you can be sure its a false flag event. Most of the characters in these hoaxes are failedactors. They seem to have finally gotten their big break to act like a grieving victim. Search YouTube for Crisis Actors Shooting. If even 1% of that content is true, your whole reality will be turned upside down. No victims family ever says, Gun laws arent to blame. It was just the wrong place at the wrong time, in these hoaxes. Why do all of these shooters seem to only have a month or two of social media activity? Thats highly unusual for a real person these days. Its much more convenient when the shooter is killed off in the story. That way they dont have to worry that their patsy will spill secrets. Its not always the case because access to alleged Aurora shooter James Holmes and the alleged Boston Bomber is easily restricted. If the media releases the shooters manifesto or social media statements that reinforces the governments agenda to expand the War on Terror domestically, its probably a staged hoax. This was one of the biggest tells for me that Sandy Hook was a fraud.The federal government doesnt just hand out money. And parents with a major gripe about schools usually file lawsuits. The opposite is true for these shady events. Finally, a powerful way to tell these events are false flags is that the proposed solution of more gun control wouldnt have prevented any these attacks in the first place. Its all a ruse. Even if these were genuine tragic shootings, they cant be prevented by banning certain types of guns, the number of bullets, type of magazine or even who is legally allowed to buy them. Besides, violent crime statistics have been plummeting the last few decades. We are living in the most peaceful times in human history. Yet, gun grabbers would have us believe the opposite. Dont you see, they need to make us feel frightened. They want us to give up our right to self-defense and buy into their protection racket. They want us to beg them to spy on us, restrict our freedom of speech, and ban guns for our own safety. And I suspect theyll continue these ridiculoushoaxes until they get what theyre after. Image Credit Joe Wright writes for selfnewsPost.com. This article Creative Commons and free to repost in full of share anywhere. The children 12 girls and eight boys, all of them 6 or 7 years old were shot as many as 11 times, authorities said. It appeared that Lanza had enough weapons and ammunition with him to have killed many more nbcnews.com There were 2 survivors. All but two of the victims were shot multiple times. With over 200 mass shootings a year (4 or more victims) and 400,000 gun deaths since 9/11, why would anyone think one more shooting would finally tip the balance to rational gun laws? With 90 gun death a day, a few more,a few hundred more, are unlikely to be a catalyst but that is the assumption of the mass shooting hoax theorists. It is an assumption that makes no sense at all. The US has 90% more gun murders than the other 34 advanced nations. You dont have to plan a mass shooting.it happens nearly every day and is increasing year by year. The idea that a government, doctors, parents, police, etc would all risk prison for faking a shooting assumes the rationality of just one more mass shooting. We are awash in blood; there is no need to invent conspiracy theories unless the goal is to thwart rational gun laws, such as universal background checks, which 92% of the public and 85% of gun owners support. The problem is not false flag shootings but fake democracy, where the will of the people is ignored by the gun lobby and their paid shills,in and out of office. Mass shootings always happen in gun free zones.hmmm. The most gun free zones in the world are the UK and Japan, with 99% lower gun murder rate than the US. Many mass shooters choose police stations, military bases, and schools with armed guards. Most assume they will be killed or commit suicide.so the fear of being killed in the mass shooting doesnt add up. The simple fact is that where there are fewer guns, there is less gun violence, whether among nations, states, or in the home. This is backed by peer-reviewed research. In 2006, the US had over 10,000 gun murders (with nearly 300 million guns). The UK and Japan are all but gun free zones and have the lowest gun murder rates in the world. Hmnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. The UK banned guns, and is now having a surge in knife violence. Also, all of the shootings in Chicago do you think these criminals got their guns legally? The UK rate of knife violence is lower than the US. The gun murder rate is 99%, lower, the knife murder rate is also lower, and the overall murder rate is 80% lower. I have done the research, and the surge in knife violence in the UK is an aberration from the downward trend. Knife crime across England and Wales has risen for the first time in four years, official figures have revealed. Police recorded 26,370 offences in 2014/15, up from 25,974 the previous year breaking a downward trend since 2010/11. The Office for National Statistics said the increase was real and was unlikely to be due to changes in police recording practices. The separate Crime Survey for England and Wales said that crime fell by 7%. It suggested that crime had fallen to its lowest level since 1981, estimating that there were 6.8 million crimes in 2014/15 There was a decrease in robberies involving knives, down 14% from 11,927 to 10,270.. How many knife (and sharp object) murders in UK? Keep in mind that gun laws in the UK go back 4 centuries. Across England and Wales, 267 people were murdered with knives in 2007/08, after 272 in 2006/07 the worst numbers in the 30 years that the statistics had been tracked.independent.co.uk.news In 2011, the FBI reported in the US 1694 knife murders. If we adjust for population, UK would have 5 x 270 knife murders, or 1350 knife murders, about 20 less than in the US, while it had 99% fewer gun murder rates. In 2014, the UK had 537 murders (the US about 8,500). adjusted for population, the UK would have 2685 overall murders, about 3/4 less than in the US. There were 30 fatalities(in UK) in 2012/13 which resulted from offences involving firearms; 12 fewer than the previous year and the lowest figure since the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was introduced in 2002/03. In 2012/13, the police recorded 8,135 offences in which firearms were used, a 15% decrease compared with 2011/12. Offences involving knives or sharp instruments also fell by 15% between 2011/12 and 2012/13 (to 26,340). For context, overall police recorded crime fell by 7% over the same period. Firearms continue to be used in a small and diminishing proportion of total police recorded crime (0.2%). ons.gov.uk The Office for National Statistics said the 2% rise in all knife crime offences in the 12 months to March marked the end of a downward trend in the previous four years but the total remained more than 50% below its peak six years ago. the guardian/ July 2015 So with knife crimes up 2%, the rate of knife murders in the US may only be 19% higher than in the UK, while gun murders remain 99% lower and over all murders are 75% less. Since the last series of new gun laws (minor changes) in 1997, the rate of knife murders in the UK has fallen. There were 200 homicides using a sharp instrument in 2011/12, accounting for 39% of all homicides. parliament.uk Since until recently, murders were not distinguished by weapon, there is no sure way to know knife murder rate in 1997. But we do know that since such records have been kept, the knife homicides fell from 255 in 2008 to 193 in 2012. If this year, there has been a 2% increase, that would still maintain a falling trend since reliable records have been kept. We can say: the rate of knife murders has steadily fallen since records have been maintained. A spike of 2% would mean perhaps 4 more murders by knife, statistically insignificant,since over 4 years, the number of knife murders fell by 63. We do not have all the information, but what we do have allows us to conclude: knife murders in the UK have been falling for many years, on average. I think the data speaks for itself. I guess youre gonna be upset, American gun sales skyrocketed this year. More gun sales means more gun deaths.that should upset everyone except the gun industry. As for length, your ADD is treatable. The thing to note is that fewer and fewer households are owing guns, but households with guns (not about 1/3) have more and more guns. I wonder if having 3 guns makes you safer than 1? The research shows that the number of gun deaths is correlated with guns in the home. Sorry to tax your attention deficiency, dude. I do not have ADD. Any form of gun control / banning MUST include Feds, police, military, etc. as well as citizens. The key demand is to close the loopholes, by which in 42 states anyone, including criminals and mentally disturbed, can buy guns privately without any records or background checks. This would in no way infringe on rights of law-abiding gun owners. Federal,police,or military who are criminals or mentally unstable should be subject to same laws. If you dont have ADD, why do you object to a 5 minute, fact-filled post? When is the last time you read a book? If this is too long, forgive me. If I wanted to read War and Peace I would. Criminals get guns from Obama Holders Fast Furious gun running program to Mexican cartels or from a guys car trunk in a dark alley somewhere. No background checks needed for either! So you admit you have not read a book in a long time. Got it. Criminals get guns at gun shows and through online ads hooking up private buyers and sellers. The Fast and Furious was started in 2006, under Bush. During Operation Fast and Furious, the largest gunwalking probe, the ATF monitored the sale of about 2,000[1]:203[15] firearms, of which only 710 were recovered as of February 2012.[1]:203 A number of straw purchasers have been arrested and indicted; The first known ATF gunwalking operation to Mexican drug cartels, named Operation Wide Receiver, began in early 2006 and ran into late 2007.Under the Bush administration Department of Justice (DOJ), no arrests or indictments were made. 450 guns were lost in the first operation,about 1300 in the second. Most of these guns went to Mexico (criminals and gangsters can buy guns without background checks at gun shows, etc in Texas, Arizona, etc). Most US criminals buy guns through private sales. A study in the late 90s found about 40% of guns were sold through this loophole, and why wouldnt a criminal simply get his gun at a gunshow rather than track down the 1800 guns that ended up in Mexico? You could do better if you did some research and stopped relying on pro-gun propaganda. I cant read, Im illiterate. Hey, Obama didnt stop it so its his baby now! Obama did stop it and initiated prosecutions. Wikipedia reports: On October 26, 2009, a teleconference was held at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. to discuss U.S. strategy for combating Mexican drug cartels. Participating in the meeting wereDeputy Attorney General David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, acting ATF Director Kenneth E. Melson, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Michele Leonhart, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Robert Mueller and the top federal prosecutors in the Southwestern border states. They decided on a strategy to identify and eliminate entire arms trafficking networks rather than low-level buyers.[3][38][39] Those at the meeting apparently did not suggest using the gunwalking tactic, but Phoenix ATF supervisors would soon use it in an attempt to achieve the desired goals.[40] The strategy of targeting high-level individuals, which was already ATF policy, would be implemented by Bill Newell, special agent in charge of ATFs Phoenix field division. In order to accomplish it, the office decided to monitor suspicious firearms purchases which federal prosecutors had determined lacked sufficient evidence for prosecution, as laid out in a January 2010 briefing paper. This was said to be allowed under ATF regulations and given legal backing byU.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona Dennis K. Burke. It was additionally approved and funded by a Justice Department task force.[3] However, long-standing DOJ and ATF policy has required suspected illegal arms shipments to be intercepted.[4][5] The second gun walking operation started in Oct 2009 and ended January 25, 2011, Burke announced the first details of the case to become officially public, marking the end of Operation Fast and Furious. At a news conference in Phoenix, he reported a 53-count indictment of 20 suspects for buying hundreds of guns intended for illegal export between September 2009 and December 2010. So Obama ended the program and indicted suspects, something not done during the Bush era gun-walking operation. This baby to which the Bush administration gave birth was terminated by Obama 4 1/2 years ago. Perhaps you didnt get the memoor it was too long. Ive been reading some of your posts, trying to judge you. I am a bit perplexed by you, I cant seem to figure out if you are an automaton or simply a troll shill or just a tiny bit deluded. So, let me ask you a question: What is U.S. Government? I am a retired teacher with a world class education whose hobby is exposing lies. I am totally evidence-based. Your question is non-sequitur.Ill just leave it at that. I suggest you not judge me but learn from me. Ah, so you do not know. Now I knowyou are deluded or just ignorant. You know that I can answer your question,but it is a distraction, a lame attempt to change the subject or distract. I have a world class education political science government from the top public and private universities in the world. Nice try.even YOU are not satisfied with your judgement bo ut its the best you can lacking any background in gun laws gun violence. I urge you to adjust your thinking to the facts and stop trying to trip me up. You will fail because I have studied this subject intensely for years, armed with a sound education,critical thinking skills,and wide knowledge in the field. You may conclude I am deluded or ignorant (ignoring the mass of evidence I have presented) to safe face. You would do better to realize that I am educating you and take advantage. Its free! I shall enlighten you my pupil. I have shared what I have learned. You can learn or mock it. Im not mocking you, I will teach you! One is never too old to learn something newyou cannot know too much. So far, you have called me vicious names and asserted falsehoods. Thats not a good way to recruit students! I learn everyday, prodded by people like you, to expose their lies and deflect their name-calling. Thank you. You have served your purpose well. I do not recall calling you vicious names and you can learn from opposing viewpoints. You called me automaton or paid shill, deluded or ignorant. Your viewpoint is unclear. You presented no logic, no evidence, just false assertions and unrelated questions. I honor all viewpoints based on facts and logic. Sadly, you presented no such, instead dismissing me with insults. Surely, you know that is an admission of defeat. If you re-read and comprehend my previous post, youll see I did not call you any of those. I simply mused if perhaps you were, and I tried to test your knowledge in which you failed miserably. I cant seem to figure out if you are an automaton or simply a troll shill or just a tiny bit deluded. Now I knowyou are deluded or just ignorant. If you re-read and comprehend my previous post, youll see I did not call you any of those. I simply mused if perhaps you were, and I tried to test your knowledge in which you failed miserably. Know I know is hardly musing. Your test of my knowledge was a failure in that you asked a question that was a non sequitur. I will add to what I have said: you are, as shown above,in your own words, a liar. Or is knowing musing? I will waste no more time with you, except to remind you that UBC work in all advanced nations and even in the US, despite loopholes, the gun murder rate fell by nearly 50% within 5 years of the Brady Act. The failure of local and piecemeal laws does not refute the effectiveness of UNIVERSAL GUN LAWS but highlights the need. If I can simply go to the next town or country to buy my guns, that is an argument for universal gun laws, not dismissing them. I do wish you well. I dont believe you think I am deluded or ignorant. I think you have found yourself over your head with a long term student of gun violence and gun laws, and have responded with personal insults owing to a lack of factual evidence to refute. What is the government of the US? Answer my question above about Chicago shootings. Chicago is one of the safest large cities, based on murder rates. It is not even in the top 30 US cities for murder rates (gun and otherwise). It has seen its murder rate fall by nearly 50% in the past decade. Chicago illustrates the relative weakness of local gun laws. If you can just go to the next town, county, or state and get your gun without background checks, this shows the flaw in local gun laws. Universal gun laws would mean a Chicago criminal would not be able to just go elsewhere and get his gun. This is why NY City is one of the safest large cities in the world. All the surrounding regions also have strong gun laws. When adjusted by population, murder rates are far higher in smaller cities than in larger ones, such as Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. All these cities have strict gun laws. Wikipedia reports on the drastic reduction in murders in After 1992, the murder count decreased to 641 murders.Recently Chicago recorded 448 homicides, the lowest total since 1965. That is a 50 decline since 1974. . recent Chicago homicide rates are nowhere near those seen in the 70s, 80s and 90s. In fact, the past decade has logged some of the lowest annual rates since 1965. Gun violence is the leading factor of Chicago deaths, and the media portrays Chicago as one of the most, if not the most dangerous city in the United States of America, regardless of that informations accuracy.[16][17] Despite Chicagos strict gun laws, many arms were trafficked in from surrounding municipalities or stolen from shipments. Wikipedia Got it? I get it! If every non-criminal were armed, the crime rate would be near zero. As criminals would either be to afraid to pull a gun in a crime, or they would all be dead quickly for doing so. No malice, just deposing and exposing you for what I believe you are. Yes, Mr. Ruff, I too scrolled through your entire exchange with Tardis and he never labels or calls you a name, which, YOU quite condescendingly do repeatedly. And, Mr. Tardis, please scroll up and read my post after you were labeled ADD by Mr. Ruff. Cant help but note the name calling in his response to you below either. Learn how to cite references then. What kind of a world class education doesnt teach you how to cite reference sources? You are too dumb or jaded to assemble ALL the facts to reach a sound conclusion. Why learn that prejudiced, left wing propaganda? It is non-information, falsehoods and just plain ignorance. Not anything anyone would want to or need to learn. You are no teacher. I doubt youve even got a college education. Probably stiil living in mommys basement playing video games with your loser buddies. You havent provided any evidence yet. Why do you hate the truth? A RETARDED TEACHER? Thats believable. He says he has a world class education. That should be the first indication of a government shill bobbing for nickels. You have any real source besides Wiki where anyone can post and edit. Yeah, right. Again, you lie. Bushs program was waayy different than the zeros program. He never let any of them walk away. Only your hero the zero did that. Liar. I never lie. Here is the Wikipedia summary of the Bush gun walking operation: The article points out no follow up or prosecutions were done. The only difference the Obama era operation is that people were prosecuted and sent to prison. At the time, under the Bush administration Department of Justice (DOJ), no arrests or indictments were made. After President Barack Obama took office in 2009, the DOJ reviewed Wide Receiver and found that guns had been allowed into the hands of suspected gun traffickers. Indictments began in 2010, over three years after Wide Receiver concluded. As of October 4, 2011, nine people had been charged with making false statements in acquisition of firearms and illicit transfer, shipment or delivery of firearms.[23] As of November, charges against one defendant had been dropped; five of them had pled guilty, and one had been sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Wikipedia summary: same program but under Bush, no guns were reclaimed (710 under Obama recovered)and no one was held accountable. So under Obama (he was hardly involved, this was out of a local ATF office), guns were recovered, and prosecutions were made. Under Bush, no recovered guns, no prosecutions. Nada. You dont seem to understand that Wiki is not a good source. Do you know why? I know that several studies (look them up) have shown Wikipedia to be very reliable. The reason is 1) moderators either remove or notate if claims are made without citations and 2) Wikpedia is replete with primary sources. For instance, the article from which I quoted has 138 primary sources. I know why people like you, who are ignorant of how Wikipedia is compiled (lack of evidence is noted/primary sources are included) and who are unaware of the studies which show its reliability compared to other sources, and who are ignorant of the standard based on primary sources, dismiss Wikipedia: it is because the facts it reports contradict the illusions you hold. I ask, with all due respect, that you do not bother me. So, you want to monitor everyone 24/7? Hello 1984! Why do you hate America so? Now that you, Mr. Ruff, with your world class education as an educator (please share your credentials/resume with us) have also begun psychologically diagnosing those who disagree with you, please read Bernie Suarez article today on 9-11 where he defines the diagnoses of those who are stuck in their own belief systems. I quote Bernie, By definition Psychosis is defined as: A mental disorder characterized by symptoms, such as delusions that indicate impaired contact with reality. followed by: Delusion: a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Have a valid source? In 2014, guns were present in fewer than a third of U.S. households 32 percent according to the survey. Thats 22 percentage points lower than the high of 54 percent recorded in 1977. So this raises a question: where are all those newly-manufactured guns going? Most likely, theyre being added to the stockpiles of people who already own guns. If gun sales are up and household-level ownership rates are down, thats the only real logical conclusion. washingtonpost.com Homes with guns have 270% higher rates of gun deaths than homes without. Enjoy the added risk. Yeah, but most deaths by guns are suicides. That is common knowledge but in no way lessens the need to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Of 41, 149 suicides in 2013, over half, 21, 175 were by gun. Guns are about 90% effective in suicide attempts, whereas the 2nd most used method (drugs) works only 3% of the time,allowing for a second chance and treatment. For every gun murder, there are two gun suicides. The grieving families add up to 32,000 a year. Most of these deaths are preventable. Rational gun laws would lower the carnage. Since 9/11, 400,000 Americans have died from firearms, more than US troops killed in WWII. Homes, states, and nations with stricter gun laws have been able to reduce gun violence, accidents,homicides,injuries, and suicides radically. Rational gun laws, supported by 9 in 10 Americans would, as they have done in all other advanced nations, reduce all levels of violence. yeah but There are so many gun laws already, how many more do we need? It obviously isnt working and hasnt been. Every state has a slew of so-called laws on the books. We could have national gun laws, reduced to a page or two. Universal gun laws are simpler and more effective. All other advanced nations have national laws.simple and effective. Swiss gun laws are a good example. http://images.dailykos.com/images/163679/large/switzerland.jpg?1441910462 We have a national gun law, its called the Second Amendment. Try reading it sometime. Please share your concept of a 2 page national gun law and explain how it would be different from any other licensing, law, code, act, et al, regulating the behavior of people (such as the IRS Code/Law, Affordable Health Care Act, even the licensing of drivers), that have grown into thousands of pages covering every possible contingency that one might incur. What you pretend to be seeking is allowing the camels nose in the tent knowing full well what will ensue. You know it and so do we who read your posts. Until you come clean with your final solution, you will be regarded as a shill with a much larger agenda because, for those of us who arent easily deceived, your thinly disguised PRS (problem-reaction-solution) approach is blatantly obvious. None of your numbers mean squat if you dont cite your sources. What a stupid teacher it not know that! Why do you hate guns? Doctors and hospitals kill far more than guns. If you would bother to look, Mr Ruff cites plenty of sources. And your point about doctors and hospitals has what relevance on the topic of gun violence? Are doctor and hospital sponsored deaths staged false flags? Or are they real and we should considering banning doctors and hospitals? Please, make sure your meds have kicked in before you try to comment Yes, we should consider banning doctors and hospitals. They kill way more than any other source. I suppose youll try to ridicule me with the argument, but doctors and hospitals save much more than they kill, so therefore we must take the bad with the good, or some such. Well, in that vein, guns are waayyy more effective at saving lives as well. Hey, skippy, when you rely on statistics, you have to include ALL relevant numbers, lest you be coming here and LYING to us. Remember that. Dont worry, I wont try to ridicule you; youre doing fine on your own. But I guess you need to understand why I come here to lie to you. You see, after I get my morning cup of joe, and I take the elevator down to my bunker office here at Area 51, I clock in, check the troll assignments for my shift, and then I get busy on the internet spreading disinformation to top thinkers like yourself. My job is to say anything to get you to reveal your superior intellect online, so our boss, Obama, will know who he must silence first to implement his goal of gun confiscation and establish the NMWO (New Muslim World Order). I have been assigned personally to watch you in particular, and record your intellectual observations that might expose us. So far, however, you have cleverly avoided saying anything intelligent at all, and my supervisor refuses to add you to the official intellectual threat list but Im watching you closely, just waiting for you to slip up and say something that makes sense, and then pow! My coworker in next cubicle has a drone circling your trailer park 24/7. Youve already made one mistake, and thats not using super glue to keep your foil helmet on while you sleep, but lucky for you the metal siding of your moms single-wide prevents our mind control satellites from reaching you. But were here, lying to you, and watching you, every single day. Resistance is futile LOL this was the best post in this entire comment section. Bravo. Too long a post? I guess it is difficult for some readers to stay focused when there is more than one paragraph involved. Dont you just hate it when you lose your place, like, totally, in between bong hits, dood? Yes Gomez, I do Fester! Is that you? ;D Thats Uncle to you! Do Chicago criminals get their guns legally? Heres something that speaks for itself: compare Chicago with ANY city in Georgia or Texas. Then, come back here and dance for us again like a stooge slippin in his own shlt. Its kinda funny to watch. It does the guns arent whats killing people. These percentages youre bandying about like gospel do they take into account that the USA has something like 6 times the population of the UK? Yes, rate of murder is per 100K or million For instance, in 2013/14,l the UK had a murder rate of 9 per million (537 total). If you adjust for population (US has 5 times more people), 5 x 537 =2685 (adjusted to US population). source: Office of National Statistics In that period, the US had 16,121 homicides (CDC), or 51 per million. If we compare the rates of murder (justifiable homicides are less than 1%), we find the US had a murder rate about 80% higher than in the UK. The knife murder rate, adjusted for population, is 20% higher in the US than in the UK, where less than 1% of murders are done with firearms. As for whether guns kill, yes they do. Like any weapon, they must be used. But in fact, each year, in the US, 32,000 people are killed with guns. Statistics, if correct and used correctly, are gospel when it comes to science or truth. Dear Federal troll: does your position come with a retirement plan? Your libel is typical of someone with ammo. You know I am not paid to cite evidence showing the relationship of gun laws and gun violence. But you use this lying ad hominem as defense against he truth. I am a retired teacher, 74 years old. if I could be paid for reporting the truth, I would be very happy. Who pays you to make lying accusations about people who are spreading the truth? The gun makers? The gun lobby? If you have any evidence to refute my claims, please present them. Put up or shut up., troll. The simple fact is that where there are fewer guns, there is less gun violence, Well, that is rather obvious. Get rid of the cars and you will have fewer automobile deaths. s Nothing is said however, of any other type of violence and how much that violence goes up. Also, those cultures are completely different. I was listening to some young Australians talk about violence. They thought it was ridiculous to even try to defend yourself when attacked. Their view was let whatever happen, happen. And when the police finally show up they will take care of punishing the perpetrator. That would never fly here. For most people, they have no choice but to own a car; whereas guns are optional. You are comparing apples and oranges, a necessary tool and an optional tool, which is, as you know, a logical fallacy. Gun murders, overall murders, and violence are products of a lack of rational gun laws along with easy access to weapons. Nothing like what happens in the US happens in the other 34 advanced nations. The cultures of After Australia passed its new gun laws in 1996 (and buying back 700,000 guns), there have been no more mass shootings and the murder rate is down by about 50%. Facts are facts, whether you believe them or not. Your facts arent facts. Just tripe. Our culture is different, we have a lot of guns, always have always will. What is rational gun control? Like I said, Aussies wont even protect themselves. That is a huge cultural difference. You refuse to look at the facts sir. The simple fact that there are more drownings in Florida than in Nevada means as much as numbers of murders by firearms per capita,,,NOTHING. The only shill around here is you. If you call 33,636 deaths per year We are awash in blood . Your hyperbole is downright disgusting. What do you call 33,804 deaths, or 48,545 deaths, or how about 192,945 deaths? These are the deaths caused by automobiles, poison, and accidents respectively. Seeing as you claim to be a retired teacher, why dont you research the pictures of the Sandy Hook school. It didnt look like a functional school to me. Utility records are sealed. And handicapped parking is not properly marked. Seems odd to me. well, you know I am not a shill; you know you are lying because you have no facts to respond with. I call 33,000 deaths year a terrible tragedy, since most are preventable.The other 34 advanced nations have 80% lower murder rates,a result of rational gun laws. All preventable death are inexcusable; we should do all we can to reduce the gun violence with rational laws. Sandy Hook is a distraction. If over 200 mass shootings a year leads not to gun law reform but higher gun sales,why would anyone think a staged shooting would have a different result. It makes no sense. I suspect you know this. A huge majority of Americans support conducting background checks for all gun purchases. A new Quinnipiac University poll this week revealed that 92% of the public favors background checks and 7% disapproves. Dec/2012: GALLUP Poll finds 92% support background checks for gun shows. Additionally, 86% of Republicans, 98% of Democrats, and 92% of gun owners agree on the issue. The majority of voters 89% also support enacting laws to prevent people with mental illnesses from purchasing firearms, according to the poll, which was released Friday. July/2014 Dec/2012: GALLUP Poll finds 92% support background checks for gun shows. June 2015: A large majority of Americans including gun owners continue to support stronger policies to prevent gun violence than are present in current federal and most state law, according to a new national public opinion survey conducted by researchers with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. The survey is a follow-up to one conducted by the same researchers in early 2013, shortly after the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that left 26 dead. The results are published online in Preventive Medicine. Two years after the tragedy in Newtown, our study of public support for two dozen specific gun policies found a large majority of Americans continue to favor a range of gun-safety policies, says lead study author Colleen Barry, PhD, MPP, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Support was strongest with little difference between gun-owners and non-owners for universal background checks, barring people with temporary restraining orders for domestic violence from having guns and stronger regulations of licensed gun dealers. Support for requiring background checks for all gun sales remained high, with 85 percent of gun owners and 83 percent of non-owners favoring the policy. In the 2013 survey, 84 percent of gun owners and 90 percent of non-owners supported background checks for all gun sales. 85% of gun owners continue to support universal background checks, proving that most gun owners are rational. Your doubts are proved wrong, friend. Do you oppose universal background checks? Do you oppose filtering out criminals and the criminally insane from purchasing guns? Do you realize that if you have a gun in your home, the chances of a gun death is 270% greater than if you got rid of your gun (s)? The Medical Mafia and Big-Pharma kill over 350,000 Americans every year that are preventableexcept for their profit margins. I do oppose universal background checks. The recent mass shootings show they dont work. I will agree the criminally insane and violent criminals shouldnt be able to purchase a weapon. Given the availability of stolen weapons on the street a background check wont make a difference. Furthermore background checks are a de facto gun registration. I am not aware of any country where registration did not lead to confiscation. I dont know about you, but I dont want my gun confiscated leaving my family dependent on the police for protection. Get off the 34 advanced countries crap. How many of them have a 2nd Amendment RIGHT to keep and bear arms? 100,000 deaths from hospital mistakes. But likely under reported. We dont live in a democracy, Sherlock. Time to get real. Where do your numbers come from, anyway? You just type out what looks good to advance your commie agenda? That was crisp. Thanks for the broken down stats. Why isnt tobacco a FDA schedule 2 drug? Every use of tobacco will lead to a cause of death, not so with every firearm purchased. The shooters in the most of these cases did not even purchase the weapons used, they were stolen, this along with the fact most had issues that would prevent the legal purchase of a firearm under current laws shows the problem is not the laws but the individuals, most of which should have already been institutionalized in some form. Too bad they NEVER blame the psyche meds. Nut cases criminals will always find a way to get a weapon so more gun laws are a not going to stop this; only make the law abiding citizen more vulnerable. The record of the other 34 advanced nations shows that strict gun laws reduce gun violence by 90%. More guns/more gun deaths. If more guns meant less gun violence, the US would be the safest of all advanced nations. In fact, the next most dangerous nation has 85% lower gun murder rate and the UK and Japan, nearly gun free zones, have 99% lower gun murder rates. Tens of millions take meds without shooting anyone. A strong universal background checks law would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed, as well as common criminals. So while 92% of the public, 85% of gun owners, and even 74% of NRA members support such a law, the gun lobby and its paid servants in Congress block the will of the people, which is supported by peer-reviewed research. The key problem is not meds but the lack of democracy. Criminals will get guns no matter how many laws you put out there. Those of us who are law abiding and respectful of other people are not the problem. But you and your ilk (lace pantie wearers) will be the ones cowering in the corner sucking your thumb, peeing your diapers, and mewling for mommy when the big bad boogie man breaks through your door. As for me and those like me, we may die but were not going out without a fight. Take your simpering, gun-hating gobutette somewhere else! Criminals will get guns no matter how many laws you put out there. This is demonstrably false. In Japan, there are about 10 gun murders a year (in 2006, there were 2). If criminals could get guns, there would be far more murders. The fact is, its very difficult because the strict laws are strictly enforced. If you try to steal a gun, you are stealing from an armed person. In the UK,. likewise, there are about 35 gun murders a year, or 99% lower than in the US. Where are all the criminals with guns? In Australia, after the horrific mass murder of 35 in the mid-90s,new laws were passed and 700,000 guns bought back. Since then, there have been NO mass shootings and the murder rate is down 50%. Even in the US, after the Brady Act was passed, the gun murder rate dropped 40% in less than 5 years. Homes with guns have 270% more gun deaths than homes without; the states with the most guns and loosest laws have 40% more gun murders than the states with the strictest laws. New York City is one of the safest large cities in the world, and Chicago is not even in the top 30 most dangerous cities. The key to effective gun violence reduction is to make universal back ground checks universal, with no loopholes. If my town bans handguns, all I have to Er, the UK has lots of criminals with guns mate. Europe as a whole has a thriving black market for anything and everything. Id question why people in the US are more likely to kill than other countries, with a gun or not. As you have probably seen in stats, US has more murders period. Apparently they dont use them very often, as the gun murder rate in the UK is 99% lower than in the US. The average European gun murder rate is 90% lower than the US. German police report that in 2011, they fired just 85 bullets. nbcnews reported: German police officers fired a total of 85 bullets in 2011, 49 of which were warning shots, the German publication Der Spiegel reported. Officers fired 36 times at people, killing six and injuring 15. This is a slight decline from 2010, when seven people were killed and 17 injured. Ninety-six shots were fired in 2010. Meanwhile, in the United States, The Atlantic reported that in April, 84 shots were fired at one murder suspect in Harlem, and another 90 at an unarmed man in Los Angeles Unlike the US, where criminals can buy any guns in 32 states and semi-automatic rifles in 42, without background checks (private saleswhich can be any seller since records are not kept). In all other 34 advanced nations, those with criminal records or domestic violence of violent mental problems are screened and banned from buying weapons. Punishment for illegal sales include years in prison. The evidence shows that criminals in the other 34 advanced nations, if they have guns, rarely use them. The main reason the US has more murders period is that 2/3 of all murders are done with guns. In the other 34 advanced nations which have introduced strict gun laws, not only has the gun murder rate gone down but the overall murder rate has also fallen drastically. A good example is the US after the Brady Act was passed (after the year with the highest gun and overall murder total in our history: 1993), within 5 years, the gun murder rate declined by 40% and the over all murder rate dropped from 24,500 to 15,500. Another good example is Australia where, after the 96 new gun laws and gun buyback program, the gun murder rate has dropped over 50% and the overall murder rate has dropped by nearly 50% (from 1.9 to 1 in 2014. This is not cherry picking. You can use Nationmaster, gunpolicy.org or Wikipedia (as well as other sources) to confirm this pattern that when gun murders decline, so does the over all murder rate. I will grant that the US has a very powerful gun lobby and culture of violence (as seen in its foreign policy, movies, and domestic murder rate) but this context is why, despite 90% public support for rational gun laws like universal background checks (also supported by 85% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members), the Republicans funded by the NRA have blocked legislation. Japan, after WWII had a very high gun and overall murder rate (about the same as the US now) but after passing very restrictive gun laws, the gun murder rate has since declined by 99% with a huge reduction in overall murders as well. I urge you to fact check all this to educate yourself on how strictly enforced gun laws have reduced gun violence and overall murder rates radically in all 35 advanced nations. Hey, mate, the UK has a 99% lower gun murder rate than the US so clearly those criminals rarely use those guns you claim they have. And the same is true for all of Europe where the gun murder rate is 90% lower, with Germany and Switzerland, Spain, and Austria having 95% lower gun homicide rates. Yes, the US has a culture which glorifies culture, dominated by the worship of guns and a foreign policy which uses war as an instrument of domination. Most murders in the US are by gun, so clearly cutting down on gun murders would reduce the overall murder rate as it has in the other advanced nations. The two most gun free zones in the world, Japan and the UK, have 99% lower gun murder rates. In 2006, the US had over 10,000 gun murders, UK had 45, Japan had 2. Let that soak in. The War on Drugs has been going on for over a century now, heroin, morphine, LSD, ecstasy; illegal in all 50 States. So theres no illegal drug trade in the US, right? Cause its illegal Whats the largest drug bust youve ever heard of? Tons, right? So, obviously, criminals wont smuggle guns and/or ammunition because theyre illegal? Are you mental? Chicago, with some of the toughest gun laws in the country has had OVER 2000 shootings this year. France has some of the toughest in the world; boy, THATS kept gun murders out of there, hasnt it? Auto accidents kill more people in the US than guns; quick, close the Big Three. Its for the children. Are you also one of the people proposing to stop eating meat because cow farts are warming the planet? Your argument should be included there with the rest of the dysfunctional morons who think education should include safe zones for students who cant handle reality. Governments remain the #1 killer of life on this planet; get them off the genocide train before asking the rest of us to trust them for protection. Better yet, take your bottle and spare nappies to your safe room, seal the door, and stay there, it has to be simpler than the application of the amount of bubble-wrap you would require to feel safe going to your mailbox. On no! One of your neighbors has a pitbull in an enclosed yard; call the cops, only drug dealers and thugs own pitbulls, right? Good luck with that.. 1. Drugs are far easier to conceal than guns. The other 34 advanced nations all have rational gun laws (no one is talking about eliminating guns but regulating them) and 90% lower gun murder rates. The two nearly gun free zones of the UK and Japan have 99% lower gun murder rates, where even criminals dont use guns. 3. Local gun laws, which permit criminals to simply drive to the next town (as in DC) or county or state have limited effectiveness. This is an argument not to repeal local laws but to make them universal, which is how Europe is able to have a 90% lower gun murder rate. 4. France has a very low gun murder rate. It has an average of about 120 gun murders a year, compared to 8,500 for the US. Even if you add in the latest mass murder in Paris, the gun murder rate is 97% lower than in the US, where there are 120 gun murders every 5 days! 5. Unlike guns, which are a choice, most people must have a means of transportation, and all means have always had a degree of danger. In addition, almost everyone uses a car everyday, hundreds of times a year, whereas guns are used rarely but still kill 32,000 a year. If you have a safer way to travel, please present it. Mass transit is safer but as you know, Republicans are opposed, as they are opposed to gun laws to reduce violence. The argument using cars also fails because cars are strictly regulated, with background checks, safety features, tests, and constant surveillance by the police. Guns, which no one HAS to have (2/3 of households do NOT have guns, and they have 270% less gun deaths than homes with guns), on the other hand are in most states available without records or background checks. In 42 states, a homicidal criminal can buy a gun (a semi-automatic rifle)at a gunshow or thru an online ad with no background checks. States have been responsible for massive slaughter in wars, but that has nothing to do with having rational gun laws. I will note that Hitler, the worst mass murderer in history, expanded gun rights for 99% of Germans, deregulated rifles and ammo, and liberalize gun laws in the 1938 German Weapons Act. We know from experience of the other 34 advanced nations that rational gun laws universally enforced, can reduce gun violence by over 90%. This is independent of the record of state terror and wars. Japan, for instance, in the 50s had a gun murder rate worse than the US. With very strict gun laws it has reduced its gun murder rate over 99% since. In 2006, Japan had 2 gun murders (the average is 10) proving even the notorious Japanese gangs do not use guns. I suggest that if you are afraid and need a gun to feel secure you are the last person to mock those of us who do not live and fear and do not need a gun to feel safe. The evidence is in: among nations, states, cities, and homes, the more guns the more violence. If you are so afraid you need a gun to allay your fears, I suggest you study the evidence and realize that gun possession is a key risk factor for a gun death in your home. Do you have children? Knowing that homes with guns have nearly 3 times more gun deaths than homes without, if you continue to keep your gun you are guilty of child endangerment. Would you buy a car that had a 270% greater chance of causing a fatality? Would you buy a gun law regime which led to 90% more gun deaths? Apparently you would, and that is why you qualify, on objective grounds, of being a fool. I do not go to my safe room; I live openly and without weapons, other than my intelligence and wit. I pity those who only feel safe if they are packing heat, for they are living in fear and are too stupid to realize that gun possession puts them and their families much more at risk than it protects them. Knowing this and continuing to keep our gun is a sign of a deep disconnect from reality, a condition that disqualifies you from owning a gun. Give it up and face the world without fear, without endangering your family. You cant create a fool-proof device; every year they come out with new improved fools. A this very moment there are, quite more than likely, any number of items under your sink or in your garage that would be life threatening to unsupervised children. Do you wring your hands and moan about their potential hazard? Or do you keep household chemicals, lawn and garden chemicals, and power tools out of their reach? Do you know where your five gallon buckets are? Children have drowned in five gallon buckets? Child-proof locks on all your cabinets? How dare you endanger children! Oh yeah, the nanny-state works so well. I dont live in fear of misuse of my personal firearms, anymore than any other potentially dangerous item (kitchen full of knives, for instance) in my home. Having, within my lifetime, prevented both a car jacking and home invasion by simply demonstrating that I was armed (my vehicle, my home), I am somewhat skeptical of your Utopian ideal. Nor are they uncommon, this was not a unique experience. {The knife thing is extra-special now; having disarmed most of its populous, the UK now has a Save a life, give up your knife. campaign. think of the children.} For all your stats, you leave out the totals: over 80 million gun owners, over 300m guns. You leave out how many of the murders listed are committed by police (licensed and vetted gun owners) and repeat felonious offenders. Drugs are tiny and easy to hide is disingenuous when the AMOUNTS smuggled are in the multi-ton range. When the CONgresspersons and celebrities pushing this crap give up their expensive, heavily armed protection, well talk about the rest of us. Japan doesnt have a ghetto trash culture running rampant, nor does it hae a third world invasion to contend with either. Your comment is nakedly racist. Studies (google research on poverty and crime rates blacks and whites) show that the crime rate for poor whites is the same (or slightly higher) than poor blacks. Japan has the same rate of poverty as the US (16%) but strict gun laws have all but eliminated gun murders. The UK, which has ghettos and a large minority population but very strict gun laws and almost no guns has a 99% lower gun murder rate than the US. Europe is reeling froma third world invasion of immigrants but has a 90% lower gun murder rate than the US. Racists normally are not swayed by facts so I assume you will respond with insults or more racist assumptions. Villent rime rates are related to two major factors: poverty (especially when there is extreme inequality) and easy access to guns. Strict gun laws can reduce the violence radically even in the presence of poverty. To suggest that violent crime is related to DNA is pure racism. In the US, it is a product of poverty and easy access to guns. Several studies document this fact, for example: COLUMBUS, Ohio Violent crime rates have more to do with poverty levels in a neighborhood than with the race of local residents, new research has found. A study of Columbus neighborhoods found that violent crime rates in extremely disadvantaged white neighborhoods were very similar to rates in comparable Black neighborhoods. The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities. There are still many people who mistakenly believe there is something about Black neighborhoods that make them more violent and prone to crime, said Lauren Krivo, co-author of the study and associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University. Our research shows that neighborhoods with the most crime tend to be those with the highest rates of poverty and other types of disadvantage regardless of whether they are predominantly Black or white.http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm poverties.org reports: Poverty and crime have a very intimate relationship that has been described by experts from all fields, from sociologists to economists. See more at: http://www.poverties.org/poverty-and-crime.html#sthash.FIs6lRKw.dpuf Crime has nothing to do with DNA and everything to do with disadvantaged populations. The violence of he crimes is highly correlated with easy access to guns, as proved by the lack of gun murders in Japan and the UK and the other 32 advanced nations all of which have very strict gun laws, with the exception of the US where criminals can effortlessly buy semi-automatic weapons in 42 states without any records or background checks. This huge loophole exists in no other advanced nation, which have gun murder rates from 85-99% lower than in the US, with 80% lower overall murder rates. Here are some facts to deconstruct the crime/race connection: 1. Lower-class youth commit four times more violent crimes than middle-class youth. 2. Black households have only 8% the wealth of white households (ie nearly zero) So the solution is simple: programs which increase family income will reduce crimes rates for all groups. The key to rising into the middle class (with 1/4 less violent crimes) is educational achievement. The strongest predictor of academic success is family income. columbus, thats all white wash. statistics can be scripted. any way why do you spend so much time worrying about it. nothings gonna change. this country is armed to the teeth. im pretty sure whose going to win. Have your read the Diary of Columbus? Statistics dont lie tho they can be cherry picked or misused. Good luck with taking up arms against the government. The Constitution says the militia exists to put down insurrections, so you may be drafted to shoot yourself. lol. Yea! tell em Since the 50s when Japan had a gun murder rate as bad as the US, they have reduced it by 99% through strict gun laws. They also have poverty, which is the parent of crime but the access to guns is so limited there is virtually no gun murder (2 in 2006) and the overall murder rate is 80% lower than the US. Because of your use of false statistics, no statistics, no common measure (per 100,000, etc.) and outright falsehoods, YOU ARE A CARELESS LIAR. More guns equal less crime. You start off talking about violent crimes and murder, then finish off with gun deaths. Do you honestly think that the last thing a victim beaten to death with a blunt instrument said was: thank you so much for not shooting me to death! ?!?! I correct myself, you are a careless and stupid liar. So, you think we are high on the list of violent countries? If you remove the gun free zones of NYC, Chicago, LA, SanFranciso, WE FALL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST, proving your dum bass idea of disarming the honest folk is a deadly failure that cannot be reversed. Dont any of you morons have a working calculator? All of my statistics are based on credible sources using primary sources. Anyone with any background in criminal justice knows that a gun murder rate of 3.5 means 3.5 per 100K. It is commonly accepted that murder is the most violent crime. Since 2/3 of all murders in the US are with guns, reducing gun violence would reduce overall violence. If you come at me with a gun, I am dead; if you come with a knife of club, I can run, resist, or pick up an object to defend myself. Since guns are by far the most efficient killers, they are on the front line of violence and reducing violence. If you remove NYC (which has among the lowest gun violence rates of US cities, Calling a person who has studied gun laws and gun violence for over 3 years, while you are demonstrably ignorant and make statements easy to refute as false, is hilarious! Whatever you studied, you shouldnt brag about it. You studied it for three years, so what? If that is all you know about guns you seriously wasted your time. Dont you know how to study? Dont you know how to be objective? If more guns = more gun deaths then Serbia, which isnt even a developed country yet and has the second highest rate of gun ownership in the word, would have a much higher death related to firearms rate, yet it doesnt. Youre inferring that its a causation when in reality, its a very weak correlation at best. There are several examples between states in the US showing that more guns do not just simply lead to more gun deaths. Violent crime is a multifaceted topic and I am appalled that you would even present such a simplistic argument. Please stop spreading such misinformation, its dangerous because people will eat it up without questioning where it came from. Serbia is ranked 5th for gun ownership and has a gun murder rate 2-3 times higher than other European nations. It has an average gun murder rate over the past 10 years of about 1.9/100K. The European average is about 1 or less, with Germany having 0.8, and nations with a similar populations having a gun murder rate half of Serbia; Sweden is about 0.7 and Netherlands is about 9. So compared to its neighbors in Europe, the gun murder rate in Serbia is about twice as high over the past decade. With a per capita income over 12K, Serbia is not considered an undeveloped nation but a high income nation (it starts at 12K). The correlation of strict gun laws to very low gun murder rates among the 34 advanced nations other than the US is 100%. Canada is closest to the US, with 85% lower gun murder rate, and the UK and Japan has a 99% lower murder rate, with the average of 34 nations being over 90% lower. You can fact check all this at gunpolicy.org(which gives primary sources), or Nationmaster. In the US, a Harvard study found that the 10 states with the most guns and loosest laws have 40% higher gun murder rates than the 10 with the fewest guns and strictest laws. Gun murder requires only 2 things: a person and a gun. The evidence of all 35 advanced nations (including the US since the Brady Act was passed) is that in all cases (100%), the homicide rate is correlated consistently, without variation, to the strictness of the gun laws. It is not simplistic to reason that if there is a 100% correlation, with no other logical explanation, it is most likely causal. Please educate yourself before calling my factual information dangerous.; I have studied gun laws and gun violence for over 3 years. I am familiar with the research and the right wing denunciations of the research as well as the now debunked work of John Lott. Truthfully,l have heard all the excuses for dismissing a 100% correlation.none holds up. The one piece of evidence you have brought forth (Serbia) does not hold up when you compare Syria to the other 27 European nations. Its gun homicide is twice as high. I urge you to study the peer-reviewed research and use gunpolicy.org to fact check. Unless you have done years of serious study, as I have, you are out of your league. Unless you are familiar with the gun statistics worldwide, and compare apples to apples (ie advanced nations to advanced nations, EU nations to EU nations, etc), you will find yourself cherry picking outlier cases, which is a logical fallacy. You typed a bunch, said very little. You didnt actually use gunpolicy.org as your credible site did you? Do you even know who funds that website? Again, Im appalled. You obviously need to do a lot more research. UNSCAR and the Arms Trade Treaty?? If thats not bias I dont know what is. And Ive even looked at the statistics on the gunpolicy.org and they dont even match with what youre saying about 100% correlations regarding firearm related deaths and firearm laws. Serbia is also not as developed as the countries in Europe or the US, but it is still considered developing according to the Human Development Index HDI. Now, I acknowledge that you also can use the following to gauge a countrys development level and they all say something different: Inequality Human Development Index (IHDI), International Monetary Fund (IMF), or the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). So really its quite arbitrary and debating that is of no interest to me. Another point, its apparent that you dont even understand correlations. In order to have a perfect positive correlation, which Im guessing is what you mean when you say 100%, for each number of guns introduced into a population, a certain number of deaths will then occur. We know from empirical data that is not true across the board whether were comparing US states or all the countries. If it were true, then the United States, who has the most firearms per capita out of all countries in the world then should have the highest firearm related deaths rate, however, it doesnt. Obviously there are more important factors involved, making this a multifaceted issue. You clearly do not understand the scientific method and the nature of correlations. The funny thing about research is that I also just looked up a peer-reviewed Harvard research study from the Harvard Journal of Law Public Policy also produced a study titled, Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide in which the authors concluded that such correlations were not observed in comparing countries. Its great being in graduate school having such credible sources to pull right from the library of my university. You couldnt even produce a title for the study you mentioned. Way to go know it all!! The irony is that you call me out on cherry picking when youre doing the exact same thing, only posting up research that supports your viewpoint. At least I acknowledge that there are empirical, peer-reviewed research studies that support both sides of the debate. My post contained over 10 relevant facts, all based on credible sources. Gunpolicy.org is a credible source because it documents its primary sources. For instance, the data on US gun homicide rates for 2013 is CDC WISQARS. 2014. Injury Mortality Reports 1999 and Onwards (USA). Scholars, investigative journalists, and historians all judge sources by whether they provide primary documentation. Gunpolicy.org. So for the laymen here. Where there are coconut trees there are often coconut deaths. (Apparently a coconut can kill you on a windy day.) Does that make coconuts bad? On the contrary. Coconut is extremely healthy food. Even medicinal. And why do Germans with all those guns not kill each other in greater numbers? Isnt that against your argument? The Swiss show remarksble self coonrolpretty sure its because they are raised with a good spanking now and then and are taught to respect others. So Im making my argument again. People kill people where there is no morality. Where a morality nutral government over steps and trys to be a baby daddy. American teens took their rifles to Highschool in the 1950s and noone got shot. Its the falling society not the guns. And wish to God someone had concealed carry in that building in California a few days ago. Hey, we were taking our rifles and shotguns to school in the 60s and my kids did as late as 1989. Almost everybody in Idaho has a firearm or two. Weve always had open carry and we still have one of the lowest homicide rates in the US. Please include the murder rate otherwise in Europe? I am sure there are people who figure out how to kill one another some way with out a gun. Syria? In the middle of civil war is a comparson?? Im convinced that ruff is just a high school kid with no formal training who just wants to appear as an authority to somebody, somewhere. Either that or he is really an ignorant, pompous jackass with delusions of grandeur much like the jackwagon that is occupying the WH. The US doesnt have a gun problem, it has a minority problem. Over 65% of all violent crime is committed by minorities. If you take away crimes committed by minorities, the US becomes one of the least violent places on earth. Japan is often cited as one of the best examples of how gun control should work. They have one of the lowest violent crime rates on the planet. They also only have 1.5% minorities. Despite the widely televised mass shootings, gun violence is at the lowest levels in 40 years. The will of the people is obviously unknown to you, since the majority of Americans say they do not think more gun control will solve anything. Not a single law has prevented a shooting, so adding more will only punish those who actually obey the law. There is no lack of democracy. This is a republic, ruled by law. The democratic process does not allow you to create new laws through mob rule. Wrong! Studies show that whites in poor neighborhoods have the same rate of violent crimes as minorities. If you take away poverty the US crime rate does look much better but with over 50 million poor people,and declining incomes, you cant really do that. The correlation is with poverty. Middle class blacks and Latinos have the same crimes rates as middle class whites. Poor whites have the same crime rates as poor blacks and other minorities. You are making a racist argument which is refuted by peer-reviewed research. The US is a plutocracy, ruled by the wealthy. Calling democracy mob rule is what Hitler said. Provide the studies that show whites in poor neighborhoods have the same rate of violent crimes as minorities. Is your racism so entrenched that you think crime is related to DNA rather than socio-economic conditions? POVERTY, NOT RACE, TIED TO HIGH CRIME RATES IN URBAN COMMUNITIES COLUMBUS, Ohio Violent crime rates have more to do with poverty levels in a neighborhood than with the race of local residents, new research has found. A study of Columbus neighborhoods found that violent crime rates in extremely disadvantaged white neighborhoods were very similar to rates in comparable Black neighborhoods. The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities. There are still many people who mistakenly believe there is something about Black neighborhoods that make them more violent and prone to crime, said Lauren Krivo, co-author of the study and associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University. Our research shows that neighborhoods with the most crime tend to be those with the highest rates of poverty and other types of disadvantage regardless of whether they are predominantly Black or white. In this study, overall rates of violence were nearly three times as high in Black neighborhoods as in white neighborhoods. But thats because Black neighborhoods are much more likely than white ones to be highly disadvantaged, she said Violent crime rates were lowest in those neighborhoods with low disadvantage, regardless of whether they were predominantly Black or white. Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods had violent crime rates that were 16.3 per 1000 higher than rates in low disadvantage neighborhoods. .http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm : Krivo conducted the study with Ruth Peterson, a professor of sociology at Ohio State. Their study was published in the current issue of the journal Social Forces. A another study reported here http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetailiid=5137 came to the same conclusion: The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels. Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000). Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000). Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000). Note that rates of violence for poor whites is actually higher! Given the discrimination against blacks in the criminal justice system (see Fourteen Examples of Racism in the Criminal Justice System by Law professor Bill Quigley at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/fourteen-examples-of-raci_b_658947.html For example: whites and blacks engage in drug offenses, possession and sales, at roughly comparable rates according to a report on race and drug enforcement published by Human Rights Watch in May 2008. While African Americans comprise 13% of the US population and 14% of monthly drug users they are 37% of the people arrested for drug offenses according to 2009 Congressional testimony by Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project. Two. The police stop blacks and Latinos at rates that are much higher than whites. In New York City, where people of color make up about half of the population, 80% of the NYPD stops were of blacks and Latinos. When whites were stopped, only 8% were frisked. When blacks and Latinos are stopped 85% were frisked according to information provided by the NYPD. The same is true most other places as well. In a California study, the ACLU found blacks are three times more likely to be stopped than whites. Three. Since 1970, drug arrests have skyrocketed rising from 320,000 to close to 1.6 million according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. Etc. (A)study of violent crime in deprived neighbourhoods in Cleveland, Ohio, found that reductions in poverty led to reductions in the crime rate in exactly the same way in predominantly black and white areas, suggesting poverty, not race, is the biggest factor In Chicago, the pattern follows the conclusions of the studies showing the correlation of poverty and crime rates, regardless of race. According to city-data.com,the rate of whites below the poverty line is 10.4; among blacks, it is 34.5. Add to that the discrimination in the criminal justice system and you begin to understand why many more blacks in Chicago, per capita, are convicted of crimes. The alternate theory is that crime is related to race, a product of DNA. That is naked racism and that is WHY blacks are both much poorer and indiscriminately incarcerated. Dale, I know this post is old, but I have to congratulate you for so tirelessly arguing with people who are legitimately retarded. The fact that you had to state *very easily accessible*, peer-reviewed, confirmed facts about gun violence over and over again, only to have a bunch of morons counter with durrr look at this video some guy in his basement made, it proves guns are safe!!!!1 was very frustrating to read through lol. I commend you for your effort. You just cant force reason onto people who absolutely refuse to live in reality. (My personal favourite is the guy who thinks blacks are *genetically different* than whites and therefore are naturally more violent. ROFL. Actually I shouldnt laugh. Lack of education is not a joke.) I guess dale doesnt have the market on biased stupidity cornered. Why dont you just back up some of your ignorance with some verifiable facts? You left wing retards are hilarious. Your dysfunctional reasoning abilities are so obvious you should be jailed. For the record Hitler was a Socialist and conived to gradually take away guns until the German people were sitting ducks. Any time a person starts a sentence with, studies show and doesnt provide the source of those studies, they are lying. Read some of the writings of the Founding Fathers if you want to know why they were so afraid of a democracy. I have stated the sources several times, and perhaps you are unaware that if you google studies and research on poverty and crimeyou will immediately access these studies. Since you are unfamiliar with search engines, I will hold our hand and do it for you. Ah! Within seconds, I find http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~japhill/sp802.pdf http://law.jrank.org/pages/2224/Urban-Crime-Explaining-variation-in-urban-crime.html http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities. Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000) I predict you will not admit the evidence of these studies supports my assertion but find a twisted way to retreat from adjusting our thinking to the evidence. That is why you are called Lastgasp. The Founding Fathers had many conflicting views on democracy. Those who founded the nation and articulated the core principles of democracy (equality and consent of the governed) like Jefferson Paine, and Adams were not welcome at the Constitutional Convention, which included only those tho opposed democracy and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. The author of the Constitution (unlike those who signed onto the Declaration) opposed democracy because like FF John Jay, they believed The country should be run by those who own it. 95% of the Founding Fathers were slave owners and they designed a Constitution to protect their slave property and to insure the rule of the 1%.. In the first election, 1% of the population was allowed to vote or run for office. I know why they were afraid of democracy: 1) they identified it with mob rule (real democracy is the opposite of mob rule but a system including a free, diverse press, an informed citizenry, equality, independent judiciary inviolable rules, and majority rule. Those who fear democracy (Hitler and Mussoline both denounced democracy as mob rule and abolished free elections) do so because they wish to support the tyranny of a privileged minority, such as slave owners or wealthy corporations. The Constitution was a rejection of the principles on which the nation was founded. It set up a system of minority rule, which is one definition of dictatorship: rule of the many by the few, a clear violation of the D O I principles of universal equality and legitimate government being based on consent of the governed. The democrats including Jefferson and Paine were not even in the country and were not welcome. The anti-democrats created a Constitution creating a government accurately described as an oligarchy, which we still have. I have studied political philosophy at the top public and private uninversities in the world and over a period of 60 years. I find your dismissal of studies without checking them out willful ignorance (stupidity) and your ignorant view of the Founding Fathers sadly lacking. I have run into you before and will conclude with what I previously concluded: You cannot fix stupid. Hypnotised: Point right whilst going left The only psyche meds involved are those that sheople take that prevents them seeing that there are no psyche meds, just media lies, crisis actors, none dead, all cried, obfuscation in their serpent eyes. Too bad selfnews Post has consented to post this drivel. By doing so they destroy any credibility they might have had before. Now, in my opinion, selfnews Post, has sunk to posting paranoid tabloid-style hysteria, making me wonder if they editors are same ones who publish the Daily Kos. The absurdities of this report are too numerous to address individually. But huge gaping hole in all these laughable false flag articles is a simple one: If these are all staged events, then there would be mountains of REAL evidence not wild speculation yet, the false flag alarmists somehow never bring this abundance of real evidence to their articles. Why not? Simple there is no real evidence to support their claims. Notice the single-mindedness of their ludicrous claims: ALL reports of shootings covered by mainstream media ARE FALSE! Got that? ALL reports on tv are False period. Dylan Roof and Adam Lanza must be disappointed to learn that their psychotic episodes were staged events and didnt really happen. And all the friends and relatives of the people who died at Sandy Hook, Columbine, Charleston and all the others places must be relieved to know that their friends didnt really die and they are now living, I can only assume, in government sponsored false flag witness protection programs with new identities. I am a gun owner who is appalled by the governments militarization of police, the vast amounts of ammo purchased by the DHS and TSA, the unconstitutional spying by the NSA, the outrageous federal asset forfeiture robberies, and on and on. I have real things to worry about. But absurd false flag claims like this article proposes provide nothing more than a good laugh until I realize there are people here who are stupid enough to believe it. I can only hope those morons can neither vote nor reproduce. As for disproving the absurd paranoia of this alleged article in detail, I would urge readers to see Dale Ruffs post here. He may be anti gun, but at least he has an open mind and can think for himself, unlike the author of this POS article. Big fed participation day! I am anti violence. If rational gun laws can reduce the violence, I am for them. If someone showed that guns actually reduce violence, I would be for guns. The evidence is overwhelming that the more guns, the more gun violence. I am pro-evidence. Dale, I think I understand your point of view, and I respect you for conducting a rational debate despite the juvenile name calling from the other side. But I disagree with the concept of banning all firearms. It is much too late for that in this country because there are millions of legally owned guns here, and responsible people who own them are not about to surrender them in these troubling times when our over-reaching government is apparently gearing up for war against its own citizens. The only thing an all out ban would accomplish would be to create hundreds of thousands of new criminals former law abiding gun owners much like marijuana laws create thousands of criminals out of peaceful, non-violent users of a substance that is impossible to overdose and is non-addictive unlike legal alcohol, which destroys lives and families. I support more thorough UBCs and closing of ALL loopholes for gun purchases. I support UBCs that would include data from nationwide medical records, psychiatric records, police, etc. I also support the creation and expansion of gun free zones, though these already exist. Do I think that will end gun violence or even drop it to rates comparable to those nations with gun bans? No. But it will save lives that otherwise might be lost. I will say this regarding your being pro evidence. One thing gun ban advocates will never understand is that guns in the hands of good people do, in fact, save lives. You wont find any accurate data on that fact, because the only events that become statistics are shootings and killings. When a good guy uses a gun to thwart a crime, there is often no report, because there is no crime. In many cases, just the presence of a gun, in a good citizens holster, not even being drawn, prevents God only knows what. I have seen it occur personally more than once. So, yes, people are shot every single day. But lives are also saved by guns every single day but you rarely hear about that. The bottom line for us RESPONSIBLE gun owners is that we will NEVER surrender our basic right to defend ourselves and our loved ones. This is a right that has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment it is simply every persons right to fight for survival, and guns allow an elderly 90lb woman to defend herself against multiple 250lb attackers. As the saying goes, God created man, Sam Colt made him equal. And no, we cant depend on law enforcement to protect us, since when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. I will support your right to not own a gun. You can be defenseless if you so choose. Call the police if an intruder breaks into your home I hope they will get there in time. But I choose to fight to survive, my friend. Cars have safety measures which have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. To drive, you must have training,pass tests, have a background check, and provide insurance. Guns without safety features, like cars without airbags, increase the dangers of ownership. Rational gun laws would include measures to prevent dangerous people from getting them AND mandate safety features in order to reduce the accidental gun violence. Guns now kill more people than cars, so it makes sense to have similar regulations. The most gun free ones on earth have the least gun me urders: the UK and Japan both have very few guns and 99% lower gun murder rates. In 2006, the US had over 10,000 gun murders, the UK 35, and Japan 2! Keep that in mind the next time someone repeats the gun lobby lie that gun laws dont work,only more guns. Japan once had a very high gun murder rate but over time, with very strict laws, it has brought its gun murder rate down by 99%. Within 5 years, Australia brought its gun murder rate down 50% with new laws, and even in the US, gun homicides dropped from 17,.000 to 10,000 after the Brady Act was in effect for less than 5 years. Gun laws work,and the longer they are in effect, the more effective they are at reducing violence. Yeah, they support background checks at that rate, as long as it was presented as Do you support keeping criminals from guns? Rather leading question. Apparently when its phrased as Gun shows and others already require background checks and FFLs for gun sales, do you wish to add a universal background check as another necessary measure? the polling numbers dropped from 92% to 40. So, color me shocked, 92% of Americans want to keep guns from criminals, who knew? Also, when its explained properly and missing fact-free nonsense like the 40% of purchases dont have a background check nonsense that even WaPo now admits is false, its level of support drops to less than half. What this tells me is that roughly fifty-percent of the public is entirely misinformed how gun sales even work. You are making all this up. The question is simple: Do you support background checks for all gun sales? All polls show at least 90% support. The 85% of gunowners who support UBC is also confirmed by several polls based on the simple question: Do you support background checks for all gun sales? Here is how CBS news asked: Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?(88% for/10% against). Pew Research asked in this way: Do you support or oppose Quiniappiac asked: Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers? 92% supported. These are not loaded questions. Your complaints are worthless. Are you against? Do you really think the polls are fraudulent? Do you have any evidence this reported support is fake? Those were statistical analyses, so, data, kind of like your data. The poll in question mentions the fact that gun buyers already go through a universal background check. Again, all the questions you cite create the mistaken notion that background checks arent being done. That is false, even if only implied, it skews the voting results. Nice. This is false. Translation: your data disagrees with my data, therefore yours is wrong. Guess I can say the same about your facts. No need to look into things, right? Thats one of the main rules of misinformation, deny all evidence to the contrary, demand impossible proofs. Gun show loophole is a political term in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun showsThe term may also be referred to as the Brady Law loophole and the private sale loophole. Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks of buyers to verify that the buyer is not prohibited from possessing a firearm. Private sellers are also not required to record the sale or ask for identification. Wikipedia Here are the facts: in 32 states no background checks or records are required for private sales. Since no records are required,anyone can sell without background checks and anyone can buy. In 42 states,. a criminal or violently insane person can buy a semi-automatic rifle with large magazine clips..with only cash.. Private sales are very common (one study estimated 40% of gun sales) and commonly happen at gunshows and thru online ads which hook up buyers and sellers. No records of any kind are keptso only in 8 states are universal background checks for all weapons sales required. If you were a criminal,where would you get your weapons? My data does not disagree with your data. You have provided no data, just false statements. I presented the question form and responses from polls,with sources. You invented fake questions NOT asked to refute the poll results. If you cant handle the truth, just say so. So, again, you insult me. I could go on about how few criminals actually go to gun shows for their weapons, and how very many steal them, but Im sure youd call those numbers false too, because they come from the other side of the debate. Besides, I cant believe Ive wasted as much of my life as I have arguing this, so Im done. You have presented no evidence and made up poll questions never used. Stealing guns is done but very dangerous since the person you are stealing from is armed. Far easier to just get a gun at a gun showthis happens thousands of times each year. You have done no research, provided no facts, and dismissed evidence with sources. You have not even made an argument. I have corrected your misiformationso that is never a waste of time. I said I would go on, but again, you didnt actually look up the poll I did cite, which did exist, you just claimed it didnt. So I guess you win? Congrats. Apparently when its phrased as Gun shows and others already require background checks and FFLs for gun sales, do you wish to add a universal background check as another necessary measure? the polling numbers dropped from 92% to 40. Could you give a link for that source? I cited 3 legitimate polls which asked the question straightforwardly, which you ignored. The question the above quote is not accurate. Gun shows and other do not require background checks for private sales. The question is misleading. Give me the link and I will check it out. Meanwhile, the public has made it clear than 9 out of 10 DO want universal background checks on all sales. I guess if you can convince them background checks already exist, the support for an unneeded law would hardly be popular. But gun shows do NOT require background checks for private salesand so a question as above is designed to deceive and attract an answer based on a false statement. If you dont want to recognize that someone else might have a pertinent opinion, GTH. You are in no position to judge others. You have repeatedly shown your indifference to other views and opinions while endlessly repeating your own one-track narrow minded hyperbole. Why wont you admit that there might be someone else in this big, wide world that knows more than you do about this subject? When you start answering some of the questions that have been asked instead of just cherry picking what you want to bully someone about, youll begin to have some credibility. Until then, your opinions are worth about the same as my dogs. You havent seen anything yet. Easy way to make money is through Superior Trading System. They have the most exact method and strategy to use in trading. The borrachero tree, which is marked by beautiful white and yellow Back in May, the U.K.s Daily Mail Has anyone else noticed that other shooters or people are mentioned at these events. Maybe the SSRIs are the false front and these shooters were prepped with scopolamine. Something to consider Do a search for MK Ultra. Youre on the right track. The fact that with 26 deaths in a public institution and there wasnt one suit filed is unbelievable. This fact proves a hoax. This is the USA where scum bag lawyers will sue for spilling coffee in your lap or any other pretense no matter how trivial. Um, no. Chicago isnt called Chiraq because its so damn safe there, and yes, private gun ownership is heavily restricted, and doesnt work. The mere fact that you cite CHICAGO as having a low murder rate pretty much outs all your so-called evidence as fake. According to the stats, Chicago has a murder rate as of 2013 (last two years havent fully generated it seems) of 414 per 100,000, with the national average being 15.1. Thats nearly thirty times higher, the only reason it isnt is because the average dropped from its high of 501 the previous year. Put into perspective, a little under .5 percent of the population total gets murdered every year. Chicago is not even in the top 30 most violent cities. In the past generation, its gun murder rate has been cut in half. Compared to the most dangerous cities, Chicago is far down the list. Fact. Compared to Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, all US cities have high murder rates. But among US cities,Chicago is far down the list. Your shoddy research (I have been studying this issue over 3 years) shows with claims like Chicago has a murder rate of 414 per 100,000. From there, your math falls apart. You claim .5% of the population gets murdered each year. In fact, .5% of 320,000,000 is not the 13,000 murdered each year but 1.6 million murders a year. Nor did I say Chicago was safe; I said it was safer than at least 30 other US cities and Chicago,LA, and SF are not gun free; they do have lower gun murder (and murder) rates than most cities. To say Chicago is safer than Memphis or New Orleans (which it is, by far) is not to say it is safe. You are so confused, so confused about the data, I would urge you to start all over. You call my statistic fake but they are not. I challenge you to refute one fact with evidence. I urge you to look at your own fake statistics and realize you are the last person in the world to call me out for fakestatistics. I dare you to prove me wrong. Wow, three years of research so you can talk down to people. I misread the data, congratulations, I concede youre right on that, but then again, I didnt spend three years of my life studying something so I could argue with people. Someone fund that perchance? I have spent 3 years studying gun violence in order to learn the truth and to be able to educate others,expose lies,etc. I purpose is not to argue or look down but to enlighten. Am I paid to report the truth? No, but I will take donations. The truth? You are f***ing pathetic. Everything I post is moderated now. Funny, because I didnt swear or incite. Wonder if thisll get through, oh wait I dont care. Bye. Anyone ever do ballistics tests to see where the amo originated from? Im bettin they are from one of Obamas stockpiles. A growing list of federal agencies have purchased multi-thousands of rounds of ammo since 2015 Yet Tunisia has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world yet still has had its mass shootings and civil strife. Switzerland also has high gun ownership and low murder rates with guns, but they also have far less meds than the US. Id certainly consider the culture and history of the USA to be a bigger factor than the guns themselves Can you link us to a source with the stats on gun ownership that isnt on a per person basis? A gun enthusiast, for example, would own far more than one gun which would skew that stat. Do you think having armed police is part of the problem or not? Countries where the police do not carry guns typically have lower gun crime, I think. I dont have any stats on that either! And of course, all forms of media in the country are an undoubted massive factor in this. Would like to see links to studies with some controls in them. I can only find bad science on the subject :/ Tunesia has a low rate of private gun ownership,and the percentage of murders reflects that, with 2% of murders done with guns. It only takes one gun to execute a mass shooting.so I fail to share your surprise that recently Tunesia had 2 mass shootings. Both the military, the police, and terrorists in Tunesia, as well as several thousand private citizens, have firearms. The basic valid comparisons should be made among similar nations, so compare only high income nations,advanced nations. Since there is a huge correlation of poverty and violence, comparing 3d world nations with 1st is not a valid comparison. Its hard to find information on gun ownership that correlates number of guns owned. We can learn that Germany has about 1 gun for every 3 citizens,but I cannot find info on how many people own guns. From polls,etc,we know in the US that while there are about 300 million guns, only about 1/3 of households own guns..indicating the likelihood that many if not most gun owners own more than one gun. The culture of violence merges several factors: an aggressive military presence, an abundance of guns and loose gun laws, a media obsessed with violence, a history of violence,and the highest rate of incarceration in the world. All are part of the same matrix of violence. One of the reasons we do not have more research on gun violence is that the NRA (and other gun lobbies) has lobbied to prohibit government funding of gun violence. Break the NRAs Ban on Gun-Violence Research 171 APR 21, 2015 9:00 AM EDT By Editorial Board The list of things the gun lobby opposes is long and varied. But its most-determined attacks target information itself.For two decades, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been prohibited by Congress from using funds to advocate or promote gun control. In the April 7 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine is an editorial calling on physicians to demand the resources and freedom to do their jobs: reducing harm. Specifically, the journal calls for an end to the political blockade on research about the health effects of gun violence. bloombergview.com The only reasonable comparison is with peer nations. Of 35 advanced nations, the US (with the most guns and loosest laws) has an average 90% higher gun murder rate. 3d World nations, especially those with colonial pasts and recent civil wars often have higher rates, but of all all developed nations, ONLY the US (and Russia, if you wish to consider it an advanced nation) have gun murder rates comparable to 3d world nations. But if we look only at advanced nations, such as Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan, the US has a gun murder rate from 85% to 99% higher. If you look at 3d world nations, only the US matches them. Hey, Do you even know what the word reasonable means? Well, you arent being very reasonable when you keep comparing the USA to European countries or any other country., The fact that no other of the 34 advanced nations do not view gun possesson as a right but as a privilege is one of the key reasons they have a 90% lower gun murder rate and 80% overall lower murder rate. 32,000 deaths a year is not a statistic to mock. All claims made are based on reliable sources and peer-reviewed research. Why dont you go back to Stormfront where moronic fascists hang out? Just wont let go of your irrelevant comparison to Europe, will you? How many of that 32,000 was suicides? How many were accidental? What year and what country was that for? The vast majority of murders are in liberal planned and governed urban settings with failed social engineering communities creating fatherless families. You do not need to fear the ordinary citizens of the US unless you invade us. Liberal Socialists only want the dear leaders to have guns I guess. As for mass shootings they seem to be up under this present administration. WRong! The most murders are indeed in cities, but the worst are often controlled by Republicans. The highest murder rates are in the South, where Republicans rule Congressional seats and governorships. The correlation with violent crime is, in fact, with poverty. The other major correlation is with more guns and loose guns laws (such as the 32 states which do not require background checks). These correlations are strong and consistent and have been confirmed by many peer-reviewed studies. The most violent state is Lousiana, which has 7 of its 8 Congress members being Republicans, a Republican governor,and which in the 2012 election voted 58% for Romney and 40% for Obama. The lowest murder rates are in Hawaii,a strong blue state. Cities with Democratic Mayorssuch as NY and Chicago have lowered their murder rates by over 50%. This is where poverty is concentrated,and where there is poverty,there is violence. Neither NY or Chicago is in the top 30 most violent cities. in 1990, NYC had more than two thousand homicides, by 2014 that number was down to just over 300. Its a common trend of many cities, including Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Dallas, among others.But Miami,with a Republican mayor,is rated the 4th most violent city in the nation by neighborhoodscout.com. It has a murder rate over 4 times the US average. Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York,all bastions of liberalism,did not make the list of the 100 most violent cities. http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/ In addition,it is worth noting that among the 34 advanced nations,the most liberal have an 80% lower murder rate than the US. The correlation of liberalism and high murder rates is refuted by the evidence. The real correlation is poverty and access to guns. Convoluted statistics. So NY was cleaned up and run by Republicans for a few decades and you are giving Balasio credit? I remember what a mess it was in the 70s. Gunpolicy gives documented data on guns and gun violence and murder. They provide documented sources and do not draw conclusions. For instance, you could compare 10 advanced nations gun homicide rates with 10 3d world nations.and, if you wish, draw conclusions: most likely you would conclude poorer nations usually have higher gun murder rates. But for the sake of scholarship, if you wish to draw direct conclusions on the relationship of gun laws and gun murders, it is required that you compare apples with apples, advanced nations with advanced nations. For instance, you can compare the 35 advanced nations (I have worked on this for 3 years) and you will find that 34 have an average 90% (85%-99%) lower gun murder rate than the US. Then, if you study the gun laws, you will find that 34 have strict laws, strictly enforced and one (the US) has loose laws (no records or background checks at all in 32 states, none in 42 states for private sales of semi-automatic rifles)and note a 100% correlation of strict laws and 90% lower gun murder rates. Since there is no other logical conclusion than loose or non-existent laws to explain this 100% correlation, a reasonable person would concluded that the lack of laws is causal. _German police officers fired a total of 85 bullets in 2011, 49 of which were warning shots, the German publication Der Spiegel reported. Officers fired 36 times at people, killing six and injuring 15. This is a slight decline from 2010, when seven people were killed and 17 injured. Ninety-six shots were fired in 2010. Meanwhile, in the United States, The Atlantic reported that in April, 84 shots were fired at one murder suspect in Harlem, and another 90 at an unarmed man in Los Angeles. If criminals have guns in Germany, the UK, Japan, Spain, etc etc, they are apparently afraid to use them, based on the evidence. Of course all other 34 advanced nations have laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, such as universal background checks. All the evidence indicates that even criminals in the other 34 advanced nations very rarely use guns. Oh, I get it,,,you are using those twisted numbers of the ratio between number of people in the city and the number of murders. Those cities have the most murders by firearms, but since there are so many people the rate is tiny. You are truly stupid. Those cities have the most murders by firearms, but since there are so many people the rate is tiny. Instead of comparing how many murders per 100,000 like REAL STATISTICS use. Murders per 100K is the murder rate, which is exactly as I have reported it. You cant fix stupid. I dont have the answers to life but I understand what the term murder rate means and I report the facts. Harvard research is peer-reviewed and Harvard is the top rated university in the world. Wikipedia articles can be judged by their primary sources. But you are too arrogantly stupid to understand that. Please dont bother me any more. You are incurably stupid, and no amount of objective information can change that. My, my, my,,,sure do have your panties in a knot, dont you? Did I hurt your tender little high school sensitivities? By your totally juvenile answer you have demonstrated to everyone here that you arent a world renowned teacher, that you arent 65 years old and retired and that you certainly have the social skills of an inbred leper. Excellent! I have studied gun laws and gun violence intensely for over 3 years. I am aware of the UK metrics. They are misrepresented by the gun lobby in the US to make it appear the UK has more gun murders (about 35 a yr) than it actually has. This statement is a bald lie: in 2011 there were 4700 UK deaths that, in the US, would have been included in murder stats. Adding those in to the total puts the 2011 UK murder rate at 177% of the US. First, you are conflating murder and gun murder rates. Over 90% of the UKs 550 murders a year are NOT by firearms. Second, the purpose of counting convicted murders is not to distort the actual murder count but to change those whose suicides or undetermined deaths (a small percent fall into this category) are later determined to be homicides. This cannot be changed without a conviction. The UK Office of National Statistics makes this clear: Homicide Index data are based on the year when the offence was first recorded, not when the offence took place or when the case was heard in court. Here is how the misrepresentation in your citation (which I have read before) is exposed: When the police initially record an offence as a homicide it remains classified as such unless the police or courts decide that a lesser offence, or no offence, took place. In all, 559 deaths were initially recorded as homicides by the police in 2012/13. This means that by 8 November 2013, 8 were no longer recorded as homicides2, giving the total 551 offences currently recorded as homicides. Got it: the changes amounted to less than 2%, not an increase of thousand so of percent. Instead of 559 in 2012/13 the court decisions changed that number to 551, not thousands more as Rich Boatright argues, ignoring the evidence that court cases change less than 2% of the count and often result in FEWER gun murders for the total. In regard to the years Boatright uses, the ONS reports: In Focus on Violent Crime and Sexual Offences 2011/12, the number of currently recorded homicides was 540, ten higher than the 530 shown as homicides for 2011/12 in this publication. The changes between publications years is common as police investigations continue and as more cases are concluded at court. So the court decisions result in ten more gun murders in the final count, or about a 2% change. If you average out the changes, its a wash. The UK has about 550 murders a year, adjusted for convictions and of these, a small minority (6-7%) involve firearms. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences2012-13/rptchapter-2homicide.html?format=print Busted! BRILLIANT LIFE IS A HOAX DUDES!!!!! EVERYONE IS TRYING TO PULL ONE OVER ON THE SHEEPLE!!!! MIND CONTROL CHEMTRAILS VAPING ++ WOULD DO AGAIN And there is at least ten times more lately. seriously? i know 9/11 was an inside job,, but cgi? really? people that were there actually saw airplanes. now i will agree that the pentagon was not hit by a plane. Orlando is a False Flag! 