By Fareed Zakaria
It has now been just over a week since a lone gunman opened fire on moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado. The airwaves have been dominated by soul searching.
Most of the pundits have concluded that the main cause of this calamity is the dark, strange behavior of the gunman. Talking about anything else, they say, is silly. The New York Times’ usually extremely wise columnist, David Brooks, explains that this is a problem of psychology, not sociology.
At one level, this makes sense, of course, as the proximate cause. But really, it’s questionable analysis. Think about this: are there more lonely people in America compared with other countries? Are there, say, fewer depressed people in Asia and Europe? So why do they all have so much less gun violence than we do?
The United States stands out from the rest of the world not because it has more nutcases – I think we can assume that those people are sprinkled throughout every society equally –but because it has more guns.
Look at the map below. It shows the average number of firearms per 100 people. Most of the world is shaded light green – those are the countries where there are between zero and 10 guns per 100 citizens. In dark brown, you have the countries with more than 70 guns per 100 people. The U.S. is the only country in that category. In fact, the last global Small Arms Survey showed there are 88 guns for every 100 Americans. Yemen is second at 54. Serbia and Iraq are among the other countries in the top 10.
We have 5 percent of the world's population and 50 percent of the guns.
But the sheer number of guns isn’t an isolated statistic. The data shows we compare badly on fatalities, too. The U.S has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. That’s four times as many as Switzerland, ten times as many as India, 20 times as many as Australia and England.
Whatever you think of gun rights and gun control, the numbers don’t flatter America.
I saw an interesting graph in The Atlantic magazine recently. A spectrum shows the number of gun-related deaths by state. Now if you add one more piece of data – gun control restrictions – you see that the states with at least one firearm law (such as an assault weapons ban or trigger locks) tend to be the states with fewer gun-related deaths.
Conclusion? Well, there are lots of factors involved, but there is at least a correlation between tighter laws and fewer gun-related deaths.
I've shown you data comparing countries, and comparing states. Now consider the U.S. over time. Americans tend to think the U.S. is getting more violent. In a recent Gallup survey, 68 percent said there’s more crime in the U.S. than there was a year ago. Well, here’s what I found surprising: the U.S. is actually getting safer. In the decade since the year 2000, violent crime rates fell by 20 percent; aggravated assault by 22 percent; motor vehicle theft by 42 percent; murder – by all weapons – by 13 percent.
But guns are the exception. Gun homicide rates haven’t improved at all. They were at roughly the same levels in 2009 as they were in 2000. Meanwhile, serious but non-fatal gun injuries caused during assault have actually increased in the last decade by 20 percent, as guns laws have gotten looser and getting automatic weapons has become easier.
We are the world’s most heavily-armed civilian population. One out of every three Americans knows someone who has been shot.
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but not to his or her own facts. Saying that this is all a matter of psychology is a recipe for doing nothing. We cannot change the tortured psychology of madmen like James Holmes. What we can do is change our gun laws.
Should U.S. gun laws be tougher? What would you change?
 |
Post by: |
The only thing to stop a madman with a gun is another person with a gun-Alan Korwin
Automatic weapons are not easy to get. Due to Al Capone and the roaring twenties it is almost impossible for private citzens to own automatic weapons (machine guns). What you are refering to is semi automatic weapons, 1 trigger pull 1 shot. There is a huge difference. Please get the FACTS right !!!
Some, actually quite a few of the assault rifles can easily be converted from semi to fully automatic
They can be converted illegally, and often result in catastrophic (sometimes fatal) failures of the weapon, the internal parts of a semi auto are often not made to handle being fired automatically
Well actually there are still some that are transferrable to civilians. Too bad their prices are sky rocketing to 20k for a registered M16 in 0.223.
did Zakaria makes an oopsie? Mr. Zakaria, I thought you were a pretty smart guy but to say that obtaining automatic weapons is easy is a big lie. Are you a liar? or were you assuming? In the world of Google you can just search what it takes to get a permit for an automatic weapon. First of, you need a Class III permit which can be issued by the ATF if you can pass local and federal criminal back ground check, plus get an approval from your local police department...oh btw if you do get approved.....you are registered with the ATF and your local police department basically means you are tagged and release like some shark...they got their eyes on you for sure. Oh btw a full automatic rifle can average $20k plus it has to be manufactured before May 19, 1986... so if Obama thinks these weapons should be in the hands of our soldiers does he realize that our soldiers today don't use something outdated...
I hate people, especially the highly educated ones who talk garbage about guns in the media when they don't own a gun and have no idea about what they are, regulations, and so forth. It's like me telling you how to do your job... I don't because I know better.
Go Google Class III firearms license....
And... don't writing something about facts when you don't know the facts to begin with.
Yea, CNN and the left are all about the facts with guns. I love when they say, "he used a semi automatic weapon"-as if some guy is going to walk in with a musket or something..LOL
The details don't really matter, Zakaria is right, it's the sheer number of guns of all types that make the US more and more dangerous for all of us. It's a sick hobby that needs to go away.
Lev that's correct all a person has to do is put an "Auto-Sear" system into the firing mechanism. The thing is that this part is legal to obtain or purchase and is most difficult to imppossible to get. For the gun to be fully automatic is must come original from the manufacture. You're not allowed to alter a semi auto into a full auto weapon in America. As well as, Not many gunsmiths would be willing to convert a gun illegal knowing they could go to prison for up to 10 yrs. And doing hard time in the federal prison is nothing like state prisons. Also, must gunsmiths make very good money. And these people are busy year round. Problem with people is they need to understand ammo. That's the real issue. An Assault rifle just looks different. But we have plenty og rifles which are significantly more powerful than and AR or AK...such as a, 568 caliber, 30-06 cal. 308 cal, 30 cal, 35 cal etc. theres more but I think ppl can get my point. In Switzerland it's required that "every household" have a fully automatic rifle in it. Now that doesnt mean "every person" who's an adult...just the household have at least one of these guns in it. And this is an actual law in Switzerland and they have some of the LOWEST CRIME RATES in the world. Why I dont trust the authors commentary...he always tells one side of the story and of course the side that suits his agenda or beliefs. The author does a dis-services to the readers due to conveying half the story on the subject matter. I have seen the author do this sort of reporting on most if not all of his previous articles.
Larry A. mentions Al Capone and the roaring twenties. There came a moment when back then when there was public outrage over killings using the Thompson sub machine gun and new gun laws came about. However, the violence really only stopped not because of the new gun laws, but because prohibition was repealed and the gangsters lost their reason for fighting – booze became legal.
We have a similar situation today with the ongoing "drug war". Legalize some or all drugs such as marajuana and a huge proportion of gun related killings (gang related) would most likely stop. We need to address the causes.
Fareed Zakaria seems to be suggesting that its guns that cause our problem as if somehow the presence of a gun causes people to magically become a monster. I respect Fareed but he's wrong. The USA is a country like no other, on many levels and to make the simple comparison he makes is just not accurate. We have more cars, more single family homes, more of everything than almost every other nation because we have been blessed with wealth.
We need to stop looking for simple solutions to our nation's problems. All of you know from your daily lives, that life is never simple.
to some dude Rick S. who claims that Switzerland requires its citizens to have military weapons in the homes. it is because they do not have an standing army, and they are required to go through military training plus yearly training, if you are of military age. only 5% of their military are paid soldiers.
they also have a health care system in place that requires all people to buy insurance from private firms.
so if you agree to those changes here in the USA (ie. yearly training and "Obamacare") I say keep your guns.
since i dont feel like retyping here is some more info from wikipedia:
"In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.[5]
When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle."
Just to clarify, Switzerland does NOT require every household to have a firearm in the house. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a peoples Militia to defend their country. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. Due to this fact, the personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. Therefore, Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world. Note the word "militia" there. Twisted facts are still twisted.
Funny cause the U.S. military prefers for assult rifles to be semi auto due to increased accuracy. So I would say the large capacity clips are more the problem. I've fired fully auto and after the first few rounds it does get hard to keep a tight grouping.
@lev....Hey woodhead...you probably don't know that you have to go thru the same stringent licensure with ATF,FBI, local law enforcement to get a piece to convert a semi auto to full auto that you have to go thru to buy a full auto. Call ATF they will tell you what needs to be done. It's a tough road and then you are subject to unannounced request to produce that weapon on demand.
Sylar75
Funny cause the U.S. military prefers for assult rifles to be semi auto due to increased accuracy.
Wrong friend. The military version of the AR-15 has two selectable modes, full auto and semi-auto. The civilian version is semi-auto only and cannot be modified for full auto.
"sevenseas
They can be converted illegally, and often result in catastrophic (sometimes fatal) failures of the weapon, the internal parts of a semi auto are often not made to handle being fired automatically"
This is 100% correct. Semi-auto rifles sold in the US are deliberately designed to make conversion extremely difficult. You'd need a highly skilled gunsmith and also a machinist to make specialized parts that cannot be purchased. You'd basically have to replace all the parts in the "receiver" using homemade parts.
As virginian said, purchasing a fully auto rifle involves finding one in a private collection somewhere (new ones cannot be purchased by civilians) and paying tens of thousands of dollars for it. And taking delivery can only happen AFTER you've gone thru a lengthy process with ATF that can take 6 months. You also need your local police to sign off on it.
So its possible but extremely expensive.
Heknowsitall
"Yea, CNN and the left are all about the facts with guns. I love when they say, "he used a semi automatic weapon"-as if some guy is going to walk in with a musket or something..LOL"
What would you like the reporters to say? lol
@virginia. It is only tough to get licensed to own a fully automatic. You can VERY easily buy conversion kits and do it your self. So stop whining and crying that Z hurt your feelings.
Please. I have an IQ of 60 and still can see clearly what is the reason behind gun control. In the next few years US economy will collapse or dollar will hyperinflate, so people will loose homes and won't be able to feed. Angry people will take their guns and march towards the same politicians and bankers who created this mess. Because the people will outnumber soldiers and police by 1000 to 1, they know that they won't be able to stop them. I mean if they won't take guns, politicians will be cooked alive and will be a bloodshed, and they know that. If guns will be taken away people will be killed in concentration camps or die from femine or be killed by criminals who will have guns and destroy every house. Health care law was just shade, because it was a stepping stone to see how far they can go. Now there is momentum and the next thing will be second amendment. I mean the only thing you need to check is Gold price. EVen worse because gold price today artificially lowered by so called derivatives or short selling or promise to sell you a gold at today's price in the future, and you get that today's gold price is at least 40 times lower then it suppose to be, because if you take all the paper money that is in circulation around the world and buy with it all physical gold that US has, you get that at today's price only few percents would get their gold, other would not because there would be not enough physical gold and to satisfy every's demand the gold price should go up to 50,000 dollars to back all the paper money that is in circulation. Why gold? Because gold is indirectly linked to oil price in Middle east and other Oil exporting countries. And everythinng else depends from Oil. So this still continues and Middle east allows that to happen because they know too, but it can't last forever and soon will be very very bad, and if you won't have your gun to protect yourself you will be in great danger.
I'm very disappointed that Fareed would post this piece with such mis-information. "automatic weapons" are heavily restricted.
"Some, actually quite a few of the assault rifles can easily be converted from semi to fully automatic"
Really? Please explain your assinine facts.
FACT: Semi-automatic guns can be turned into FULL-AUTOMATIC in about 10-miniutes... either by purchasing a $50.00 kit on the Internet or if you know your way around guns, by anyone with a little basic knowledge...
FACTS...
Look at the Map. MEXICO AND SYRIA HAVE LESS GUNS. So they are safer?
Zakaria either lied or is ignorant when he said getting automatic firearms is easier. In fact it is harder due to not being able to by new automatic weapons. The only change in gun laws is the repeal of draconic firearms restrictions. It is very hard to convert new semi-automatic guns to full auto.
You can split hairs about fully automatic, the ease of getting a weapon etc. The issue is that the CO shooter had a semi automatic and was able to shoot more people because he had an assault weapon. The only purpose these weapons serve it to shoot people quickly. So why are they legal? Should we legalize rocket propelled grenades or anti tank weapons too? They serve no purpose either.
The point of the article is that more guns and less regulation make us less safe.
No, Lev, they can't. It takes a good gun-smith (or another kind of talented machinist) to convert to full auto.
Plus, it is highly illegal to do so, for all parties involved.
Hey guys- the AR was simi-auto not a assault gun, and guess what, (thank the lord) it jammed,like they did in VIET-NAM. I would guess most of the people hurt was with the shotgun. Is it an assault gun also ?
STOP using Switzerland in your pro gun arguments, you are making yourself look ignorant.
Guns in Switzerland are a very diffrent story. Private ownership and collecting is regulated with private ownership of military weapons being prohibited by law. The military weapons in our homes are not ours they are the militaries and there are rules, restrictions and penalties for using them without proper authority. Many Swiss chose to hand them in after their service as they do not want an assault rifle or hand gun in their home. These weapons are for military use not for private paranoid protection.
We are a very content society, we are not lonley, disenfranchized, and angry with the world. That is why we do not have as many gun crimes. It is not because of our arms.
By the way we do have a small standing army, who do you think flys our F18 and trains our militia.
It never ceases to amaze me how irrational these NRA types are about their guns. I don't see how anyone can refute the core point of this article... "more guns does not make people safer". Instead these nuts pick at one minor assertion they disagree with ("automatic weapons are easy to get"), as if that negates the rest of the statistics here. Would you feel more comfortable if you knew EVERYONE in the theater was carrying a pistol? Give me a break... Somebody needs to get through to these people. Thank you, mr. Zakaria!
In response to Lev and Sevenseas, it may be easy to convert a semi to an automatic, however the average person doesn't know that and so I would argue that someone that knows this and knows how to do it is not concerned about gun laws.
To Virginian76 –
Mr Zakaria is not only a liar, he is definitely not American. Too many times he stands for everything that is anti-American so he clearly h8's us. Zakaria, go back home to whatever country you came from and whatever rock you crawled out from under.
Still very rapid fire seeing that one can squeeze a finger many times in a minute... now if there was a fail-safe time delay of 2-minutes on one, that might be acceptable.
@Lev. Yes they can, but try to buy those parts. they are controlled just like the machine guns are.
You have to pay a $200 tax for each one, and keep the ATF informed of where it is under lock and key.
More people were killed by doctors in the US last year than by guns by a factor of 10:1
Yes, it is illegal to convert semi-auto to full auto but perfectly legal to sell the conversion kits. I've seen those frequently advertised on gun mags.
It is due to Ronald Ragan. Not AL. RR is why the avaerage man cannot afford an automatic gun. It will cost you 10 grand or better and it has to already be registered before like 1985. Not sure of the date.
AMERICAN PARENTS NEED TO BEAR SOME RESPONABILITY FOR THEIR KIDS, IF YOUR NOT GOING TO RAISE THEM TO BE FUNCTIONING MEMBERS OF SOCIETY.
I don't own a gun, but the number of expert opinions I read here, about what is a semi and an auto, how to convert one to the other, etc, etc give the certainty that Zacharia is right, we are a society of gun experts with easy access to these killing devices. Opinions are opinions, but facts are facts. Please don't shoot me for that...
Yes, semi-automatic weapons can be conferted to fully automatic weapons. And as soon as you fire it anyone who hears a full-auto burst will call the cops, and you will be charged with a felony. You will serve 10 years in a federal prison and you will never be legally allowed to have a gun of any kind as long as you live.
I think you need your facts straight. It is very easy to get an automatic weapon. Just go to a gun show. It really is that easy. Remember this guy got his legally.
OK. So we want to own guns, but why do we need a clip that can fire 100 rounds?
Lev – you need to be a competent machinist and know what to do – BUT if you do convert and you dont have a class 3 then you face immediate 10 years federal prison WHEN (not IF) caught. What criminal is going to go to all that fuss – he can obtain a full auto easier on the black market
One of the skills that kept Afghanistan free of Soviet domination was their ability to make full-auto AK 47's in a cave,without any power but their hands and minds.That's when Russia knew they would never conquer,and left.
@Tom:
"Wrong friend. The military version of the AR-15 has two selectable modes, full auto and semi-auto. The civilian version is semi-auto only and cannot be modified for full auto."
I'm afraid YOU are wrong, my friend. The M16A2 and the current issue M4/M4A1 are both "selective rate" fire weapons- in 'automatic' mode, it fires a 3-round burst- 3 rounds for 1 trigger pull. These weapons are not fully automatic by definition since they do not continuously fire until the magazine is empty- there's a big difference there.
One trigger pull, one bullet time 100 with spare magazines. Yeah, a real difference.
I feel safe knowing my nutcase neighbor is well armed in case I annoy him.
Forget the "automatic weapons"; they are not the point of the piece. This article is filled with statistics, and you are all concentrating on one sentence! The sentence is merely an addendum! Are you unable to refute the rest of his article? Is that why you focus on this one statement? Also, read for comprehension guys. He doesn't say it is "easy" to get automatic weapons. Only that it is easier. Surely it was more difficult to obtain an automatic weapon while the Federal assault weapons ban was in place than it is now, is it not?
Larry, want to know how easy and legal it is? Look up slide fire kits. Scary what can be purchased mail order.
Semi auto weapons cannot be "easily" converted to full auto despite the glib statements made by the ignorant that they can be. And if some does have the armorer skills to do it, it is illegal.
WAYNE C.
An M-16 used by the military is definitely an assault rifle. The .223 is NOT anything similar to the .22 you plunk tin cans and squirrels with. The .223 only refers to the diameter but the (M16) AR-15 uses a much heavier round with much more powder and is a deadly killing machine. Having seen Viet Kong hit with the .223 you could never mistake the two.
The civilian (AR15) semi-automatic version with the extended magazine can spit out 100 rounds in about 1 minute and extra magazines can turn you into a one man army in a crowded theater, bus or train.
Fortunately this moron did not know how to operate or care for the weapon or many more would have been killed.
A lot of people here seem to be concerned with one single point in the entire article, semi-auto vs auto. I don't recall any recent mass murder involving automatic weapons. You're simply upset that someone is telling it like it is, and you don't want to face the truth about your hobby.
Semi – auto, vs Auto...seems a rather moot point, when you think about the damage caused in Colorado was with a semi auto weapon and a shot gun. Isn't that enough? As for conversion... it only takes a moron that can read a little to find out how its done. It's called GOOGLE.
All you have to do is look at the number of gun deaths in Canadian cities and compare them with cities of the same size in the US to get an idea of what at least some gun controls have. Canada has a lot of guns per capita. More than most countries (we're dark green on the map)...but the real difference between the US and Canada is the type of guns allowed and the controls on them.
more people killed or injured? your data is incomplete. how many bad guys were included in your numbers. If a ccw permit holder(who has a more strick background check than police,and many times better trained with firearms) stops a bad guy by shooting him, do you count that death in your data.
i am not scared or paranoid so i never bought a gun
@virginian76 'I hate people..' Wow, anti-social much?
Well if assault weapons are legal we might as well make rocket propelled grenades, bazookas and TNT legal.
A person can make a deadly bomb with household cleaners... should we outlaw bleach as well?
It's easier for me to obtain automatic weapons than it is for me to find alcohol.
Hans Dorfwald, please stop posting facts about Switzerland. You are ruining the image right wing gun nuts project here about the gun utopia that is Switzerland, where everyone is required to have a military assault style weapon in their home and consequently there is zero crime.
Funny. All these commentators seem to be experts in guns and gun operating mechanism. But most of them cannot write grammatically correct sentences.
As someone who has used both in the military, it is very easy to convert most semi to full auto and if you fire full auto you fire small bursts. When people talk about automatic weapons, the category includes full auto and semi auto. So both technically and in though the article is correct. Ban weapons to mentally challenged individuals and the murder rate would drop measurably.
I don't think he said that automatic weapons are easy to get from what I can read in the article, I think he said they have gotten EASIER to get, there is a big difference. They may still be difficult to get, but it is easier than it used to be. I don't know anything about gun permits or owning a gun, but I know about reading an article, and that is what I see Zakaria meant from what I can understand. Also, no matter how many permits you have to get, it is still easier to get an automatic weapon in the USA where they are allowed than in any other country where they are not allowed, at least in a legal and lawful manner.
Larry, what is the difference between the speed of a double action revolver and that of a Semi-Auto pistol? I shoot PPC weekly and use a semi-auto pistol, I have a hard time getting off the required 12 shots in 20 seconds unless everything goes perfectly. Yet the other gentlemen using the double action revolvers manage to fire 6 rounds, reload, and fire 6 more rounds and still have a few seconds remaining. Also, the double action revolvers are more stable to shoot, my M&P is far harder to hold on target mainly due to less mass and shorter barrel. Revolvers also have far fewer jamming issues, semi's have a lot of inherent disadvantages in a gun fight. Sure the mentality is to use a semi, but go to a gun shop and ask for you best home defense weapon and they always show you a shotgun because it can do more damage faster.
Point is... If the CO Killer really wanted results, the shotgun should have been his best choice with more lead shot dispersed down range per trigger pull, faster. The semi auto pistol would have actually been a handicap and less effective, really wrong tool for the job. The lose of life could have been double or triple if he would have focused on the shot gun. The AR15 was not much better either in a confined, poorly lite theater. There is another double action revolver he could have used that shoots 410 shells.
The anti gun people love and over use the "What If" statement, so I feel I have a license to use it here. What if this CO Killer would have not been able to get a gun legally, what if he could not have obtained one illegally, what if he went to the hardware store bought some 8" sections of 1" pipe and some off the shelf containers of high performance gun powder.
These arm chair quarterbacks working for the media do not have a clue as to what they are talking about. Why doesn't that clown mention what might have happened if the theater were not a gun free zone. The killer was so concerned for his own safety that he wore body armor..., if ONE person would have returned fire, it would have been all over. Too bad the theater forced everyone to be a victim. Go watch the video on youtube where the guy in Florida ended that ordeal. Those Florida bad guys had only one thing in mind when they saw someone had a gun and that was run. That was a two against one situation, the two bad guys had an assault semi auto hand gun and an assault baseball bat against an older guy with a small pistol who, by the way, was not forced into being a victim.
Hans Dorfwald,
You kid yourself if you think Switzerland does not have lonely and angry people. The US is also a much larger and compact in terms of population than Switzerland.
Automatic weapon does not mean "machine gun"... a pistol that reloads another round every time it is fired is called an automatic weapon. With a level 3 firearms lisc you can buy "fully automatic" weapons and that kind of lisc is open to all law abiding citizens. I own several weapons myself and do not think for one second that taking the weapons away from lawfull persons such as myself will do a bit of good in keeping gun violence down. the people that want to use them frfor harm and to commit crimes will always be able to find them.
ANY semi-automatic weapon can be converted to a "drop bolt" automatic with a little mechanical knowledge (highly illegal). HOWEVER, guns that are not designed to be fully automatic seldom work properly. In the case of an "assault rifle" – specifically the black rifle platform – if you do not have mil-spec m16 parts – bolt, bolt carrier, etc, it is not going to perform consistently without malfunction – even to the point of stove-piping and blowing up in your hands – this would mean just using the auto-sear parts (again, illegal to install) and changing nothing else. The point here is that tere are already very strict laws in place covering automatic weapons – people who are intending to commit crimes are not worried about the rule of law. In the end, explosives, poison gasses, etc are probably more effective and can be made (from scratch) with a trip to Lowes/Wal Mart/Seed and Feed Store – it only takes about $15 and 15 minutes to turn out a good-sized batch of gunpowder or even ANFO and $10 and 60 seconds to whip up a batch of deadly gas. (even a single shot musket/pistol made from scratch is just $20 and a couple of hours worth of work away). Where there are people intent on evil, they will find a way. The boggest question is, "Does everyone want to at least have the opportunity to defend themselves?" ... And, of course, gun ownership, as defined in the Second Amendment is all about protection from a tyrannical government and has nothing to do with hunting or personal protection – even though those are good secondary benefits.
A rubber band placed around the trigger can make a semi fire like an automatic weapon. With a 100 round rotary magazine you now have a machine gun. The NRA needs to focus on our right to own rubber bands.
Very good post, Rob!
THIS RESPONSE IS TO TOM'S REPY TO LARRY;
EXACTLY, every time something like this horrible massacre happens, ONLY CERTAIN FACTS are discussed or exposed, not the BIG PICTURE which is much more complicated than just gun ownership. And in fact has very little to do with it. Thanks for your intelligent and EXPOSING picture of the skewed and slanted reporting by the media and anti gun lobby.
Excuse typo's keyboard battery is low.....tired of fixing all mistakes
Zakaria points out that we have many per guns per person then the rest of the world and your only response is that he misstated one small piece issue? Get with the program Larry!!! The point is that we have too many guns!! And whether they are semi-automatic or fully automatic is not the key issue! See how it works?
It would be nice if people actually referred to unbiased data regarding gun crime as well. The Brady Campaign or the NRA are not sources anyone should be going by. And gallop polls do not represent facts.
Homicide Facts released by FBI for year 2010:
Handgun caused 6,009 deaths
Shotguns caused 373 deaths
rifles (of any kind) caused 352 deaths
While firearms related homicides accounted for nearly 8,500 of the 12,000 to 13,000 homicides, there were other notable stats
Knifes cause 1700 deaths
hand to hand cause 700+
blunt objects caused 500+
But it is interesting that even though handguns account for the majority of firearms related homicides... we are talking about rifles................. which don't even come close.
Jimmy, who is to decide how many is "too many"? You? Fareed? The government? The UN? Maybe you have too many pairs of shoes? Too many cars? Too much money? See how it works?
the semi vs auto is a moot point... However, as Flynn said" do you want everybody in the theater to have a pistol" well Flynn answer me this. If everybody in that theater had a gun how many people do you think would have died other than the gunman?? It definety would not have been 12. It takes a person to pull that trigger. How can we not see the true problem. It's not the fact that he had a gun, it's that he was willing to use it. People need to focus on raising there kids properly or realizing that there kid might have mental issues!!
yes Larry there is a difference between auto and semi-auto, but in the context of Zakaria's article it is not significant. The weapons used in all of the mass murders I can recall are semi-autos, which are very easy to obtain. One trigger pull – one bullet with a semi-auto is good enough to shoot 70-80 people in a few minutes. Isn't that the problem we're dealing with? To jump on the distinction between full auto and semi-auto is to be technically correct, but to miss the underlying premise of the article. We are a nation of gun zealots and because we lack common sense to curb the availability of 100-round magazines, and the easy availability of guns at "gun shows", we simply accept mass murders as the unfortunate price we pay for maintaining the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't have to be that way.
Talk about missing the point.
Larry A, you seem like a typically NRA right winder intent on misleading the public. I know of a couple of neighbors that have "so-called" semi automatics, that can be converted to FULL automatic, with a small kit. I have seen these weapons in actions at the range (yes, I have a personal revolver myself) and they are mindbogglingly devastating! No reason to have assault weapons unless you plan to go to war!
@rrock
"Well if assault weapons are legal we might as well make rocket propelled grenades, bazookas and TNT legal."
That's true. The only thing to stop multiple mad men with guns is a person with a rocket propelled grenade, bazooka, or TNT. Also, rocket propelled grenades, bazookas, and TNT do not kill people, its the people who use them that kill people. So due to these two facts, all weapons should be made available to the general public... you know, for the obvious reason of protection.
There are a number of vidoes of Semi-auto AKA-47 being shot with a 30 round clip on YouTube(I see indications on line that you can actually get your hands on a 300 round clip as well). I don't know if he is pulling the trigger really fast or not but the man firing mananged to empty his clip in seconds. Semi-auto or full auto, does it matter? 30 rounds in a few seconds – the only thing holding him back was the size of his clip, that's the real problem. If clip size were limited to 10 then he would have to reload or drop his weapon and grab a new one – that would slow him down. The semi-auto vs full-auto isn't really the issue – its clip size.
Semi-automatic is still a form of automatic guys
This is so true. It is almost impossible to get "machine" guns. Very thorough vetting by FBI, ATF, Home land Security. Few nut cases pass this rigorous process.
Your all idiots, well most of you, what you fail to realize is how the hell did someone who is "mentally insane" get fully auto guns legally, they gave him the guns to go and shoot lots of people so they could come up with an excuse to get all the anti gun morons to agree to take away our guns so they could have controll of us when the falling out happens in the US and if you don't have a gun when that happens I feel sorry for you. I say if you have a gun and someone comes to your front door with some papers and a uniform saying give me your guns shoot him right in his skull and be ready for a fight cause if you don't the aftermath of what will be when you give him your guns shall be far worse
I hate that reasonable attempts to discuss gun policy always degenerate into a gun nerd discussion. So I'll add to it. Originally the term "automatic firearm" refered to to any self-loading firearm, and still does in most of the world. The division into semi and full is a concern for enthusiasts, and does not bear on the argument. You guys are the equivalent of geologists who will not allow a discussion on the danger of throwing rocks at people because what was thrown may actually have been a mineral. Except that geologists are smart.
This column is full of many well-intentioned people; but the whole lot of you are ignorant as hell. YOU DO *NOT* have to have a "Class 3 License" to own a fully-automatic weapon, silencer, sawed off shotgun, short-barreled rifle, or silencer.
You must only purchase an NFA tax stamp for the cost of $200., plus two fully filled out NFA Form 4s, with two sets of fingerprints, two photographs, and a proof of citizenship form. Then you get the royal, federal background check which makes an anal probe by space aliens seem like a GOOD THING. Then you have to actually pay for the cost of the device in question. Most machineguns go for $15,000-$250,000. EACH. There hasn't been a SINGLE CRIME committed with a legally registered machinegun since 1937. Get your facts straight. Modern firearms BELONG IN EVERY HOME. The NRA doesn't brainwash its members–it only serves to protect our civil rights and ensures that we as Americans will always have the means to protect ourselves from violent criminals, and if need be-a tyrannical government, as our founders designed. If you are stupid enough to believe that you can actually make innocent people safer by disarming them-I would like to know exactly what planet you're from-so we can declare war on it and destroy it so the rampant stupidity that spawned it doesn't spread. Police can't protect you 24/7. Hell, they can't protect you 1/1. The police simply can't be everywhere at once-and tell me exactly which violent criminal will actually let you call 9-1-1 and calmly articulate your name, location, and situation while you're fighting for your life? The writer of this column not only has the IQ of a houseplant, but lacks a single shred of common sense. The only statistic that you need to remember is this: More guns = fewer violent crimes. Bottom line.
Larry A., you are so correct, one trigger pull one fire is simply a semi-automatic weapon, a machine gun has the continuously fire until emptied or you let go of the trigger and they are not easily converted.
Next was there no one trained and carrying a weapon concealed or otherwise that could have intervened and stopped this lunatic as he was inflicting his terrorism on our Americans? What's funny is everyone first thing wanted to blow up the World over some one attacking our World Trade Center, but when someone goes into a movie theater and opens fire on the crowd, we want the USA to give up their guns...it's was not the guns, it was not that we don't have laws in place for gun control and safety. We simply can't enforce the laws we have, so, it really makes sense to make more laws, let's get the enforcement up, find out why and how this guy got his weaponry and ammunition, was he under a Dr.'s care for being unstable? Why and how did he go un-noticed. what can we do about this?
Did anyone read that the USA won three Gold's for the Olympic Shooting Team...GO USA!!!
The gun show loop hole makes it easy.
Opinions about gun control ignore that prior to the availability of semi automatics and automatics–we had mass murders.
Weapons ranged from axes to gas and poisons to knives. What has remained consistent in the cases of wholesale murder is WHO overwhelmingly performs such acts:
Usually... a male–ages 14-65.
Usually a white male–you can count the number of black, hispanic, asians, etc combined on both hands and feet but the number of white males who have committed either mass murder or serial killings number in the high dozens.
We can argue that the men and women who kill are mentally ill or under great stress. We can argue that familial killings are different from killing strangers. We can even argue the method and ease of access to guns or poisons etc–here is what does not change:
9 times out of 10–the killer will be a male.
8 times out of 10 the killer will be white
6 times out of 10 the killer will know at least some of his victims
6 times out of 10 the killer will also kill himself
10 times out of 10 no matter how this plays out–unless the killer is a minority–the media and the blogging public will never relate the crime to race or wonder what is wrong within the white race and specifically with white males.
Semi-automatics are referred to in popular discourse as "automatic." Don't be so snooty.
@ Tom... "Slide Fire" is a stock, not a trigger assembly. I have one, loads of fun!! Gotta get ammo in bulk tho, 500 rounds at the range is pretty normal.
As far as the article, anyone that's willing to gamble, negotiate, compromise, or argue about my Rights, Freedom's and Liberty, I will consider to be my enemy. Remember folks, part of your freedom is allowing me to be free.
There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the victims, whether they are killed by an "automatic" weapon or a "semi automatic" weapon is completely irrelevent, just so sad that that you and the rest of the "gun loving 2nd Amendment Brigade" can't see that.
@ Jatovi.... There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole". You've been watching and listening to the Brady's for far too long. Private sales between citizens should be no concern of the government, or anyone else for that matter. If you suspect the buyer may be a little 'shady', you're absolutely free to not sell it to them.
I tried sending this before, but I don't know if it went, however if you believe that " more guns equals less crime" then by taking that to its ultimate conclusion, if 100% of the population had guns, there would be no crime.Now, who agrees with that? Hands up please.
The people who act like guns are the root of all evil are either ignorant, narrow-minded, or just plain out of touch with reality. Take a look at Washington DC, for example. If you have a handgun you have to keep it disassembled in a lock box. Yet they have one of the highest murder rates in the U.S. It's the same with Chicago; strict gun laws and high violent crime rates. If you take guns away from people, they become victims of the people who confiscate the guns. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own guns not to only protect our homes from intruders, but it guarantees us protection from a tyrannical government. The reason the 2nd Amendment is the shortest Amendment in the Bill of Rights is because our founders knew the dangers of an unarmed public. They knew that they had to keep the people protected from the intrusion of Big Government, so they wrote down the 2 sentences that make up the 2nd Amendment. Disarming the American people has been the main goal of the UN for the past 20 years. It's all about Agenda 21. Remember that Agenda 21? The 21 means the 21st century. Guess what century we're in? The UN has already started their globalist/socialist agenda with the "green" movement. Now it's time to move to disarming the people. Remember what JFK said, "If you make a peaceful revolution impossible, then you make a violent revolution inevitable." I say we get out of the UN, give every man, women, and child the means to protect themselves, and get the government out of our personal lives.
To the individual who compared the US to Switzerland in terms of gun ownership and crime: You left out an important piece of intellectual reasoning (which is doing a dis-services to the readers due to conveying half the story on the subject matter), Switzerland has no standing army. Men receive compulsory training and then stand by as a militia keeping the weapons at home. The US has the most powerful standing army in the world, the comparison cherry picks the "facts" to suit your purpose. The idea that every US citizen needs a gun to be a militia is ludicrous as WE HAVE A STANDING ARMY ALREADY.
The web is FULL of do-it-yourself videos for converting assault weapons to fully-automatic. Don't be a bonehead.
Sylar75
Funny cause the U.S. military prefers for assult rifles to be semi auto due to increased accuracy.
Tom
Wrong friend. The military version of the AR-15 has two selectable modes, full auto and semi-auto. The civilian version is semi-auto only and cannot be modified for full auto.
No Tom, you're wrong, the "military version of the AR-15" also known as an M16, has a 3 position mode selection switch; safe, semi, and 3 round burst...not fully auto for the exact reason Sylar stated, accuracy.
Good point made, I was about to make suggestion that full auto weapons are not easy to obtain, especially in the state I live in where we have the most lax gun laws. Through proper paperwork we can own a full auto, problem is that it takes an act of God to get the paperwork approved. One other thing is that class III weapons arent cheap. A full auto M16 at a gun shop I frequent costs 18,000. I cant think of any person that has that kind of money just to throw down for a gun.
Im so tired of journalists putting a stereotype that weapons like AK's, MAC-10's or UZI's come fully auto ready for the average gun owner to pick up.. Funny how they dont understand semi auto and full auto.
Pretty sure that automatic firearms have been banned since 1962. I know that there are class III licenses out there however from my understanding they are extremely difficult to come by. Everything is semi automatic.
buckybadger,
It wasn't a fully automatic, it was semi. Also it jammed and most of the shooting he did wasn't with the AR it was with a shotgun. As you all said, facts are facts.
For those who are saying you can get a conversion kit for $50.00 easy...guess what...if you plan to use that update you're will...those kits will probably kill you. A good proper kit will run you $600+ depending on the weapon. Also you still need to know what you are doing. Yes selling the kit is legal...however using the kit will land you in jail. I looked into a Class III license, I can get it, I've got a good relation with the local police and I have nothing in my brackground...I also have military training.....I gave up when I found out the time, the cost and the headache. The real problem isn't assault weapons or fully automatics...it's the criminals/ Gun laws will not stop the gangs nor the thieves or the crazies out there. All gun laws really do is ramp up the underground market...If they were enforced. I'm sorry I think we just need to close some loopholes. Why can I not go into a gun store and walk out with a handgun(To be honest I can because I have a CWP) but I can walk into a gun show and walk out with anything I want. We need to close that loop hole and we need to do more to close shop on the underground gun dealers....I'm sorry but people selling guns out of their trunk are part of the major problem with gun laws.
more ppl die each year due to motor vehicle accidents than gun related deaths.... should we make more restrictions on whos allowed to own cars too?
Maybe you should just go back to where you came from. We are not interested in becoming Europe, Asia, or anyplace else, despite our coward-in-chief's attempts.
to Geratt: You need to get your facts straight. Switzerland does have a standing army and active reserve units. Standing army is around ~150k with about half that in active reserves. They have something like 5-6 active brigades and fully functioning and staffed air bases. The requirement to have a government issued gun is "the next step" in selective service for the country.
While true that there is a "compulsory" insurance requirement, the Swiss have one of the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe and one of the less regulated overall business environments to encourage growth. Make these changes and we'll talk about Obamacare.
I love how people know things without doing any research. Do some research and you will find that it is in fact very easy to get an assault rifle. You can debate about automatic or semi-automatic all you want. That is not the important factor.
firstly, any citizen can own a fully automatic rifle, go get your class 3 firearms license. simple. also to the guy who said semi auto can easily be converted to full auto. that is true on some rifles liek the sks however its also illegal and you could face up to 10 years in prison for doing it. I own plenty of pistols and rifles, none of which have committed any crimes or murders. Gun control isnt what we need, we need a better system to screen and weed out the crazies from purchasing them.
qgold wrote that "The details don't really matter, Zakaria is right, it's the sheer number of guns of all types that make the US more and more dangerous for all of us. It's a sick hobby that needs to go away."
OK, OK! I give up. Let's make the US safer for "all of us". First, start with heart disease, then cars. We need to regulate even more. After all, heart disease kills 192 per 100,00. more than 60 times greater than guns. Then, move to cars.After all, cars account for 15 deaths for every 100,000. 5 times more than guns. After the US is made safer for all of us by tackling those REALLY two big killers, let's talk about guns....!!! You know, I'm not normally one to call people names, but II'm making an excpetion for THESE IDIOTS.
Intelligent people splitting hairs "automatic" "semi-automatic", yes, Zak made a bubu, so what? too many people die because there are too many weapons.. period.
Now if you add one more piece of data – gun control restrictions – you see that the states with at least one firearm law (such as an assault weapons ban or trigger locks) tend to be the states with fewer gun-related deaths.
Funny how most violence and death is caused by handguns, yet these unrelated anti-gun laws have somehow reduced gun deaths. I wonder what the other death stats and economic stats are like in these states. Because those laws don't stop gun or any other violence or any kind of accidents from happening. So those screaming about how zakaria is right on facts seem to be wrong on facts, and if he were right politicians would be quick to hop on the band wagon.
"kiss' – i agree with one part of your post...you have an IQ of 60.
In nearly every discussion I have seen about gun control, someone very sternly reminds us that there is a big difference between semi-automatic and automatic firearms. In nearly every case, they are railing against an argument that has not been made. Most people who are not gun aficionados do not make a differentiation in comments because most of them do not see much of a difference. Most semi-automatic guns are easily converted into automatic. And nearly every time I have done a per-page search on the word "automatic" it is only used by those writing in defense of semi-automatic guns. For the rest of us, we seem to just call them "guns."
The laws that are being used to prove the point are mutualy exclusive from the arguement. It is like argueing that to stop vehicular homicide we should ban SUV's and promote seatbelts.
Not an auto rate of fire? That's true. Hmmm...That means that someone shooting a SEMI-AUTOMATIC gun could only fire about 40 Rounds in a minute. Hardly worth mentioning? Please – Can I tell you where to stash your BS.
Larry A. Right... However, you get the point...
Wasting your breath. Democratic Socialists do not know the difference between semi-automatic and an automatic weapons. Just like their ignorance about truth and logic as opposed to their fantasy of "Hope and Change." They can keep the hope and I will keep my change.
Fareed conveniently neglected to mention that cities with the strongest gun control (eg. Washington DC and Chicago) have the highest murder rates. Maine doesn't even require a permit for concealed carry, and they have virtually no crime.
Maybe it's not the guns. Maybe it the people and their sub-culture that leads to murder.
yes of course, that's why such people should not get a gun
Maine does in fact require a permit for concealed carry. None required however for open carry.
Vermont does not require a permit for concealed carry and has low gun crime. More gun related deaths from hunting accidents than homicide I believe.
The fact that cities with strong gun control laws having high crime does nothing to bolster the case against such laws. The laws are in reaction to a problem that had already existed and guns don't spoil. And do you think it is hard to drive outside of that jurisdiction where the law does not apply and cart guns by the boatload into the city limits? What you are saying actually makes the case for a NATIONAL approach. The U.S. has the most liberal gun control laws (or lack thereof) and also has the most per capita gun violence of any modern democracy. Seems kind of funny to say. Conservatives prefer liberal gun laws and a liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Fareed also conveniently neglected to mention that more people die because of Doctors every year than firearms.
One just has to keep in mind that integrity, be it journalistic or personal, is not even on Fareed's radar.
yup, the gun loving morons always bring up DC and Chicago crime rates like those are islands. There is something called a car that people use to get to chicago and DC, and those people are the ones that commit the crimes. If there was legislation across the US, watch the gun death rates in those 2 cities decline.
And Phil calls people 'Gun loving m0r0ns'. No wonder he hates guns. I bet with his instigating, 'Shovel ready', 8ull$#!t that comes out of his mouth, he probably gets threats all of the time. Just remember Phil. You don't need guns, because people like you are too stupid to handle them properly.
And conveniently no one on the left talks about the violence in movies, video games etc. that absolutely motivates some of these killers to conduct their assaults. How about putting a new age restriction on any movie that contains any gun violence, gratuitous blood, killing of any kind. Restrict it to 21 and older OR take it out of movies entirely. Sorkin recently said in a CNN interview that creating programming or movies with gay couples and continually exposing America to it would help get Americans used to and accepting of this social issue. Hollywood knows that what it does influences viewers perspectives. So how can they not know that violent movies likely result in individuals doing violent things. They do.
they don't even sell guns in Chicago or DC, meaning no gun stores...hello!
Phil and 1000pound man seem to think that gun laws are the solution and that lack of laws ELSEWHERE is the problem in cities that have these laws. Well think about it. If you have a gun, where are you going to use it to commit a crime? In a location that allows the victim to have a gun, or in Chicago and DC where they victim won't have a gun? It would be a really bad idea to try to invade my house, which has a gun. In fact I am sitting about 24 inches from one right now.
Maybe it is that one can just drive to another state to get it. In other countries, gun control is entirely federal. What if there were checkstops between states with searches? I think the rate would go down.
Fractual, your comment regarding doctors killing more people per year than guns is a fairly bad way to make a point. Perhaps Doctors kill more patients than guns, but the patients are already a higher risk factor because they are visiting a doctor in the first place. People sitting in a movie theatre are not high risk people that should be concerned about being shot.
Perhaps everyone should be more concerned with the integrity of the argument and offer a real debate, than to question another person's integrity all together.
NRA doesn't allow meaningful discussion. They rule America. Grover Norquist runs the economy. The best the American people could come up with to counter Obama confirms that these people (Americans) have metamorphed into sheep.
Under Gaddafi's rule, it was forbidden for ordinary Libyans to own guns. People had no way to air run amok and air their anger, frustration and hatred. Once his regime collapsed, came anarchy and guns all of a sudden became tools of communication.
Thanks Eric for your comments. Your point proves two things:
1. Enacting gun control does not stop violence or those cities with the strongest gun control would have immediately seen the violence go down.
2. Ability to get a gun does not cause more violence as Eric's examples show
We need to understand the reasons why people become so angry or desperate that they turn to violence as an outlet. More gun control will be like if you go to the doctor with an infection causing fever and instead of fighting the infection with antibiotics (addressing the cause), the doctor gives you something to reduce the fever (addressing the symptom).
Those of you who want to ban guns are well meaning and I respect you, but your energies are focused in the wrong area to reach the goal you seek.
This is so true. Also Fareed, what would you do about the 10 gallons of gasoline and 30 grenades that the shooter in Colorado was able to get. Nobody seems to mention this aspect.
You will never have real gun control until you have a consistent federal implementation and not sporadic states tightening up their laws. If you can buy the gun in a state 5 miles away and then drive across the state line to DC then it's a waste of time. Have you seen the weapon inventory from both the CO and the MD Joker incidents? It's frickin ridiculous.
And I own guns.
John Havens, clearly sitting in a movie theater unarmed, being in a place where the ability to defend oneself from deadly attack LEGALLY is removed, is a high risk behavior. Very high risk.
Wouldn't you say? Or did you miss that event at the theater in Colorado?
But notice the population densities involved: The state of Maine and the city of Washington or Chicago. Very different environments.
Sometimes I think the entire gun control question is really a city vrs rural area debate.
Maine also has virtually no people...
Citiy ordinances have little value when they are surrounded by states and a nation that make it easy for crazies to own guns.
John Havens –
Grover Norquist runs the economy? Really? That's funny because I thought George Soros was pulling all the puppet strings behind the curtain these days, along with the unions and all the corrupt Chicago politicians in the spirit of Daley and Capone.
I'm Mainer a going for my CCW permit next month, so naturally I'm surprised to hear I don't need one after all.
What else would you expect from a man named "FAREED" Probably another one of Barrack Hussein Obama's Muslim brotherhood soldiers working on Civilization Jihad to to not only bankrupt America but to DISARM US and make way for the Muslims to WALK RIGHT IN UNABATED! Obama already put in a REVOLVING DOOR FOR the terrorist group.
Nice try.
Only in America will this debate rage ,less than 2 weeks since the travesty in Aurora.Your economy is in shambles,world opinion is scathing and all you want to do is keep your guns????I don't get it
yes dc and chicago have the most gun violence. lots of important people (i.e. the president) live in dc, so more crazy people with guns are driven there. they think that they could potentially get in the news by killingnsomeone important, so they go to major cities. if there were more gun laws on a national level, then dc andchicagos gun violence rates would go down.
Yes, the biggest bans don't translate in the least crime; look at Mexico, they got tough gun laws and the crimes are the highest and worst; while in other countries like Sweden and Switzerland crimes like these are practically unheard of. So before anyone touch this issue, let's look at what can really make a change.
Eric
You are SPOT ON ! ! !
Also consider Kennesaw, GA which REQUIRES all homes in the city limits to own a fire arm – and Kennesaw has one of the VERY LOWEST crime rates in America.
Conincidence? I think not.
Spot on!
Fractual: Name one incident where a doctor went into a crowded theater and killed a dozen people and injured 58 more in a matter of minutes, and I'll concede your point. Until you do, you have no room to question anyone's integrity, journalistic or otherwise.
Serious restrictions on the sale of ammo could help a lot along with jail time for possessing an automatic weapon, hand grenades, land mines, rpgs, etc.
All societies have a weakling class that is frightened of everyone else and tries to compensate for their inadequacy. The NRA specializes in marketing gun products to those people, and very successfully. The entire gun culture is a creation of the manufacturers, the NRA is only the mouthpiece. If you want to have some proof, just look into how much the executive staff at the NRA ia paid. If you can.
Anyone that thinks there is a quick fix to gun violence by controlling the legal purchase of a firearm is ignoring the fact that gun crimes in areas with tight gun controls the violence is mostly done with illegally purchased weapons and ammunition. We are always looking for a quick fix to a problem and are rarely concerned with effectiveness as long as we can grandstand.
It's a skewed statistic anyway. The data presented is only for gun homicides measured against the rest of the world. How about measuring all homicides against gun homicides.... I think you'll find a much different number.
"The U.S has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. That’s four times as many as Switzerland, ten times as many as India, 20 times as many as Australia and England."
Zakaria also says "Meanwhile, serious but non-fatal gun injuries caused during assault have actually increased in the last decade by 20 percent" – how many of those are the criminal who started the assault (with or without a firearm), vice the intended victim who fought back?
Fareed can go back to where he came from. I bet life is better over there.
The article was talking about "gun" related murder.
actually that's the only thing that will get the other man killed, unless he is a trainer law enforcement professional
ccw permit have stronger background checks than most police depts. ,and many times have more training with a gun. Not in how to right a ticket. we're just talking guns
@siteyoursource
That is not true. I agree that the background checks are extensive but traing with the firearm you are going to carry is not required in many states. I live in Washington state and all that is need =ed to aquire a CCW here is 60 dollars and a clean record. I do think that anyone that is going to carry a weapon should be tested in their proficiancy before being aloud to carry it in public. I have to qualify annually to keep my armed security lisc.
So ok good old Al came up with a catchy saying, so its all right to walk around packing heat. Just the other day there was another SYG shooting here in the Plantation State. Only this guy shot someone packing lobsters; and not content to wound him, shot him in the head while he was down. The first thing he said: I felt treatened. This is totally outrageous, Al comes up with a catchy saying, and a lobster sales person is dead.
Somehow, Als catchy saying does not make me feel too safe.
If the lobster packer been carrying as well, the result might have been different.
Remember the old saying, "Fight fire with fire".
Think of this scenario:
Let's say that five people in that theater had been carrying that night ,and the shooter knew it .
He had body armor, but that gas mask won't protect him from bullets.
Do you think that he would have done what he did?
If you know that lead is going to come back to you, it changes the whole picture.
Look at the people that tried to rob the cyber cafe.
They were brave tough dudes untill the senior citizen's bullets started coming their way.
@lazyace. Your assuming that the CO nut job gave a sh@& that anyone 'might' be packing. HE'S A WACKJOB! Don't apply rational thought to irrational people.
That's what he gets for bringing a lobster to a gun fight...?
First I want to post a response to the article itself. A psyhopath will figure a way to use ANY means nesscesary to achieve his or her intended goal. If there were NO guns at all on this planet, he still will achieve his or her goal. And if that goal is killing as many innocent people as they can, They WILL.
Second, I respect Fareed, and think that he is a very smart person. BUT, we are not living in a Utopia feel good world. This world now is quickly becoming a dog eat dog world. Or country eat country world. You must, as a country, and an individual be able to defend yourself, your family and loved ones, and friends from whatever and whenever that comes down the pike so to speak. We as a country are very close to stepping over the edge internally, and externally. If, and probably when this happens there will be alot of hungry people running the streets. Protect yourself.
How is this world becoming more dog eat dog? How is this country becoming more dog eat dog? Crime is down dramatically, including violent crime. International war is not a terribly common phenomenon. There is a great deal o internal conflict, but there is no evidence that this is now more common than it was, say, at the fall of the Soviet Union or at the end of WWI.
Couldn't have said it better myself!!
I agree. Read my post.
The facts prove you wrong. If you were right, there would be proportionally just as many mass killings in countries with strict gun control. There simply are not. Nowhere near. You are dead wrong on this.
"Chillkootz
First I want to post a response to the article itself. A psyhopath will figure a way to use ANY means nesscesary to achieve his or her intended goal. If there were NO guns at all on this planet, he still will achieve his or her goal. And if that goal is killing as many innocent people as they can, They WILL."
Please take 5 minutes, all of you who think banning guns will stop violence, to google violence in Scotland. Merry old Scotland took the steps you recommend and because of the small population, they achieved it. But Scotland still has a big problem with violence...using what?....surprise, KNIVES. Knife kiiling is a huge problem. My point here is to show that violence is not occurring BECAUSE guns are accessible. Rather, the gun is a tool that the violent person chooses WHEN AVAILABLE because its the most efficient. Let's address the causes of violent behavior and there will be no need to ban anything.
@Tom. Yeah, Scottland is being overrun with knife welding mass murderers bumping off people by the dozens..... God help them.
@tahoeblue – I am assuming you are being sarcastic and have never actually been to Glasgow, come down to the barras on a weekend and bring a spare pair of kecks
@martin Potential correlation does not equal causality.
Chillkootz- We are "becoming" a dog eat dog world? Have you read history? We've always been a violent species. Remember the Wild West? Slaughtering Native Americans? Civil War? Need I go on? Humans are violent.
Spoken as if you took it from the NRA Handbook.
You got dat right!!!!!! Even though we won again, they will continue their quest for a leftist Amerika. I have a clue for them all. We won based on the fact 'If it looks like $#!t and smells like $#!t, then it must be $#!t....
It's dumb redneck hicks like you who are the real threat to this country.
And its people like you who bring out the psychos. Who would be stupid enough to say they are against guns, but in the same breath instigate with name calling? Thats about as stupid as saying they are for gay marriage, but yet they will use the gay lifestyle as an attack tactic towards others in a way that is most offensive to everyone. No wonder they are against guns. The way they talk to people they should be against them, since they are always ready to fire the first shot with their big mouth...
We bought some time, but don't be fooled. Just like we were surprised by health care and F&F, this POTUS will keep on pushing his leftist agenda. I had legal guns, but they all disappeared. I sent them away to their 'Happy place'. I'd get a plan in order. The second amendment was designed to evolve along with the people for whom it was intended to protect. Governments don't use muskets anymore and neither do we. If it was put into place for citizens to use inferior weapons, then it would be pointless for the amendment all together now wouldn't it? They are legal right now. Put a few up for safe keeping along with a good chunk of ammo while they are still legal.....Just in case
Really sad to see so many heavily armed paranoid nuts. There is professional help you know. Might want to get some before you shoot up a 7-11 or something.
I love how the anti-President "patriots" have been talking about Obama taking away their guns since the day he became president, when the reality for the last 4 years has been all hype and not one new anti-gun law. In fact, since Obama has been in office, we now have guns in national parks and in more bars! I wonder what Jesus would do...he didn't even carry a big stick! Isn't he supposed to be your ideal? Or are you going to amend Christianity to fit your lifestyle too?
Oh please! pjobrien, you idiot. You can't argue about Christianity and ignore the whole basis for the religion. Jesus didn't NEED a gun, a sword, or a big stick because he was JESUS. Some of his disciples carried swords or protection, though I'm sure they didn't need them either in that situation.
Yeah paranoid...right. Huge militarized governments NEVER turn on their own people...just look at history!! Every time a nation spends a huge percentage of GDP on illegal wars and puts bankers and military industrialist in charge freedom reigns and everyone gets free health care and a pony!! C'mon you know that congress and the president are hard at work preserving our personal liberty's everyday!!! Heck look at the NDAA!! Now Obama gets to come to your house and grab you without a warrant or a judge and detain you indefinitely because you look funny!! People that look funny are usually terrorists anyway... Thats why the TSA sticks their fingers in your butt on the way to Grandma's for Christmas dinner!! It's all for your safety!!! You are sooo paranoid!!!
@Jamie. Oh don't get us started on Christianity. The big C has killed more people in 'the name of religion' then any other organization or cause in the world. Is there anyone in the NRA who isn't Christian? I think it's a conspiracy. Yeah, thats it. A conspiracy. News flash....... NRA secretly run by the Vatican directly out of Rome....
EQGOLD If you give your grandmother a cellphone incase her car breaks down, does that make you paranoid? bad people do bad things. Are you prepared to stand there and let them kill you and your family. Your other choice is to be prepared! Will a man... a father watch his family die, or protect them. 90 seconds in aurora was to late, and the theater required all law abideing people to be unarmed. did james holmes not see the NO GUNS sign? Or did he and say "perfect!".
PJObrien President Obama has stripped us of our 4,5, and 6th Amendments when he signed the NDAA. He stripped us of our first Amendment when he signed an EO that states you can't protest anywhere the secret service is in charge of the security. He's stripped the States' 10th Amendment rights with Obamacare. He's not going to strip us of our 2nd Amendment. The UN and senate will with another SATT. All of this over-regulation of America will be it's downfall. It's sad when you can't have a garden in your yard because it violates "city code", or your little girl can't sell lemonade because "there's no way of telling who made it or where it came from." We need the exact same firepower as the government to keep them in check because, in case you forgot, the people are in charge and NOT the government. "If the government fears the people, you have liberty. If the people fear the government, you have tyranny."
PatMcCarthy – Since you are unable to do your ow research, I have done for you. You should not join in conversations that are beyond your intellectual ability.
Amendment IV – Search and arrest
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V – Rights in criminal cases
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI – Right to a fair trial
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
I "think" this guy is ANOTHER patsy; doped up, and controlled/handled. L. Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Columbine, McVay – doped up, brainwashed patsies who were "mind controlled" to do these atrocities. The GOAL is to take our guns away & we will be helpless. Think on this a bit.
Your comment was excellent.
I know that this a worn out phase but " guns, knives, cars, baseball bats, chains, and what ever else may be used to kill humans does not kill humans but humans kill humans. Most of the gun violence takes place in the cities like Chicago, New York, Washington DC, and sad to say Denver, CO which already has strong gun control laws. Its plain to see they don't work. We need stronger criminal laws, longer and harsher prison terms, and start treating criminals like criminals.
Seems to me that the critical problem is not guns, but Americans. If you got rid of them, you would be saving the world from a mountain of gun-related violence.
Evil is simply a lack of empathy for others. Sometimes mixed with a fear of others (which motivates you to control them). Sometimes mixed with jealousy and leads to hatred. Often it is well blended with a belief in ones own self importance.
Right on ! The author has it all wrong–who cares what the rest of the world thinks about our gun ownership-take a good look at Syria-imagine if the rebels did not have guns....the idea behind one world is to disram and then "own."
The Syrian people (basically) have the blessing of the most powerful military force in the world. If the US government ever turned on the American people the 2nd Amendment wouldn't come remotely close to saving us. It'd be decimation and a glock in the hands of every man woman and child wouldn't stop it.
The 2nd amendment is long outdated. The military might of the government has long since outpaced that of civilians and thus the value of the second amendment has decreased to the point of irrelevance. It's just a crutch the gun supporters use in the absence of any other non-fear based justification.
Hey, Mike, like the US military did such a great job in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or how about the great job the US did in Vietnam? Did you see the map to see which country has the most guns per capita? Oh, that would be the US which also has a much bigger population than Iraq, Afghanistan, or Vietnam. If the US military turned against the American people, there would be a lot of dead soldiers and a lot of dead politicians. There are too many handguns in private hands in the US. All it takes is one person with a handgun to walk up and kill one soldier. Even if he dies, there is one less soldier and the soldiers are less than one percent of the population. Give me 3 million Americans willing to kill and die to get rid of a military dictatorship in the US and I'll give you a dead military and a dead dictator. It is simply a numbers game. No one would fight the US military on it's terms which is Clausewitz style decisive battle on an open field. Instead the strategy of choice would be Sun Tzu/Fabian guerrilla warfare (terrorism is a form of guerrilla warfare) with improvised explosives made from household chemicals, snipers, and assassinations. In other words, a battle for which the US military is not structured to win. One which would take a massive occupying army that the US does not have. In fact it would actually take a smaller resistance movement than the US has troops to defeat the US military in battle through irregular warfare on American soil. Hopefully we will never have to experience such a scenario in the US.
I love how one guy goes off topic about automatic weapons and every response after rips on the author about it. Zakaria said "asault weapons", not automatic weapons. So half the argument made previously by posters was pointless. Regardless, the numbers don't lie. More guns per capita, higher rate of deaths. What's your excuse for that?
"... as guns laws have gotten looser and getting automatic weapons has become easier."
Actually read the article before you open your mouth.
Norway has rather stringent gun laws compared to the US and many other countries. How did that stop the attack in July, 2011 that killed 69 people?
Wake up you stupid 2nd amendment supporters. Newsflash: our government has computerized drones that can fly over your house and take you out in a second. Armed citizens or militias do not stand a chance. Stop using that outdated excuse to keep our country armed and dangerous!
Do you know the difference between a "hunting" rifle and an "assault" rifle – the COLOR and material of the stock. A hunting rifle has a wooden stock while the assault rifle has a black, composite stock. People like you and Zakaria through around the term like you actually understand what it means.
Well, what do you expect, most gun owners are moron.
@Archie Bunker
It didn't, but it was an isolated and extraordinary incident, which tells you nothing about the actual Norwegian statistics. The facts show that the Norwegian per capita gun density is very high, and death by firearms very low.
Furthermore, the strict regulations on firearm ownership, especially regarding semi-automatic pistols and rifles, meant that ABB first had to have a clean criminal record, he had to be an active member of a shooting club, and there was a long latency period. He had planned his actions for a long period and was thus able to aquire the firearms legally.
These same incidents DO happen around the world. These acts of violence are not unique to the United States.
What is unique to the United States is the amount of National and International attention that are given to these acts by our our 3 ring circus masters: the Media. While these acts are horrible and do need to be reported on, our media tends to sensaltionalize these things in a manner that is as over the top as a Rogers & Hammerstein musical.
Our Media is like a teenager full of angst shouting for attention "Hey look at me".
It is the MEDIA that make this a political issue by giving these incidents so much "over the top" attention.
A dozen people were killed in Colorado. yes it is a horrible thing.
How many people were killed all over the world that day?
How many soldiers were killed and injured?
How many were killed or injured with something other than a firearm?
Let's suppose the perpetrator didn't have a gun.
As determined as he was to commit this act of violence, he would have found another, possibly even more deadly way to commit this heinous crime.
Think about it.
Suppose he had:
Walked into the theater, lit a flare and used it to light several pipe bombs he had made and had thrown them into the crowd.
Chained the doors to that theater shut and started it on fire with some sort of accelerant.
Drove a vehicle into the building.
Remember Timothy McVei? or the guy that flew his plane into the IRS building?
Are we going to have tougher pipe buying laws? gasoline buying laws? car buying laws? Truck Rental laws?
Just think for a moment, what the outcome MAY have been, if there had been armed, trained civilians in the theater that night.
Perhaps the body count would have been less and perhaps the perpetrator would have been amongst them. But alas the theater was filled with a bunch of neutered people, who have had it beaten into them that defending yourself is bad.
Texas has the right idea. if everyone has a gun, it's kind of like Nuclear Deterant: You have a gun? so do I, now what?
Our politicians could not care less about the people killed and injured.
To the politicians they are a nameless, faceless "thing" to be exploited, to rally some segment of voters to their camp so they can gain what they desire: poloitical power.
I was taught to stand up to bullies. If you stand up to a bully, you might get beat up, but if you don't stand up to them, you DEFINETLY will get beat up.
(I believe this applies to politics as well, politicians are just bullies armed with money instead of guns)
It bothers me that the ones pounding the pulpit saying it would be safer if noone had guns, are people who live in a completely different world from the majority of the population, and are a lot less likely to be a victim of this type of violence.
To them it's ok that the average citizen doesn't have a gun to defend themselves.
They sit back with security, fences, gates, armed guards to defend them.
I bet when they call 911 the cops show up to their house a lot faster than they do to mine.
Does that guy in the White House go to movies at a Cineplex? how about any of the other candidates, in fact, how about any of the influential people who want gun control? No, I'm sure the majority go to prvate screenings & gala event premiers.
They have as much chance of being the victim of a home invasion as I have of walking on the moon tomorrow.
So lets say it comes to pass, gun regulation up the wahzoo.
Only 1 out of 100 homes has a gun.
Has that stopped people from illegally obtaining guns? probably not.
What it has done is to give criminals a much larger flock of sheep to prey upon.
Would you be more or less likely to attack someone if they were a very high probability that they were armed too?
A change in gun laws? you bet. start teaching our children gun safety in school at an early age. Train them to be proficient in their use. teach them firearm responsibility. Maybe, just maybe, we would go from being a nation of unarmed potential victims, to a nation of armed potential heroes.
Taking guns away from law abiding citizens so that criminals won't be able to get ahold of them, is like saying we should take away cars from everyone so a thief can't steal it and use it to commit another crime.
Best comment on this whole page...period. And Texas does have it right!!
But the call is for more regulations to prevent arming people. Those regulations could include restrictions on gunpowder, which would make it harder to create the imagined bomb. Just a simple battery of tests might also be effective, along the lines of the tests for a driver's license. This would requirement would also mean that the applicant would have to come face to pace with police officers to take the exam, which might discourage someone planning to commit a crime.
Would such a license prevent every murder or mass murder? No, of course not. But it might reduce the number of homicides and hunting accidents each year.
Lance, great response and I have to agree 100%. To the poster mentioning controlling gunpowder to make it harder to make a pipe bomb – Tim McVey's bomb didn't even use gunpowder – diesel and amonium nitrate fertilizer – so now we gonna limit those too? Tackle the problem, not the results – get the violance off TV, XBox, GameBoy – where do you think all these nutcases learned the violance?
Thank you for saving mt the trouble of writing a post. Well said..
I agree with you 110% my friend.
That question is kind of scary. Only people intending to attack anyone would actually consider answering the question.
People considering attacking others do not care if they are packing or not. They are already irrational. And we allow them guns. Not so good a combination.
Facts are facts. The more guns that saturate a population, the higher the death rate from those guns.
Look at Mexico – few legal guns, yet for some reason, the criminals get them (thanks to people like the Obama adminstration), and you are telling me THEY are safer there? What about Brazil or some of the African countries.
It is not the guns, it is the people and what they choose to do with them. We have MUCH stricter gun control laws here in IL and in Chicago, but more people are killed over a weekend day than in CO. How is it that criminals can get guns?
BRAVO!!! I believe in teaching youngsters gun safety and hunting. I was taught at six and have been loving the outdoors ever since. I'm, 74 and still hunting every season. I'm a grandmother and my grandchildren are learning hunting as well.
You might tell people to check on gun related deaths worldwide. PER CAPITA the U.S. is so low it is not even listed in the top 30! Another trivia FACT, more policemen are killed in car crashs than in gun related incidents!
If anybody tried to take my guns from me, they'd better bring a tank!
Keep up the good work.
Lance, your car analogy would go further with a lot of people if every gun was registered, annually inspected, property taxed, identified with a VIN as well as by numbers visible to others, used by owners who had graduated licenses, and "fueled" with a limited choice of ammunitions which were also highly regulated and taxed, and available only at places with video cameras recording each buyer and their means of payment which, if it was a check, credit, or debit card would be traceable. I mean if you want to compare cars to guns, then go for it! Let's put the same restrictions on guns that we have on cars and then the talk of banning guns will seem as ridiculous as the idea of banning cars.
Right on the money!!
Very well said. It is time to focus on the real problem. It is criminals. Let's stop making excuses for people who commit crimes. Lock them up and throw away the key. Expensive but I think much cheaper than expanding the BATF so that they are large enough to search every home and confiscate all the guns in private hands. I can't take seriously the calls for ordinary citizens to forgo guns and rely upon calling 911 for protection from a class of politicians that have 24 hour armed bodyguard protection.
Those of you that are against guns, I suggest you put up a sign on your lawn, similar to those indicating you have an alarm system, that states "Gun Free Household". Since guns don't protect you and are evil. Let everyone in your neighborhood know you stand up for preventing gun violence by not having any in your home.
Some of you want to limit my rights as to what guns I can own, how much ammunition, how many guns. Can I in turn regulate what kind of car you can drive, what books you can read. What style of clothes you can wear? The "Politicians" can't be trusted to balance the national budget, yet they are smart enough to know what each of use should be doing? I really don't think that the President and Congress have demonstrated in the smallest amount that they know better than I do how to protect myself and my family.
"if there had been armed, trained civilians in the theater that night."
Is this your solution? Yours and the crazies applauding it? I am very fortunate to not be an American.
> Texas has the right idea. if everyone has a gun, it's kind of like Nuclear Deterant: You have a gun? so do I, now what?
I live in Houston. Every day police shoots somebody because the person made a wrong move and police assumes they have a gun, so they shoot to kill. So far in all the cases the person actually didn't have a gun on them. That is what availability of guns does. It escalates the level of violence.
Romney passed some of the strictest gun control laws ever while governor of Massachussetts, then lied about owning a gun and being a lifetime hunter (he did not own a gun at the time and had been hunting twice in his life).
Obama enacted a law to allow guns in National Parks, and that's it. He has no intention of pushing for more gun laws.
NRA for Obama 2012.
The days of NEEDING a gun are over for the average American. If you want to hunt, take your butt to your local grocery store and ensure you're armed with some MONEY and then hunt up and down the isles for your food and pull your wallet trigger at the checkout! Next, stop this lunacy of placing people on trial for crimes we KNOW they committed!!!! This idiot who shot up a movie theater should've been killed by a firing squad already. WHY ARE WE WASTING OUR TAX DOLLARS ON LUNACY?!?!?!?!?!?!
I agree! If one of the patrons had a gun and shot him, lives could have been saved. If a person is hell bent on killing he/she will find a way. If guns aren't available, you can get ingredients for a bomb, set a fire, use poison, etc. etc.
People kill....not guns!
The argument there was his body armor. It would have taken a lucky shot to stop him. But, you'd have to try.
Hey Archie, so shooting him in the face, or below the belt wouldn't have slowed him down? Hitting him in the chest and sending him flying backwards, or knocking him down wouldn't have helped. He had some armor on, big deal. If someone shot him, it would have been a much different story.
Enough already with this "he could have been taken out if someone else had a gun" false premise.
No. He was wearing body armor. And anyone military or who has been trained in a similar scenario will tell you that firing back in that theater would likely have harmed movie goers in the process – deflected bullets, chaos of people running in all directions etc. It wasn't a case where having other people with conceal carry would have stopped people from being hurt.
Have you not read the reports of the survivors? Many of them were injured by deflections of shell casings, not necessarily from being directly targeted.
People really need to get over the idea that simply owning a gun is some sort of magical insurance against bad things happening to them. The stastics show that it's false. There aren't so many conceal carry owners who have actually prevented bad crime, and there are more children and people hurt by improperly-stored or misfired weapons every year.
IF $#%@&! DIDNT HAVE A GUN HE WOULD HAVE USED A BOMB OR CHEMICAL
Let's focus on the facts. The above statement is NOT a fact. There is no evidence he would have used a bomb or chemical. On the other hand, we ALL know he used guns and was equipped like paramilitary. This is the reality. Let's start there.
No civilian should be as equipped as paramilitary. No one. Your right to play SEAL TEAM 6 ends where my right to watch a movie in public, gunfire-free, begins. My right to life trumps your right to play soldier. If it's that important to you to wear body armor and use assault rifles for entertainment, properly exercise your 2nd amendment right by joining the National Guard or the Army or Marines.
You imagine stopping the all-in-black gunman in the chaos with your concealed gun in the dark theater. You – with your screen-illuminated body dressed in cotton shirt and Dockers slacks – your handgun, and a critically-necessary headshot versus an intent killer in full body armor equipped with a military weapon and practically unlimited ammo. THIS is irrational thinking.
Re the body armor, it does not make you bulletproof even if you've got chest and back plates. It keeps a round from killing you. You still get to deal with blunt force trauma, it will probably knock you down, and it will likely really, really hurt.
I own body armor. A friend asked me if I would, for one million dollars, take one .223 round to the chest while wearing it. My response? No.. friggin.. way. (And it ain't because the armor was expensive!)
If someone had shot the madman in the chest with a 9mm pistol, I wouldn't be at all surprised if said madman would have soon thereafter found himself the proud owner of a very small closet with handles on the side.
Newcraft: Nope not wearing body armor. tactical vest, not bullet proof. If they are all CCW holders trained to carry. Holmes would have lasted about 5 seconds before they took him out. Actually only needed 6 CCW holders carrying to achive that. There is a reason that Holmes didn't go to a police station or target range to carry out his dastardly deeds. He needed unarmed victims. I work at a nuclear power plant and all the guards have AR15's & 9M glocks. I feel plenty safe there.
Absolutely. One or two armed, law abiding citizens, whose training to qualify for a CCW permit includes response to an armed opponent definitely would have engaged and eliminated this nutcase.
And by the way, Fareed, the Aurora massacre probably would not have happened in Switzerland because of their lenient gun laws and a well armed population. (see this Swiss Girls poster at http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=505955516087757&set=a.269368279746483.86588.269358643080780&type=1&theater)
Robert A. Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
In the age of internet trolls, extreme partisan divide and easy access to guns let's live in a world where everybody is packing heat and scared to say something inappropriate for the fear of getting shot or getting their family shot.
You want normal families to act like gangs.
Think about that.
Yes I lived in a country where the guns were banned or was very hard to acquire. So mafia was all over the country, until one small businessman can't stand any longer racketeering, and he shout ten mafia people. After that a lot of thing changed, to better. Another example was when someone said that if you feel preassure by someone and he threaten your life, he said you should be report to police or protect your self with the gun (Actually it was press conference of president). And president just laughed and replied. Ya right.
Really ? Who in the middle east does not own an AK47
Syrian population. They must flee and surrender to the rebels. As a result, Israel may attack just to prevent the rebels from obtaining things much worse than an AK.
What is pathetic is the fact that we are all tied to weapons as a "family friendly" experience. We love to say it is a "sport". Sure hunting is, but the President had it right. You don't need an AR15 to go hunt duck and elk. Don't touch my gun is similar to peoples argument that they can smoke wherever they feel\, but we can't argue with the facts of second hand smoke, even though the tobacco companies fought that notion for years. Neither can we ignore the facts of statistics of weapons and the numbers of violent deaths compared with other countries. We are such a stupid society sometimes. And speaking of nutjobs. How do you plan to enforce gun laws, when you are sane at the time of purchase, but lose it later in life because of some tragedy or psychotic breakdown and vent your anger on your neighbors and law enforcement, such as the guy in Indiana that shot it out with officers. No law can protect you from that. Sorry, but guns kill and if that is your idea of sport and freedom, then maybe that is one of the many reasons the rest of the world sees us as agressive nuts.
Jack,
Today’s bogie man is the AR15. Generally this dubious distinction goes to the ubiquitous AK47. I own a Mini-14 It fires the same round as the AR15 it functions in the same exact manner. I will admit that the recoil is less on the AR15.
I can say this because I know something about guns. What do you know? Let me guess; they kill people.
Well, here’s the problem; most people who advocate more gun control have no idea of what they are talking about.
You can always tell right from the start because they vilify a particular gun. Some time back in PA a man went into a woman heath spa. He had 2 Glocks. I forget how many people he killed. So on TV Then Gov Ed Wendell is talking about how you can’t stop a crazy person by passing laws against peoples lawfull 2 A rights. I was shocked to hear him say that. Then the other shoe dropped and he “ But the Glock, the Glock is a killing machine, a killing machine. (Yes he repeated himself almost in a frenzy) It was the best example I ever saw of a Politian talking out of both sides of his mouth. We can always look to ban the _______ fill in the blank, as more evil then the next. In fact, lets ban guns from the police, if they are bad by nature then they should be in no one’s hands. Crazy? You bet. It’s Just as crazy as you telling me that I cannot defend my life in the gravest extreme. I am a NRA pistol instructor. When I am asked do I (They) a gun. My answer is always the same. Most likely you will never, never, never, need a gun, UNLESS you NEED a gun. If you need a gun and do not have one, there are only 3 possible out comes.
1 You will escape unharmed. 2. You will be maimed or injured 3. You will be murdered.
I have never been wrong about this, as the Movie shooting shows. Yes a responsibly armed person should have been in the crowd. Another person armed besides the “ Joker” could have made a big difference. Instead, people can now be found in one of the three categories listed.
Hey, maybe we should limit speech to the same extent that liberals want to limit guns. Wait, Liberals want to limit the free speech rights of those they don't agree with as well – nevermind.
+1. The Aurora theater had a gun-control policy, and 99% of the patrons complied with it. Lotta good that did. People with homicidal wishes don't need guns - just look at the 9/11 hijackers or any number of suicide bombers. I often like Zakaria's colulmns, but he is way off base with this - there is a reason why the Second Amendment says our right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."
It's funny, because we value First Aid and CPR training so citizens can intervene in emergencies before the professionals arrive, but we don't do the same with protection of the populace. I have great admiration for our police officers, but it's no knock on them to observe that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
The only way for a madman to kill those with guns, is with a gun.
what's it matter if they get killed with a gun or a bomb or poison? They are still dead. Explain to me how criminals follow laws again. All gun control laws will do in a case like Colorado is change the method of death on the police report. A bomb or other mass killing device could be far more effective. Look no further than the middle east to see how nut jobs use bombs to kill dozens.
For you and other gun loving folks (and I don't mean that in a negative way), IF it can be shown through data that America would be safer as country if guns laws were strengthened would you be for gun control?
@HKIS – it has been shown that places like Chicago and IL in general are not "safer" as criminals don't obey gun laws either. Funny how those statistics are ignored by gun grabbing folks.
Words to live by. If you have to look down the barrel of a gun, better to be holding one yourself as well. You may not win, but even a tie is going to work out better for everyone else around you. That's what fighting for freedom means.
Absolutely right on!
On the map is a light green Somalia, an even lighter green Syria, Koye's mucking up light green countries...the entire premise of guns out of the hands of civilians corresponding to less dead bodies is so obviously untrue that it turns the article from inaccurate to offensive. Then the claim of state gun laws helping the problem-Chicago is the murder capital of the country right now and has stricter gun bans than Washington D.C. or anywhere else in the nation. The entire point of this article is completely bogus.
As long as its an american killing an american its only fun for the rest of the world. Al-Queada and the Talibans are laughing their behinds off at your barbarism.
@dolapoidris, that is very simplistic and dangerous thinking that is only encouraged by people who make make money from selling guns. A smarter way of doing it would be to make it harder for that madman to get his hands on dangerous fire-arms. That is what happens in other countries where fire-arm crimes are far less than in the US.
We will take all of your guns.
I would LOVE to see you try it!!
Sir you are so transparent, it makes reading your article difficult and painful. More people have been killed in the name of religion in less time then it takes you to read this. Please re-direct your energy to a cause that you can win or change. Lets face it your not going to take anyone's gun. Neither are the police or the federal government. You obviously know nothing about firearms or the shooting sports. Please stick to your lattes, golf, and dinner parties.
To blame only the psychological state of the individual who pulled the trigger is to ignore the social context within which this tragedy became a possibility and then a reality. And trust me, I am all for more gun control laws as a measure to protect the public but allow people to continue to have the right to own arms in a responsible way. However, claiming that this should be the focus and not the psychological health of our people is just as misguided. We need to repair the broken state of mental healthcare support in this country. We need to recognize mental health illness as a category of distinct DISEASES that individuals and their families need support for (through proper healthcare services) in order to overcome difficulties their own disease presents them. As a society, we need to begin to recognize the complicated layers which inherently surround social issues and understand that altering one aspect is not the way we can best solve our problems.
There would be fewer madmen with guns if you made it harder for them to obtain guns.
Not really. They'd just find some other way to kill people. Bombs, perhaps. Maybe poison, or a good, old fashioned sword.
The 2nd Amendment refers to a regulated militia. What regulated militia did he belong to?
An education in morality would be less expensive.
Please tell me. Who's morality should we indoctrinate people with? Yours? Since I'm assuming you and your minions are all-knowing and should be so gracious to educate the brainless, toothless masses who believe in standing up for themselves. Believe it or not, there are those out there who are not waiting for big brother to do everything just so we can keep watching Jersey Shore without interruption.
The amazing thing about this country (The U.S.) is that both sides of this argument can actually live together peacefully as each side chooses. Things begin to get scary, though, when one side (either side) decides their way is the only way and tries to protect the ignorant "dissidents" by removing rights dear to them (2nd amendment or Roe V. Wade) in the name of "common sense".
Do not force your version of morality on me and I won't force mine on you.
For those who are so easily swayed by "facts" (which are actually nothing more than skewed statistics), ask Mr. Zakaria how many car related deaths occurred in Zermatt, Switzerland. A town at the foot of the Matterhorn where cars are banned (at least they were in 1996). Maybe if it is lower there than in the U.S., we should adopt their policy, ban cars and take it one step further by relying on government provided universal transportation.
How surprising this has turned into a discussion regarding stats on automatic weapons vs. non automatic weapons...the article was about GUNS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!! Are you surprised when these tragedies take place?? What is it every six months in the US now??? As a Canadian, when we hear news of another shooting, another massacre, it is sadly not surprising for us anymore. It's about time someone at CNN has the courage and the brains to bring up gun control. It is astounding that in the past week that the discussion of gun control has not been brought up. Start focusing on the root of the problem GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. I do not believe you are Canadian.
2. Canadians have the same problem with shootings. The only difference is that there is less Canadians and therefore less shootings.
Sara, you are lying through your teeth...How about the 2 dead and 19 injured @ a toronto BBQ less than 10 days ago...oh yea, how about the shooting @ a toronto mall back in early june?
@ Sara – Hahahahahahaha
Funny. Now get back in line, sheep.
I find it silly that people keep blaming guns for all the crimes being committed. A gun like any other inanimate object is a tool. Guns don't commit the crime, people do. A man that is intent on hurting others will always find a way with or without a gun. That person can use other tools to do so.Society nowadays tend to blame everything and everyone else for it's problems and rarely put the blame on the culprit. Our society has lost it's values. We are a society of reality tv, entertainment, sports and distractions. We as a society need to focus on our families, values, education, responsibility and the other traits that made this country great.
The right to bear arms must have been very important to our founding fathers for them to make it the 2nd Amendment. They recognized the rights of its citizens to be able to defend themselves from all form of threats. People tend to take their rights for granted and does not think that they will be taken from them. Don't easily surrender your rights because once you lose them they may not be easy to regain. Expecting the police to protect you all the time is ridiculous especially when they are under-staffed and under budget. They are trying their best, but it is impossible for them to be everywhere and on time. In their absence, who will you depend on to protect you and your loved ones?
Blame the culprit and make them accountable.
Stop Alan.
OH YEAH LET LISTEN TO THE ARAB MUSLIM AND DISARM,I dont think so and I would rather have guns then the standard of living in any other country. Out of all the places in the world we have the worst gun violence. Where did these ridiculous notions come from. Lets look at Syria, Congo,Rwanda,Iran,Egypt,etc etc and you want us to believe ITS TIME you have an agenda and not a good one. I wont tell anyone why I like firearms I refuse to dignify the ridiculous questions being thrown around. There was 3 people stabbed yesterday in my town we going to ban knives next. No the forefathers had to fight tyranny for freedom thats why they included it in our Declaration of Independence. Thats good enough for me
NO MUSLIM ARAB TELL ME ITS TIME TO DISARM NEVER,YOU HAVE AN AGENDA, FAREED
W you are most likely a Muslim yourself. I can tell your B S. Your imam would be proud.
Amen! The muslims did say they would infiltrate us by any way/means neccesary. I don't trust Fareed. did he grow up here? does he know our history and what we are made of. I grew up in Lexington Mass. so I have a pretty good idea how we gained independence and what made us a great nation. Minutemen need to go back into service
yes all the countries with fewer guns are also communist and dictatorships..good call AL
there's is only 1 thing responsable for what happen in Co and it has nothing to do with gun control or hollywood movies, it has to do with James holmes, he is the only thing responsable for what happen.
people like you Fareed Zakaria, want's to take something like this and make this political, lets put a ban on cars seeing how they kill thousand a years,
Why don't you start the premise ....stopping a madman WITHOUT a gun rather than a madman with a gun. That's pretty warp in your thinking.
Fareed did a poor job of research and chose to ignore the obvious facts. If someone breaks into my house, I will shoot them with my firearm. Now Fareed's little Atlantic graph attempts to represent that as a bad homicide or preventable death if we just have more gun laws. WRONG WRONG WRONG That's a justified homicide and that is exactly the outcome we want. We wanted law abiding citizens to have the ability to protect themselves and save themselves from becoming victims of the most heinous crimes. Anyone that thinks gun restrictions are great have only Chicago or DC to look to for proof of their failed ideology.
@dolapoidris...your thinking is quite warped. No wonder we have problems in this country. "To stop a madman with a gun is another man with a gun??" Duh...what about preventing that nut from getting that gun. Hello !!! Definitely warped thinking.
Who cares what the rest of the world does or has?
Interesting statics used in the article, however of the gun related deaths and injuries, you left out a VERY important piece of information; how many of the guns used to commit these acts were legally obtained?
I know the tragedy in Colorado is the horrible exception to the rule. I am sure you will find that the vast majority of firearms utilized in crimes are illegally obtained by the people who use them.
However, I also realize it is nearly impossible to get anyone to change their personal views on this issue no matter which side they stand on. But I implore anyone to investigate ALL of the facts before forming an extremely polarized decision. It is possible to have opposing opinions with people and not turn argumentative if you keep the topic fact based and do not take it as a personal attack on yourself or make personal attacks on someone else.
The facts or statistics are correct, unfortunately he has misinterpreted them, as he said violent crimes in the USA have gone down at record levels. These numbers coincide with the increase in Americans carrying concealed carry firearms, which in turn makes the bad guys more fearful of there prey. Hence the result, simple cause and effect. The problem with there gun violence statistic is that it counts all gun violence, even when people defend themselves. Theres no exclusion when grandma shoots a thief in the night, it gets counted an added to the gun violence statistic. Why can't people just be honest and argue there points on there own merit. instead of graying the lines and hiding behind falsely interpreted statistics. unbiased journalism is extinct. Dont be a sheep, think for yourself.
No more comments are being accepted, so it is necessary to post a reply. .... Isn't it fascinating to note that Fareed Zakaria is an Indian-born Muslim whose father is an Islamic scholar. I can well imagine he would like to see America disarmed.
This bung plug can go back to middle east and spew his POV to Syria
The ignorance and lack of tolerance has me shaking my head in shame at the idiocy of the "American" replies. First off, the only true "Americans" are the Native Americans. This country was created by people from every country and every walk of life coming to a common land, taking it by force. Are you proud of that?
The 2nd Ammendment was created at a time when this country was in its infancy and was needed to be "policed" and protected by its citizens, or militia. SInce there was little in the way of a true army, it was necessary for our forefathers to form militias to protect what we wanted in a nation. Times have changed. That is no longer needed. Everyone needs to READ the second ammendment. It has no bearing on the US today. Ammendments were made just for that reason. To be ammended when it needs to be. However, the NRA and the powers of the gun manufacturers prevent that from happening. Money. Gun toting lemmings, with little or no education still think that it is their "god given right" to own as many guns as possible. This ignorance is evident to the rest of the world, just not to some of the narrow minded citizens of the US.
Mike, you need to read more. You need to understand other people, in other countries. India has the second largest population. The people of that country have never started a war. They have defended their country a few times from invaders, most recently from Pakistan. India is a melting pot of different religions. While thay have had their share of uprisings between those religions, usually started by zealots and fundamentalists from both sides, they live in tolerance of one another. Zakaria is an Indian, who happens to come from a family who practices Islam. So what. If you call yourself a "christian", then should everyone use that against you, since millions have been killed in the name of that religion over the past 2000 years?
Yeah, right. How did that work out in Colorado, or W. Virginia, or for that matter, any of the mass shootings that have plagued this country in the past 20 years?
How does gun control work in Chicago?
Suck on those statistics.
@Harlon Katz
Actually, most of the guns used to commit crimes in Chicago and other big cities with gun control come from OUT OF STATE. For example, New York State has estimated that as much as 90% of the guns in criminal acts in New York City come from states WITHOUT gun control and are smuggled into the city. So suck on that!
@ask3000 – you must not be too bright, because you just proved the point – CRIMINALS will get guns no matter what. CRIMINALS do not obey laws, what makes brain children like you believe they will obey gun control laws. They tried it, it did not work.
Well, if it helps you sleep better at night think of it this way. American gun owners sit as a detterent to all the many enimies our country makes as it bullies the world with psychopathic tendancies. We put people in office who are unqualified to manage a stop and go and we wonder why things go crazy. I do not refer to the president specificly. This is what America is most known for, not our guns.
Fact, violent crime in America is going down, not up.
Fact Britain has higher per capita crime rates than the US in almost every other catagory, one might say because they have no weapons to defend themselves.
Inner City Violence and gang wars account for very large portions of our crimes. It seems unlikely they will go down even if they had no weapons.
Crime in general is going down - but NOT gun violence. Gun violence is no less today than it was last year or the year before. You clearly didn't read the article. I might add that these statistics are not touted by Fareed alone. You can find them cited all over the place - by liberals, centrists and conservatives.
So you think is right to sell a gun to a person that is mentally ill,, good going genious...
2 wrongs don't make a right. Live by the gun die by the gun...
I have shot over a million rounds and have yet to kill a human being. Having access to personal firearms is the last defense against criminals – and tyranny. It is this kind of thinking (gun control) that will eventually lead to a populace that are sheep and fodder for our leaders. Instead of the number of gun deaths – how about the number of rounds shot vs persons harmed? THAT would be a better statistic. Keep in mind – we are also the FREEST nation on Earth. Take away the firearms – we step down the path of totalitarianism. These tragedies MUST be stopped....but NOT at the price of the 2nd amendment.
Yassar Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize after being head of P.L.O;when asked for a quote he said "Always put your faith in a revolver."
I live in Boston, nearly every gun death here happens within a 3 mile radius. Most are drug related and 75% of the fatalies have a prison record.
And you say this is not sociological?
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
– Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
I agree with you, more people are killed by drunk drivers and there are laws about driving perhaps we need to restrict the number of drivers in the world or do away with cars and go back to horses but then lots of people were also killed by horses.
How many people have been killed foolishly over religion
Exactly Emil...we tried banning alcohol–this gave birth to gangs & organized crime and we realized then that "prohibitions don't work". So what did they do? make alcohol legal but with tight controls (liquor licensing, age restrictions, public intoxication & drunk driving laws). We have thousands of drunk driving & alcohol related illness deaths (liver diseases, alcoholism etc). Is there talk of bringing back prohibition? NO.
People are just now beginning to grasp that in regards to the 'war on drugs" –people to the right of the spectrum simply have to realize that the drug war fuels violence from profit motivation and their insistance to being "tough on drugs" means that another group wants to get "tough on guns". One cannot pick & choose prohibitions that don't work based on their political leanings. The left leaning folks will have to realize that guns are not going away as any attempt at a prohibition will create a black market–along with that will come cheap sheet metal machine guns that really ARE fully automatic with NO safeties etc.
Look at the statistics of murder rates in Chicago from 2001 to 2012. Over 5,000 people have been murdered by gun violence. Look at the same troop deaths in Afghanistan (WAR ZONE) over the same period over 2,000 deaths. Chicago has strict gun laws just like New York and Washing D.C. So can someone please answer the question, will tighting down on gun laws really fix these problems?
I agree we need to allow conceal carry into more establishments and have strict training as well as background checks that allow law abiding citizens to carry. Now, I am wondering do these figures include law enforcement and the military. Also, what about illegal guns that are not registered, are they counted? I don’t see how you could every get an accurate representation of these statistics. A couple more things, the Switzerland law requires all inactive members of the military to keep a government weapon with a predetermined number of rounds at their residence. This discourages say Germany from invading them, the weapons are strictly regulated though. And buying an automatic weapon takes a couple months along with a few thousand dollars; it does not however require a class 3. It is very easy to convert a weapon to fully automatic and while its highly illegal, do you think the bad guys care?
Any first year stat student knows that correlation does not equal causation. As Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Once someone attaches a number to something, it is suppose to give their point some level of legitimacy. Unfortunately, the stat they use is typically just the side that meets their preconcieved notions.
Missing the woods for the trees by arguing about Fareeds lack of knowledge of automatic weapons. The fact of the matter remains – USA has the most heavily armed civilian population in the world. What is the fascination with gun ownership. There are various ways of controlling gun crimes but restricting the availability and ownership definitely is one of the best ways. You don't need to be an Einstein to deduce that.
What part of ciminals don't follow the laws, don't you understand? Stay in your country and butt out, of US policy, it's none of your business. You want my guns? Come pry them from my dead, cold hands.
And what country would invade the "most heavily armed civilian population in the world"?
What government would try to tyranize the "most heavily armed civilian population in the world"?
Point made.
A great example I use is Germany where the last assassination attempt a crazed individual had to jump across 3 rows and try and stab a political figure with a knife. Armed guards (machine guns) control airports and yes, you guessed it, the authorities carry the machine guns not the citizens thus out gun the bad guys. Common folks let’s get real. What in the hell business does any one have owning a handgun that can shoot consecutively 30 rounds (Gifford) or a rifle that can shoot off 150 rounds in a half a minute (Aurora). I could go on but if you have half a brain and actually consider the facts as written above by Fareed you need to concede that guns without gun control kill.
Marc W. Andersen, Ph.D., RAC
I guess that means that knives should also be banned?... It is about as absurd as taking away a gun, because it takes an EVIL PERSON to use that knife or gun to kill someone. Law abiding citizens ARE NOT the ones with guns killing people. Twenty years from now when this country is talking Chinese and living under communist rule, people will look back and say," this all could not have happened without all of the gun control legislation that was forced upon us."
Another foreigner who wants to see us lose our gun rights. The only reason cnn is publishing this now is because of this bogus UN small arms treaty which is geting voted on soon. Globalists know that they cannot take our country over unless we as a nation are disarmed. They also know that criminals and not guns kill people. They use guns as a vehicle to take away our rights. Many people can't or won't see this as being true.
The difference between a sniper rifle and my favorite deer gun is the brain connected to the finger on the trigger.
And the color. The sniper rifle is matte black. Thats how the media knows its evil.
"Guns don't kill people – people kill people" Well fine, if that's true, so is this one: guns don't keep people safe, PEOPLE keep people safe.
It's beyond time for stricter gun controls. No one "needs" an automatic weapon. People legally owning handguns should admit to themselves they only have that gun so they can shoot someone with it. There is no other real use for a handgun.
if guns cause crime,matches cause forest fires.
Katie, go back and stand in line like a good drone.
How about this: Instead of taking our rights away, which you indicate that that is what is needed. Why don't you move to a country like China who kills their own people on a daily basis in order to keep the other people "in line" with their communist ideals because they have "gun control" instead of actually suggesting our whole country change to suit your needs. This system has worked for all of these years, but all of a sudden, we need to have our gun rights taken away. I served in the US NAVY, I know what this world is ALL About because I have been and lived in foreign countries around the world. We do NOT realize how our system has shielded us from a whole heap of trouble and disparity just waiting off of our coast willing to strike as soon as we let down our guard. Katie, how would you like to see your children in bondage because no one could help you defend them?
Another anti Second Amendment article written by a non-American.
Funny how the rest of the world knwos what is best for the greatest nation on Earth.
Sorry, typo,
"knows"
FYI, Fareed Zakaria is an American citizen.
Guns are not going anywhere, they are a fact of American life.
you mean an idiot like you? because you can make your instant law and execute than trusting a government set law to prohibit before it happens.
The only time to have stopped this one was before not during the shooting. How many bragging how they would have pulled their CW and taken him out have EVER been shot AT? It's not the range people..you are confused like everyone else, ducking and praying when you hear the first round go by your head.
II would personally like to know how many homicides occur that are related to illegally obtained firearms and/or firearms that are not legally registered versus homicides with firearms that are legally obtained and registered. Just because somebody owns a firearm doesn't mean they're going to kill somebody. I think aside from laws regarding the purchase and registration of guns possibly being a little lax, what about the laws regarding punishment of those that kill somebody else with a firearm? How many murderers walk free from jail after a short sentence? Or even just life in prison? If our punishment would be more severe for even first time offenders, like instant death penalty, then perhaps that would be a better preventative measure. If you walk into a convenience store kill the clerk(s) and steal the $100 from the register then right after court you get sentenced to death and walked straight to the damn electric chair. Done.
It is not the analytical component of Fareed's piece on gun control; it is the disappointing and surprising thoughtlessness and disrpect for the advances we have made in understanding and removing the stigma of mental illness. I am in no way competent to assess whether the recent tradegy in Aurora was the result of a deeply dysfunctional apparently sociopathic mind, but I do know that Fareed referring to these civilian mass murders in America as a result of "nutcases" is far below the otherwise erudite, sensitive and insightful bar Farreed has brought to televised reporting. Using a flip word like "nutcase" resurrects and builds stigma re: serious mental health diseases. I just expect more from Fareed in using language as a tool to educate not regress.
Fahreed's use of "nutcase" to describe sociopaths and other disturbed individuals was unfortunate. However, the fact remains that such individuals have occurred and will continue to occur in every society. The question is, how does society deal with these people?
American society does it this way:
Ignore the mentally ill and hope they go away.
Provide them with exposure to excessive violence on TV and in movies.
Make sure that they have the means available to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.
No wonder the rest of the world views us as barbaric and a threat to civilization.
Well where were they.......We don't have those laws yet..
"KISS" with an IQ of 60, it is not fair for you to comment on a piece written by Fareed. You are much smarter than he is.
"FACT: Semi-automatic guns can be turned into FULL-AUTOMATIC in about 10-miniutes... either by purchasing a $50.00 kit on the Internet or if you know your way around guns, by anyone with a little basic knowledge..."
Which ones? I have AR15's, and that is simply not true about that gun. Please enlighten us as to how exactly this is done. I'm not saying it can't, but let's don't get loose with the facts here. Be specific. Civillian AR-15's can NOT be converted without an entirely new lower receiver. I can't speak for an AK, however. And by the way, AR15's are VERY popular and well suited for hunting. That's what I use mine for, with success.
One more thing: FACT–These madmen go to places where they are confident no one will be armed. Too bad everyone in Aurora obeyed the no firearms rule in the theater. (Except the bad guy. Funny how they don't follow laws or rules.)
Jim..let me preface this by saying I'm an FFL holder (03 Curio & relics) and a CCW holder here in AZ. There are "strap-on" conversion kits that manipulate the trigger–one popular gun show item here in AZ is the "Hellfire Trigger Control" mechanism and there are a few others that are made a bit different. What they do is allow the unpracticed person to do what is known as "bump fire". If you are adept at getting the feel for your trigger you can manipulate the gun as follows WITHOUT the add-ons: You pull the trigger and the gun fires..the recoil pushes the gun back and you push it forward against the recoil to meet the trigger resting at that sweet spot of release–bada bada bada. Google "bump fire AR15" or bump fire AK47 and you will see youtube videos of semi autos ripping through ammo and it's all perfectly legal as the BATF cannot confiscate your trained finger. All that being said, the civilian semi-autos are NOT made for the stress and your rifle just might turn into a hand grenade if you catch my drift–but you & I know that as we're gun guys.
I disagree. First, the obtained statistics you have obtained in large part, come from countries that are not free and are controlled by the government. Second: As a police officer, I have responded to far more car accidents than shootings, resulting in far more deaths, injuries and property damage (to other than the vehicles). Are we going to ban cars? DUI's became a political hot ticket to trumpet political careers years ago, though I never heard any mention of stricter licensing and required training. Where were you and where are you when criminals use vehicles to commit crimes?
Guns in America are really a double edged sword.
You want to pass stricter gun LAWS. And you expect the criminals to obey the new gun laws while they break other laws?? The Laws will only affect those who respect and obey the laws.......the Criminals will always get their guns. Just look at the brilliant Fast and Furious program carried out by the Obama administration.
I am tired of hearing people say "criminals don't obey laws". Yeah, criminals don't obey laws that's why we have trials and punishment. If we follow that argument to it's logical end we should not have any laws at all since criminals are going to break them anyway.
You are a fine writer but this is yet another example of 2 minute journalism... trying to provide a 'yes no' answer to a complex situation, namely if there is a fast and true correlation between gun laws and gun deaths, there should be next to no gun deaths in Illinois, Massachusetts and California while those are among the states with the highest per-capita murder rates. Chicago in particular is totally out of control and probably has the highest murder rate of any major metropolitan area.
So a narcistic idiot packing heat in a movie theater "THINKS" another person is on the arrack and whips out his concealed weapon starts shooting at that person and another whips his weapon out thinking that person is an assailant and shoots him etc. etc. Showdown at the OK corral. REALLY??
Why would someone THINK that a crazed gunman is killing people and shooting up the place?
Assuming he's same, the only reason would be, because a crazed gunman IS killing people and shooting up the place!
There are millions of CCW permitted people in the nation, and people have been carrying weapons since the country began. Yet your specific scenario has NEVER happened. Wonder why that is?
I think the author should look up international murder rates..Many Gun Controlled European Countries have murder rates right up there with the Gun Toting Crazy Americans...LOL I would soon have a gun when a 300lb wants to come in my house with his bare hands and hurt me or my wife or on the street, God crated ma Colt made us equal. People Kill People Guns are tools, knifes are tool rocks are tools...sometimes so are authors
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. If a law-abiding citizen had a weapon in Aurora, maybe the death toll would have been a little lower.
This guy had something like 50 homemade grenades. With or without gun control he was committing mayhem on that night.
That is just not true.
New York and Chicago and LA all have strict gin control laws .......... but they have majot crime statistics. What the guy in the article does not show is that the crimes are committed by criminals ..... who would not pay attention to the laws anyway.......... majority of gun crimes are committed by people who are second and third time offenders ,,,,,,,,,, apply the laws we have .. and we will not nee any new ones ...... last point ............. look at the countries with less guns ...... how many are free, how many have been overran by other countries ................. we have not ............. because we all have guns.
The term assault weapon was first used by gun control advocates to evoke emotional rasponses of fear and anger in people. Technically, many guns used for hunting and target shooting are considered assault weapons (multi-capacity) and therein lies the problem. If gun control advocates want to ban "assault weapons", they will literally take most weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I have a .22 rifle (the lowest caliber or size bullet) I use for target practice. It can hold up to ten rounds per magazine. I could LEGALLY carry as many magazines as I want so therefore have the ability to kill up to say 100 people with my gun. The only difference between my and the Aurora killer is that he is a nutcase.
I picture Fareed Zakaria sitting in a movie theatre with his wife and children if he has any, and a crazy monster walks in and starts chopping heads off with a short sword. Zakaria stands up and clicks his heels and he and his family are transported back home to the safety of their living room and the monster is gone.
What happened in Colorada is unquestionably a tragedy, but look at the map of civilian gun ownership. Where do rogue "militia" men and anti or pro government terrorists roam the streets killing indescriminately? This doesn't happen in America or most west European countries.
Korea takes first gold as a female wins shooting sport and U.S. needs gun control? De Palma team was once best in the world and target sports were more popular than baseball,American's learned in gym class! "Those who would trade freedom for a temporary sense of security,deserve neither" Benjamin Franklin.
Mr. Fareed doesn't discuss that Americans are far better off than most of these countries as well. and don't bring in Belgium, Iceland etc. as having higher standards of living. IF they had the amount of citizens we have they'd be in the dumps, but because they control population and immigration, they can have a functioning social agenda.
@Fareed. Your statistics and map are disingenuous. Dead is dead no matter how you are murdered. A clearly more valid comparison would be to look at overall homicide rates in each country. When you do so you will find that the US is somewhere in the middle and that many of the gun control countries are way ahead in the homicide rate.
Lastly, adjust the statistics for deaths related to gangs and drugs and you will find that the homicide rate by firearms in the US is actually pretty low. Do you honestly think gun control laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
The idea of using laws to control outlaws has more problems with basic logic than I can begin to point out here. What seems to be escaping these news pundits is that many of these mass murderers, the Colorado murderer included, also have explosives as their weapon. If we somehow, magically, get these individuals to actually follow the new laws, they will simply change weapons to accomplish the same ends. What isn't being discuss, that needs to be discussed, is that the mental health system in the U.S. is what is broken. There were clear signs of a psychotic disorder, yet the law prevents mental health providers (what few exist these days) from protecting the public. Fix this problem and we will reduce violence exponentially.
amen
Wow our news is posting charts from 2007... Using a survey which requires truth of the person being interviewed as your facts! I think you and CNN should check your facts before posting false articles. Maybe look at the facts, compare gun crimes with illegal guns vs gun crimes with legal guns. Let's start with that!!
CNN, Allowing your journalists to post this is non-american.
I spent 5 minutes reading responses to your article and it's more than obvious that people take you for a leftist moron. I sell gold, silver, and high end currency. Do you really believe the police will respond in time "IF" I can hit my panic button? All of us do not live in larger, more violent cities, like NY,LA, or Miami. We live in suburbia,such as Aurora CO, and other small towns with a police force of 4 or 5 men. Do you think they could have stopped this tragedy. What do you want, a soldier at every corner? Move to China then. I've had a CC permit for 3 years, never had to pull it, hopefully won't. But if my life or another (including your Butt) was in danger of being killed, I think you might change your mind. NOW, why don't you interview those in the internet cafe, who's live we saved by a man with a CC permit and ask them how they feel?
The problem isn't what type of guns are being used. The problem is uncontrolled access. If guns could be bought only in registered gun stores (not via mail order or in gun shows) and buyers had to provide picture ID's, it should be possible to weed out a lot of the nut cases, gang bangers, etc.
what are you talking about? NO ONE can buy firearms over the internet without going thru an FFL and completing the NICS check. It's been this way for years!
LOL... your ignorance is showing today. REALLY SHOWING.
T Keller–I have a federal Firearms license–this allows me to purchase over the internet. Without this permit , I could still buy the gun BUT it would have to be shipped to a local FFL holder who would then have to fill out a 4473 transfer form and do a background check on me before allowing me to take possession of it. I would have to pay for the gun up front to the original out of state seller and a transfer fee of $25-$40 to the local licensee who does the paperwork on me. Any time I deal with private party sellers at gun shows I've been asked for my state ID/drivers license and we do a private bill of sale. It protects both parties. I can prove that I did NOT own the gun before a certain point in time in case it was a recycled crime weapon and the seller can prove that he sold the gun in good faith and did not own it after a point in time in case it's found later at a crime scene and the police are tracing ownership. Nobody can just order a gun–that went bye bye in 1964 after JFK was killed with a mail order rifle. Once upon a time there were no such things as "gun shops"–guns were sold in auto parts stores , hardware stores etc. Abercrombie & Fitch sold guns in their habedashery dept (mens accessories)
Laws are made for honest law abiding citizens. The people who murder, whether mass or single, are not honest law abiding citizens. Now the real question is how to spot someone who is not honest and law abiding prior to an illegal act. Once this is done, how do you stop people from turning in the neighbor as they did during Hitler's time. There again, how to spot an honest person.......
I find it interesting that our Pakistani reporter has forgotten to analyize Washington DC- the one place in the US with the most strict gun laws and has the highest rate of gun violence in America. How does Fareed explain that fact- I mean he made the statement that we are dealing with facts aren't we- or is this the typical editorial where the writer only focuses on the facts that support thier own conclusion?- oh wait this is CNN....
It's too late to try and take the guns away. You can stop making them in the USA but then they will be imported illegally.
Prevention is key. In most countries around the civilized world there is better "in country" security.
For instance. In most South American countries and Central America there is a presence of security. There are security guards at Burger King and Dairy Queen. It isn't to protect against "murder" or "mass murder". It simply is protection again thieves. And the security is armed with machine guns and protective vests.
If the theater was built like most of those in South America the "joker" would have not gotten in.
The sad fact is, "911 did not wake up anyone in the USA". And "911" did not shock the world as the US Government wants everyone to believe. It is fact that "911" was expected and it was a matter of time.
The USA is the biggest target in the world. The USA has a huge problem.
Take a good look at the demographics of the USA. Who lives in the USA. Who owns the guns. Who has most to gain over a war with the US Government?
The real threat comes from the south and not the middle east.
Spanish Speaking Americans know what is coming. Get ready white people.
Don't be so naive. Did you know that the government collects more information than what is stated on that application for a firearm?
The big war is coming. It will be a soft war. A war with guns but very few bullets fired. The gangs are getting larger and more sophisticated with their finances and organization practices. They are merging across the country. These "gangs" are not to be called gangs anymore. They are militias that is scaring the white man. There are too many for the governments to monitor and still monitor the rest of the world.
Put simple. History repeats itself. Compared to the rest of the world the USA is young. It hasn't had time to fail, but the time is coming. It's obvious.
"We are the world’s most heavily-armed civilian population. One out of every three Americans knows someone who has been shot."
Yeah, i bet a ton, if not most, of those are military vets.
This debate comes up whenever a sociopath goes on a rampage. This year, since it's an election year, we get more debates. Had there not been a tradgedy brought about by a sociopath, none of us would be talking about it.
Califnornia has some of the strictest gunlaws in the country. Guess what? Criminals still use guns every day to comit crime. They use cars too. Knives. Fists, feet, bottles... The list could go on and on and on. You know what most of the law abiding citizens in CA do when the state decides to ban a weapon they own? They ship it to someone they know living out of state. I know many people in the security field. People that teach firearm classes for armed security, they also teach concealled carry. Most of the ones i know in the sacramento area have storage in nevada for thier "illigal" firearms. So now we have an environment where law abiding citizens feel they need to skirt the laws. And your criminals just keep the ones they have or steal. They dont turn them in.
Maybe if a few other people in those situations had firearms, and were trained in their use, you would have fewer deaths. I'm not trying to diminish what happened. The people that were injured and killed were done so by someone, that had they had no guns, might well have rented a giant uhual and drove it through the crowd while they were all gathered around waiting to get in. Someone who wants to comit mass murder is going to find a way to do it. Guns, or no guns.
Unless the madmen never had the gun to begin with. We need the break the cycle of more people have more guns so we need more and more deadly guns to counter the threat to protect our self as this is a never ending and downward spiral based on fear. Not the evolution of a civil society that we should aspire to be.
These people can't think ahead. It's not possible. It's all "now" with crazy romanticized hollywood-style what ifs.
Zakaria understands even less than Daniel Webster. what a bunch of crap!!
.this network has their people working overtime trying to spread doubt on America's Second Amendment.
.
I agree. Only people who follow the laws about gun control are the law abiding people. These gun contrll laws only help to reduce the amount of guns they can have If they didn't have the strict restriction, someone in the audience may have had a gun to kill the shooter. But as you seen, no one in the audience had one because of gun control laws.
It is not the gun that kills a person. It is the person wielding it with bullets.
A madman without a gun is much easier to stop than one with a gun-Common Sense.
9/11 was an inside job. google building 7
The Aurora Killings represent the convergence of the glorification of extreme violence in the media and the over access to the tools of extreme violence in real life. Aurora, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and too many others. Including kids finding guns lying around shooting each other by accident cause they saw it on TV or in the movies.
And the gun lobby evokes the 2nd amendment. But the right to possess weapons of extreme violence to commit mass murder is not a protected right.
Your data is not good.
What you have is that the USA is REPORTING gun sales in such a way you can look it up and use the data in your pretty pictures.
You aren't comparing apples to apples.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison
ikr yyou are so smart
Fareed Zakaria is not a real american by birth. So how can he critic our foundation of society? The 1st ammendment allows him, a foreigner, to say whatever he wants. The second ammendment allows me, a citizen by birth, to bear arms.
Or make sure he doesn't have a gun but that is just crazy talk. If we had psychiatric evaluations beofre buying fire arms no Republican would ever be able to buy one!!
The gun violence in the US is a result of two factors. The war on drugs and the ability of a mentally challenged person to attain a weapon. Fix those 2 problems and the gun violence would be on par with the rest of the civilized world.
Nothing other than making sure evry state can carry conceal.
The mass-murdering tyrants of the past all believed in "gun control".
An armed citizenry is the only thing which will help prevent tyranny. And if you don't understand that, you deserve to be enslaved. Me and my loved ones will continue to fight for our liberties and freedom. God Bless the USA. Peace.
I agree !!
Let's go back to old west times then.
uhh marie your slow becayse dont nobody wanna go back to the western times uhh whats wrong with you r u dum?
uhh marie your slow because dont nobody wanna go back to the western times uhh whats wrong with you r u dum?
Also, I would like to choose whether I can own a gun to protect my family and choose whether or not we will have health care. Oddly enough I have chosen to do both of these things. Key word....Choice
The murderer in Colorado was quite capable of performing mayhem, as evidenced by the bomb rigging of his apartment – If there had been someone else in the theatre, it is quite likely this horror would have prevented, or at least minimized !! Gun-banners have a psychological problem, and need help !!
He he, yes, we should all walk around with guns. That is the way to resolve this issue.
Serious restrictions on the sale of ammo could help a lot along with jail time for possessing an automatic weapon, hand grenades, land mines, rpgs, etc.
All societies have a weakling class that is frightened of everyone else and tries to compensate for their inadequacy. The NRA specializes in marketing gun products to those people, and very successfully. The entire gun culture is a creation of the manufacturers, the NRA is only the mouthpiece. If you want to have some proof, just look into how much the executive staff at the NRA ia paid.
I will gladly give up my guns, just as soon as they take them away from the criminals. Gun control hurts no one except law-abiding citizens. You think the criminals care whether they get their guns legally or not? To say that gun control prevents gun crime is an absolute lie. The threat of me being armed deters a criminal from trying to rob me.
I am the owner of romenywhitehouse2012.com obamaforthewhitehouse.com and patrioticcitizen.com contact dadslilstinker@gmail.com if interested in owning any of the above
Thank you,
Oliver
That map showing the countries with higher rates of gun ownership is the best argument imaginable for the right to own guns.
Look at all the countries and areas with low gun ownership, by and large, backward repressed areas and areas with oppressive central govts. The middle east, China, Russia. higher gun ownership rates in the US, Canada, much parts of Europe.
Fewer guns, more dictators.
I'll take the occasional nutjob over the daily grind of an oppressive government, for life, any day.
When you give individuals more freedom, some of them will use it to do amazing things for their fellow man, like Steve Jobs, so, of course, with the freedom to do great things comes the freedom to do the opposite. Build better societies, better people. That is the way to reduce evil.
Repressive control efforts, of guns are anything else, is at best a poor patch job, at worst, a cure that is worse than the disease.
Yep, thats why right after work I am going to get me some tanks, rocket launchers, submarines, fighter jets, drones and a couple of aircraft carriers and nukes for good measure so my government never chooses to repress me. If this is your fear, I've got news for you in that you will always be out gunned.
areed Zakaria can show all the stats that he wants but at the end of the day, how many crimes have been committed by people that have legally bought and posses firearms? The answer is none. I think a reed Zakaria should move to England where he can feel safer.
I totally AGREE! If more people were armed these idiots could be stopped. The police only take names after the crime was committed.
Look at the nature of these responses, and they dont even realize it, Americans are totally out of thier minds about guns, dwelling on irrelevencies and not confronting the real issues presented, it doesnt freaking MATTER that the M-16 the killers use only fires with each trigger pull, it's still 60 round/min, there is something very seriously wrong with Americans and their guns. No, I dont think you people will ever step back and see it.
Exactly....the fella gave up as soon as he was confronted by another person with a gun (police). Perhaps (speculation here) all that body armor was just for show and had someone in the theater been able to shoot back, the loss of life would not have been so great.
The bottom line is that, regardless of what you want to believe, this Nation is THIS Nation due to civilian ownership of firearms and their willingness/ability to use them in the face of governmental tyranny. That, ladies and gents, is the ONLY reason the Second Amendment exists.
Amen Mr.Zakaria. Finally looking at the real problem here. His facts speaks volumes. The US is gun slinging society and we should all be ashamed. This psycho even got bullets without a background check and a large volume. Until the gun laws change and automatic weapons are taken off the streets, these shooting will most definitely continue as they have since columbine.
So stop making it so easy for madmen to buy guns. In other countries where gun ownership is far lower, so is the incidence of murder and suicide. Either address the point of the article, and the statistics, or stop posting.
And, no, he could not have used a bomb any more than a pedophile could molest a dog, rather than a child, to satisfy his sick urges. In countries where there are stricter gun laws, you don't see an equivalent number suicides and homicides by bomb. So, the whole bomb thing is disproven and I don't want any more posting about it.
A lot of dead Iraqis, Afghanis and Israelis would probably disagree with you.
When you have a group i funnelling guns to drug dealers, wht do you expect? And by the way, make sure the President actualy knows the weapon used in the crime...shows what a moron he is.
The President is not a "moron" for not being a gun-obsessed redneck like you. If you pull the trigger and the gun fires the round, ejects the casing, and chambers the next round, then it's automatic. I don't care what you and the editors of Guns and Ammo call it. It doesn't have a bolt that must be manually cycled, so it's automatic. F off.
Should spend a moment viewing Syria and Libia, guns would have made a difference. Americans, simply put, do not trust their government or any other.
This is so true. If someone in the audience would have been carrying a gun they could have stopped this crazy guy sooner. It would have saved peoples lives.
Isn't the point of the article that it would be easier to stop a madman from getting a gun, than to stop him after he opens fire? How about just keeping madmen from getting 100-round magazines? Is there really a rational "self-defense" argument why civilians need access to a 100-round magazine? If we as a nation are too inept to take steps to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, let's at least agree they shouldn't be able to easily acquire such clips. Can we all agree that having 7 people needlessly shot is a little bit better than 70?
So we ban 100-round mags? 99-round mags come on the market and all the existing 100-rounders become more valuable. Net accomplishment? Zero.
Fareed,
I have to ask, how many other countries accurately record gun ownership per capita. I can tell you that the USA is most likely one of maybe 50 that does. 50 is generous, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I find your argument to be intellectually dishonest, you're opinion on gun control was clearly formed before the incident. Whereas, the tragedy is used as more support to a predisposed stance on the issue. I find it disappointing and abhorrent that this garbage is even posted on an international news source, you should be ashamed of yourself.
"The only way to stop a mad man with a gun blah blah"
Yeah because the only thing that would've been better than one guy having a gun in the middle of a dark chaotic crowd of scrambling individuals, would be two guys with a gun...GET REAL! You know what would have been even better? If NO ONE involved had a gun. Just because our founding fathers (who also believed that African Americans should be enslaved, women shouldn't have the right to vote or own property) believed that bearing arms was a right that we should be granted does not deem it a good idea by any means. When one analyzes gun statistics, there is hardly any evidence to conclude that "self-defense" gun use has made us any safer as individuals or as a nation.
To those stating that there are other ways to make weapons (house-hold cleaners etc) so banning guns would be useless, the issue with guns is that you can kill someone on impulse or quick-rage, unlike more calculated mechanisms to commit murder. The other factor is that bleach or whatever, is not created with the INTENTION of someone using it for homicidal purposes, unlike automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
Only people that like to commit crimes have guns. The Bible says to love your neighbor. You can't love that neighbor when you have a gun. Those that have a gun want to shoot their neighbor. People say? I Need that gun for protection. My response was where were all those guns on the day Holmes decided to go on a shooting rampage? See all you gun owners in hades.
You're a nutcase. I own a handgun. I do not 'commit crimes'. 99.9% percent of American gun owners never have, and never will, commit a crime with a gun.
Bring the Bible into it however you like. But if Kind David had guns, you can bet your bottom dollar his army would have been packing.
Oh, great. Another gun "expert"/biased hack-with-a-platform who can't wait to use/abuse the latest hi-tech tools of his profession-computer, internet, cell phones, fax, etc.-to slice and dice the second amendment while blindly hiding behind the presumption that his first amendment rights will always be safe and secure. What a hypocrite.
yeah, like a police officer. everyone else carrying and pulling guns... yeah, that'll make things much safer.
I agree with dolapoidris post. I disagree with Fareed's argument that this is not a psychology matter. Americans drive much more than the rest of the world as well and as a result of having that freedom there are alot of deaths caused by vehicles. In fact I would probably be safe in assuming that the number of vehicle deaths in this country far exceed the deaths caused by firearms probably orders of magnitude greater. Yet the argument from people who share Fareed's ideology on this matter would probably say this is something that happens when so many people are allowed to drive cars. If the goal is to save lives, then banning private ownership of vehicles would save many ,many more lives but is ridiculous as well. Its just the fear of someone jumping out of the bushes with an AK scares these people to death even though they are far more likely to be slaughtered by some 16 year old kid in a Jetta or some 85 year old man in his Oldsmobile and the manner of death is just as horrific especially when they hit some family of five in a minivan head on. Im pretty sure the only reason we are not living in a military dicatatorship today is because 70 Million Americans have firearms. That exceeds the number of soldiers in the standing armies of the rest of the world combined. This should be a source of pride not shame.
The is one Fact that I didn't see in this article. Criminals don't really follow the law. If you add more gun control laws the only people who are it will impact are the law abiding citizens. I am pretty sure there is already a law on the books about not killing people, with a gun or a hammer. If someone is going to commit a crime a law will not stop them from doing so.
This article is a joke. It is based on a SURVEY, not statistics that encompass gun violence and murder by fire arms in general. Horribly deceptive. Gun ownership does not equate to gun violence, and this SURVEY probably encompasses registered gun owners at the exclusion of those who buy guns aside from government approval. Look at this article: http://worldnews.about.com/od/crime/tp/Top-Murder-Rates-In-The-World.htm. The U.S. doesn't even compare to the rest of the Americas, much less the world, when it comes to violent murders, individual and mass murder combined. Stop slanting your articles, CNN.
the facts?????????????? germany has very strict gun laws, a smaller population, and yet more school shootings than the US. Look it up, you will find it to be so. Too bad farid didnt take the time to.
People who don't have access to guns still want people to die so they use bombs, machetes, and chemicals. You're going to tell me that in Africa all the genocide could have been prevented with tighter gun control? Wait! they used machetes to kill. I guess that's a great idea. Then lets take away all knives, guns and then don't forget cars. Oh wait once people get smart and evolve we have to quarantine people from people because this will solve all social violent problems. Look if we want to understand the violence in America we have to look at our social problem along with or pyschotic citizens. We have kids who are bullies, kids who are fat, parents who kills their children and more news about movie stars than economic education. Our problem isn't with guns but ignorant America/world.
A couple of concealed carry permit holders packing in that theater would have drastically reduced the casualty count. Could there be a mistake? sure but not a 70 odd persons getting shot mistake. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Police can't be everywhere at the same time.
Do we really want to start taking advice from a sand rat? I'm sure you would love to have all of our guns gone. Go back where you came from.
gotta love you little Satanist smile
I'd like to suggest a quick course in statistical analysis for CNN journalists–actually for all journalists for that matter. If the rate of gun ownership has gone up from 2000 to 2009 and yet the rate of gun fatalities has remained level, that makes for a per capita decrease in gun-related murders.
The point of Mr. Zakaria's editorial is that we can't ignore facts. Correct. Neither can he.
Likewise, Mr. Zakaria points out that we cannot make up facts. Correct. Neither can he.
Mr. Zakaria suggests that we cannot help the mentally insane, we can only control the public's access to guns. Research proves this to be incorrect. Research has proven time and again that controlling the general population's access to gun ownership does NOT control the criminal sector's access to gun ownership. Further, there is a huge body of science that indicates mental health therapies do in fact work. Why would we pursue Mr. Zakaria's unproven, hypothesis over a scientifically substantiated option. We won't.
Because the other fact that Mr. Zakaria chooses to ignore is that it is that this country is founded on the right of its citizens to bear arms. It is unlikely that pseudo facts perpetrated as hard evidence will change our citizen's position on this matter.
I would have more respect for Mr. Zakaria if he would admit the content of his piece reflected his opinions and not factual evidence that cannot be disputed. His opinions are real. His opinions matter. But they are not based on sound fact and they are "in-fact" lol undermined by the sheer shamefulness that he peddles them as irrefutable evidence.
As Mr Zakaria says, we can argue about the details like how hard it is to get an automatic weapon but the Stats remain the same: We have more guns per 100 people than any other country on the planet and we have more deaths from guns per 100 people than anywhere else on the planet by a country mile. Any questions? This is a very useful website for data:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/
Considering we have a large preponderance of guns, I would say we are remarkably civilized. It is idiotic to talk about the small number of deaths in the USA due to guns compared to the very preventable 30-40 PEOPLE KILLED PER DAY IN THE USA due to DRUNK DRIVERS.
Well said!
"Time to face FACTS" FZ is a "sissy" who invents conclusions from faulty statistics. Can't you for once just act like a man ?
I cannot for the life of me see how people believe all the B.S. in this article! I guess they need to drink more FOOL-AID 4 libs
How about trying to prevent guns from ending up in the hands of madmen in the first place?
Dont any of you find it wierd that this happens right Asthe in is coming out with small arms treaty,kind of like it was ment to stir the pot about firearms, I will say this people guns don't kill people people do you don't take cars away when a drunk driver kills people. The only thing keeping the government at bay is the fact that we are an armed society. Take away the guns (which will never happen) and then see how the govt exercises it's brand new NDAA policies on your unarmed asses,can you say police state. Wake up people
I'm not a fan of fire arms because they project a lethal force for such a large distance. Allows an individual of any mental state to do a lot more damage than one can do otherwise. But I also realize that many people are in favor of this and the argument becomes heated emotional shouting matches. That will never end.
However, I do feel the cost of any economic good should cover all the costs associated with it. Guns and ammo do a lot of damage to humans and other property. We should be taxing ammo/ guns and use the funds to setup a shooting victim recovery fund. I also strongly suspect a majority of the people who own guns would not trust the government to handle this, so we should empower the NRA to collect these levies and make them responsible for all the damage done by weapons.
Its the least we can do for the thousands of people who get injured and maimed by weapons.
You are perfect socialist. Tax everything and give up your rights to the government.. Don't like something , tax it and pass a law..no individual freedom..
All I can say is http://www.uscca.com check it out
OK so the murder rate with firearms in the US is higher than anywhere else. That would be like saying the number of people who strike their thumbs with hammers is highest among carpenters. It does not mean carpenters are more clumsy. Look at real crime statistics for the rest of the world. MURDER -Not handgun murder to get real statistics.
Well....Opinions about gun control ignore that prior to the availability of semi automatics and automatics–we had mass murders.
The Weapons ranged from axes to gas and poisons to knives. What has remained consistent in the cases of wholesale murder is WHO overwhelmingly performs such acts:
Usually... a male–ages 14-65.
Usually a white male–you can count the number of black, hispanic, asians, etc combined on both hands and feet but the number of white males who have committed either mass murder or serial killings number in the high dozens.
We can argue that the men and women who kill are mentally ill or under great stress. We can argue that familial killings are different from killing strangers. We can even argue the method and ease of access to guns or poisons etc–here is what does not change:
9 times out of 10–the killer will be a male.
8 times out of 10 the killer will be white
6 times out of 10 the killer will know at least some of his victims
6 times out of 10 the killer will also kill himself
10 times out of 10 no matter how this plays out–unless the killer is a minority–the media and the blogging public will never relate the crime to race or wonder what is wrong within the white race and specifically with white males.
Whites are always quick to point out and denigrate other races for the bad among their groups–yet in the crimes whites overwhelmingly commit, they are strangely silent and reticent–why is that?
Yup All we needed in Aurora is several people with guns blazing away in a dark movie theater with mass panic everywhere. Let's be honest here everyone wants to be a hero and be like Dirty Harry.
Your argument is the primary reason people own guns.
So are you saying people in Colorado don't take their guns with them when they go out to watch a movie. Or may be they just don't own those semi-automatic guns. What a shame. This whole disaster could be averted if everybody went to movies with a gun.
On the other hand, if there were tight gun control laws in country, may be law enforcement would have noticed that someone bought an illegal gun.
Fareed, what other rights of mine would you like to take away? You have your face so far up Obama's bum that you cant even see the obvious.... That is, outlaw guns and only criminals will have them! This concept of thinking that if guns are outlawed the bloods on the street will turn them in is absolutely insane! India, your origin, is way more un-regulated than here, and guess what??!?!?!?!?! They are doing wayyy better than we are right now!
Bingo! A mad man WITH A GUN. Take away the guns and a mad man is easy to stop, no gun required.
On the subject of facts and statistics, I made an interesting discovery when trying to compile "facts" while doing a final project at Harvard. There are only a few municipalities that explicitly outlaw ownership of firearms (especially handguns). Most notable of them are DC and Chicago. My project involved correlating deaths by firearms to firearm ownership and required data from the FBI (which maintains these statistics). Unfortunately, no data on these types of crimes was available for Illinois or DC. Why is that? Why did the FBI have data for all other states but these? It's just a coincidence, I'm sure. And by the way, the result of my analysis was that firearm ownership does not deter or promote gun-related death. It's the lack of correlation in this data that keeps the topic hot; it's highly speculative.
http://www.cs171.org/2011/projects/web/Caskey_John/caskey/
I guess we should also start taking away automobiles. Automobile related fatalities kill more people every year than any other cause. And don't forget the alcohol as well.
We never should have change the laws for pychological definition of the need to be held for the public safety. Quite some time ago we release half of the psychological dangerous population refining what is dangerous. Now there are large number of street people that should be put away. But we are to cheap to do the right thing.
In which country did this happen?
We should never have released half criminally insane to save money.
In the end that is what did stop him: men with guns. If the mad men are left without the ability to buy guns maybe the illegal bomb laws will stop them from buying bombs. Or maybe the illegal to fly an airplane into a building law will stop them from obtaining a plane. More laws...well, I guess all the anti-cocaine laws work. No one dies from overdosing on cocaine. Right?
This article is terrible and is a failed attempt to compare all gun owners in the US to a single psychopath. This lousy reporter is a sick individual for taking a horrific event and trying to use it to make a point for something completely unrelated.
Gun control has been the weapon of tyrants from the nazis all the way thru mao and a dozen others. If gun controls worked Chicago would be the safest city in the country. The second ammendment is NOT open for negotiation!!!
Read the article. Know the facts. Do your reseach and whenever possible stop thinking with your heart. The facts show the rate of homicides from firearms has not dropped at all. We all have guns but we continue to kill each other at the same rate. You are no safer today protecting yourself from a death from firearm than you were years ago.
Every male citizen who has served in the military (its mandatory) in Switzerland has a gun, nice analysis Fareed. So if every household has a gun there, why isn't there killing? This article seems to say that guns are the cause of killing? People are the cause of killing. You think this brilliant kid (and unfortunately he was) couldn't have figured out another way to kill 12 people? You really think that only allowing the government to own guns and not the citizens will keep us safer? Allow the government to control our lives will make our lives better? Come on. Gun control is not the answer, though it is a warm and fuzzy one. Sounds about as good as "helping" poor people by giving them hand outs. That has worked GREAT for the past 50 years. We're in great shape as a country. In fact, just take more power from the people and give it to the government and I figure all our problems should go away here soon. Good luck America.
Dear Mr. Zakaria, please utilize your GPS to find your butt back to where it came from and take your fancy EU, socialism with you.
Any first year university student could tell you that correlation does not prove causation. In 2001, there are roughly 500 electrocutions per year in the us. Should we outlaw electricity? My heart goes out to the people in Colorado, but it's time to face the real facts:
1) A gun is a tool, just like electricity.
2) Bad things happen, and we can't just pass a law to prevent bad things from happening. If that were the case, why don't we just outlaw death and all our problems would go away?
You are wrong in your claim that gun owners deny facts. There are more guns in the homes of Americans for a number of reasons. The primary reason is that we can afford to have them. These luxuries are not high on the priority list of someone living in a third world country. Discuss murder rates among the world's countries and see where the US ranks there. Then, we can have a discussion. Obviously, if we have more guns, we will have more gun crimes. However, more gun crimes does not mean more total crimes...which is what we gun owners are saying: More guns does not equal more total crimes.
An eye for an eye will make us both blind- Ghandi
I am waiting for some nut job to drive a car straight through a marching band so everyone can scream for restrictions on who is allowed to purchase a vehicle. Then when someone walks into a day care and bashes 15 kids with a Baseball bat, what then.... do we put legislation out there to limit who can purchase a Baseball bat???? What do we do when some nut job puts 20, full propane tanks in a van and drives it into the front door of a chucky cheese? are we all going to have to get background checks done to get a tank of propane for our gas grill????? God Bless America.
Couldn't agree more dolapoidris. I would be willing to bet a significant sum that if this happened at a theatre in WV, someone would have ended it rather quickly by taking out this lunatic with a hollow point of his/her own. Obama sits here and says he understands that we need weapons to "hunt". And that's the problem with most advocates of gun control and changing our laws. Owning weapons isn't for the sole purpose of hunting wild game. Owning weapons, guns especially, allows the people to stand up against tryanny, "both foreign and domestic", and keep control of our country. Because it is OUR country, not the government's.
Driving up the interstate yesterday, the army national guard was practicing on their one weekend a month and had tanks out, dressed in full combat fatigues, etc. So, civilians don't need automatic weapons, grenades, or RPG's? What if our government decided to use those tanks against us? How would we all feel then? I understand that everyone wants to say, "oh, that will never happen." But I would rather be prepared if and when it ever does happen, than be caught standing around silly with a bowie knife if and when it ever does happen. Furthermore, gun restrictions will only keep the honest men honest, so that when a criminal breaks into your house with an automatic weapon that he/she obtained illegally, you will be sitting there with your knife wondering why you ever obeyed that law.
We're all missing the most important point of this issue and that is that this guy was under a psychiatrist consult. He bought the guns legally; so don't blame gun laws. I think there is a disconnect with his psychiatric care. Same educated people speaking out against gun control and his doctor couldn't determine that he was a looney?!?!?!?! This heinous act shows premediation and a psychiatrist could see this?
Speaking as the potential innocent bystander who will probably get shot by some civilian trying to kill the gunman and missing, that does not make me feel better.
1. They are gun laws on the books that are NOT enforced.
2. Be for real about the color of the map. What is number of full auto weapons in those light green countries as compared to the United States. Central America, South America, and Africa?
America would not be a free independent country today without an armed citizenry. We swat down any attempt to limit our right o bear arms any anyway. . The lilly liveried liberals that would never defend our country will continue to pick away at ourv2cd amendment rights.. It should not be required thAt the govt know of every firearm you posess..Does anyone believe criminals follow these rules? It just complicates gun ownership for lawabiding citizens.. If you use the liberals way of always equating issues I would equate that because America has the most guns per capita that is why we stand for freedom in the world . A citizenry that if needed can take up arms.
One of the Facts that was conveniently left out of this "Fact filled" article was that the majority of gun related deaths are caused by illegally obtained firearms. you can crack down all you want on the average homeowner who wants to protect his house and family, but the hood rats on the streets will still get their guns. And then, when they attempt to hold someone up at gunpoint, the people that should be carrying weapons, won't be able to because they are too difficult to get legally.
Victims families have the voice after such tragedies to make change. Ask for stricter gun control! Remember the victims, but never forget that today's legal gun owner can become tomorrow's mass murderer! He just needs one bad day! Never forget that this country's Second Amendment needs urgent change! What we do to prevent tragedies is more important than just eulogies and memories! If victims' families also support NRA and guns, then they really do not care for their family members who have fallen to gun violence!
Fareed never said it was easy to obtain these weapons he said it has become easier. Things can become easier but still remain difficult. This shouldnt be hard to grasp with or without high education.
You know what? that is the key: madmen with guns. I think I am catching up to the strategy these "lefties" or "so-called-progressives" are using. They probe their environment. They'll send someone like Fareed in CNN who is very articulate, and can come across as reasonable out to "state the fact" as he did in this piece. Then, he'll provide so "reasonable" analysis of those facts. Then those of us who vehemently disagree get all riled up, and post our discontent which they them use to call us idiots, unintelligent,, war mongers, nuts, religious, or whatever they think of us. hmmmm.... not sure what they think they're gaining with that strategy unless they're just trying to distract us from something far worse.
No, dolapoidris, you've got that all wrong. The only thing to stop a man with a gun is to have no guns, at all. It is for illiterate trash like you that our country has met its demise and the world looks at us with disgust and disdain. America is now a great example of the inmates running the assylum.
Well said Katherine!
Mr. Zakaria...It's been said time and time again..."Guns don't kill people...people kill people" Sure a gun can be used a fatal weapon, just as knife, a club or even a drunk behind the wheel of a car. Nobody reports how many lives are saved by citizens that use a gun to stop a would be killer. Nobody reports how many crimes have been thwarted by persons legally carrying a weapon. There is a much bigger picture to investigate than simply inferring we need tighter gun control. We need to put more effort into finding the idiots before they strike. What would everyone be saying about guns if a person that happened to be carrying a weapon was at the Aurora, CO theater and shot and killed the assailant before he was able to squeeze the trigger?....Now Mar. Zakaria...you too are a part of the problem. Every time there is a mention of gun control, everyone rushes out to buy even more guns and ammunition. How do you fell about being a contributor to the so called "problem"?
Will more laws help? How many laws did this guy break? One that immediately comes to mind is the restriction on firearm possession by the mentally ill. It's easy to blame the object (a SEMI auto firearm, or a PUMP action shotgun) but, both this shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting were carried out by mentally ill individuals. (although this recent one was seeing a psychiatrist, for some reason, apparently the government isn't responsible for validating mental status even though they legislate based on it)
How come no one's clued in to this? There are plenty of deranged folks popping off about the 2nd ammendment rights, what about making the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS work?
Now we can go back to arguing amongst ourselves based on Fareed's lack of familiariity with anything to do with this issue and the bias shown in the article.
Fareed told us that we do not have a right to our own facts so I decided to take a look at the facts according to annual FBI data. Fareed reported that although violent crime has fallen significantly since 2000, "...guns are the exception. Gun homicide rates haven’t improved at all. They were at roughly the same levels in 2009 as they were in 2000." These statements are all true, but why stop at 2009 when these data are available for 2010? The murder-by-firearm rate is over 5.8% lower in 2010 than in 2000. Obviously, comparing two years means very little, although this is what Fareed chose to do. A more relevant statement would be to say that for the past ten years, murder rates by firearms have remained around 3 per 100,000 citizens. This is true in spite of very significant changes in the law that have made it easier for people to purchase (instant background checks) and carry firearms. This is true even though the so-called "assault weapons" ban expired in 2004. This is true even though we've been through very tough economic times in the past few years. Are these factors not worthy of consideration? Another point to consider: If there really are 88 guns per 100 Americans as Fareed tells us – if we really are the nation with the greatest number of guns per civilian – then doesn't such a low average of about 3 firearm murders per 100,000 speak quite highly of our nation? According to a Harvard Law study examining murder rates and private gun ownership in Europe, we see that significant numbers of Europeans do manage to murder with far fewer firearms. Luxembourg,the second richest country per capita (behind Qatar), had a 2002 murder rate of over 9 per 100,000. The number of average firearms per citizen in Luxembourg is 0 – and handguns are entirely banned. Nevertheless, Luxembourgers managed a murder rate nearly 3 times higher than our firearms murder rate and 161% of our overall murder rate. Other countries show less dramatic numbers but, interestingly, Luxembourg is the only country in the study with almost no firearms in civilian hands. It is tragic when any innocent civilian is murdered by a firearm or otherwise, yet if we were to compare our murder rate per 100,000 ARMED civilians, I think we would discover that our citizens are really quite responsible with this very unique right to keep and bear arms. Since Fareed's job is to give a global perspective, these points should have been discussed. Most importantly, I think, Fareed should consider the democratic record of the United States. Perhaps he should show us a map of countries that have had two centuries of civilian rule, uninterrupted by dictatorship. I bet it would show a very strong and direct correlation to the country with the most guns per civilian.
The Government of the United States should have NEVER, NEVER,NEVER have let Military Weapons get into the hands of
Civilians, starting in the 1950s.
These include all Variations of Any Military Weapon, The Arms Manufacturers made a Fortune Selling these Weapons to
The Civilian Market,
As usual, Money, Money, Money is always at the Root of all our Problems
The problem with your logic is that suppose another individual shoots at the perpetrator, hits and kills someone else. Is that a freebee? Is that ok? The argument that having a gun will help protect you doesn't make sense when you consider cops get shot too. Everyone knows they have a gun and it didn't prevent them from being shot.
Your argument is silly. Police Officers have guns but still get shot. Noone made the argument that having a gun will ensure that you will never get shot yourself. Having a gun will provide you with the ability to protect yourself when and if needed or possible.
Let's not forget to ban aircraft, gasoline, diesel and fertilizer along with guns. While we're at it automobiles, smoking and going out in the sun.
So, with so many guns...... What do the numbers, comparative for each country, look like when it comes to number of deaths by firearms..... PER GUN?
the problem is that in today's America you can't be an elected politician and be for gun control laws..
You can't save everyone, Fareed, you can only hope to not be living next door when they go off.
And BTW: Assault Rifles are rifles equipped with a select fire switch, fully capable of Automatic fire.
NO Semi-Automatic rifle is an Assault Rifle. PERIOD.
No matter how 'tactical' it looks.
Well then don't let Madmen have guns.
Of course the madman wouldn't have a gun to begin with, that's the whole point....
Nah, there are other ways to stop a crazy person with a gun. A knife in the back is one. Hammer to the head is another. Crowbar to the arm and/or kick to the back of the knee, are others.
Guns saves lives. Buy more guns. They cure other people's hemorrhoids, headaches, arthritis, anxiety and depression once and forever.
The same kind of articles will be repeated when there will be another similar incident or story of a school kid caught with a gun in the schoolbag. Same kind of arguments will be posted for and against gun laws. Let some city or county put up strict gun laws for a period; may be 2-4 years, then monitor the effect on crime pattern. If results return positive, others can follow. If not, then one can buy more guns and imitate Clint Eastwood's movie styles.
If guns make one feel safe then carrying a RPG might make feel more secure.
Fareed Zakaria -> Are you serious with this story? Do you not understand the criminals don't care what the law states? Are you really that naive? Maybe the Aurora shooter didn't see the no gun sign! Had he seen it, he OBVIOUSLY would have turned around and went back home. Stop defending psychopaths hell bent on hurting other people. If it wasn't a gun it would've been another tool – let's ban swords, then knifes, then let's ban poisonous chemicals. Just because you simply don't understand gun owners doesn't allow you to make sweeping generalizations about them.
Fareed Zakaria , Statistics can be a bit misleading, do you feel safer in the US compared to some of the light green countries? I believe I feel safer here than in most of those countries where only the government and criminals have access to guns. At least I know I can defend my home from criminals, but if that right is taken away.......
I agree. The right to bear arms is a right. Even if laws are made tougher, pathological people will still pose a threat. After all, they dont respect any laws.
Stupidity...
This is the land of the free and responsible gun ownership is our ultimate insurance against tyranny. We've given up so much freedom already in exchange for false security (TSA, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, etc). Citizen ownership of firearms isn't the problem nor the type and number of firearms. So we have more guns and by your own statistics, less crime. As to the gun crime statistics, how many of those were committed by individuals with long rap sheets and stolen or unregistered firearms ? Our system is far from perfect but like it or not, guns are part of our heritage and always will be. Your simple minded analysis and lack of research holds no weight.
Fareed points out that as laws have become LESS restrictive for legal gun ownership, the U.S. has become safer as shown by dropping crime rates and all this while the gun related deaths stayed flat. I'm glad he told me about that. Sounds like if we increase gun control, crime rates will climb and the U.S. will become less safe. Thank you Fareed!
Removing gun in America will never happen nor should it!!! I has been our founded 2nd Amendment Right! It is what keeps Americans free from the rest of the World and a legal gun owner should remain exactly that , a free person with a legal right to bear arms..
Hii
Me and my wife offen go to US on vacattion – and we love it.
However – based on all the incidents with cracy gun US owners – how do we protect ourself.
I am a gun owner myself here in Denmark and trained on heavy powered rifles and hand guns – and fully able to protect myself and my wife if allowed to.
However as a tourist I not allowed to carrry a gun although I am one of the good gays.
Should I stay away or do you allow me to protect myself?
Jesper
Fareed, I have also heard these facts: Switzerland's government issues a gun to every adult and trains them how to use it. Switzerland has the lowest gun-related crime of any civilized country. Or this: The average police response time in America is SIX MINUTES, whereas the average draw-and-shoot response for a lawful concealed carry weapons holder is FIVE SECONDS. Or how about this: lawful people obey gun control laws but criminals don't. Granted, some experts agree that gun control really works; experts, such as Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Muammar Qaddafi, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Jung-II, and....President Obama! Yeah, thanks for your facts, but as you presented them, you're looking like a tool for those who are trying to spread propaganda for those who wish to disarm this country. Personally, I'll heed the warnings of those who have already been disarmed:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fGaDAThOHhA
@Stephanie: Nice quote about Switzerland, but you forgot the part about the ammunition: Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military ammunition at home. The rest of the militia can only get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency. It is possible to go shooting with minimal supervision and without an id-check, however *all ammunition* must be used while on the range.
So I guess you would be willing to let the government keep all your ammo, otherwise your implied argument falls apart.
While it was interesting reading your reply to Stephanie, perhaps YOU should consider all the facts; The weapons that are issued are a standard .223 nato round. Individuals ARE allowed to purchase their own ammunition, and do so. The fact that the ammo was limited had nothing to do with the idea that someone would go haywire, but rather it was a result of budgetary constraints and the general populous should not have to carry the cost if another citizen wishes to shoot a lot.
@Ken
Perhaps YOU should read more carefully. Ammo can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, must all be used at the range. You can't take unregistered ammo home. They don't just let you walk into a store, buy ammo, and go home.
Again.... Guns do NOT kill people. It is the EVIL MORONS out in society who decide they should kill someone. A criminal would use a stick to kill if he had to, a gun is more convenient, but that does not mean that we should get rid of our rights as set forth in The Bill of Rights. We are obligated to keep and bear arms so as NOT to be taken over by another foreign power. By the way comparing The United States of America with Switzerland is like comparing apples to rocks. Those people don't even fight in wars. The ONLY reason why our country has not been taken over is because a foreign power knows that not only would they have to get past the military, but they would also have to get by the citizens because we have the right to keep and bear arms. What about Bows and Arrows, they can kill people, so we should ban those also. Lets not forget that a club can be used to bash in a persons head, maybe we should ban trees. You could take a piece of rope and hang someone, we probably should ban all of that nasty rope. Knives are no good for anything but killing people, I think we need "knife control" also in this country. Do you see how absurd it gets to be??
Funny that you only address one part of Stephanie's argument, and call the whole thing wrong. Do you concede that the other parts are true?
If @Staphanie actually had any other arguments I would have responded, but try these:
1) "The average police response time in America is SIX MINUTES, whereas the average draw-and-shoot response for a lawful concealed carry weapons holder is FIVE SECONDS" This is an argument? What is it saying? How many crimes have been prevented by concealed carry, how many lives saved, how many lost because someone was conceal carrying? Got any facts to discuss or am I supposed to respond to a no content sound bite?
2) "Or how about this: lawful people obey gun control laws but criminals don't." How about: "people are lawful until they aren't." Again, nothing was said but a tautology, which is not worth discussing.
3) Stalin handed out a lot of guns to the young men of Russia, so using the "Switerland argument", Stalin was a pro-gun kind of guy. Those young men stopped the Nazi criminals from taking Russia from the Russians thanks to the guns Papa Joe gave to his people. Stupid argument I know, but listing a bunch of tyrants as a supposed argument is stupid too...and listing President Obama with those guys is an insult to Obama and to America.
@ truthbringsfreedom
Stephanie is right, but if you're too lazy to try and inform yourself then please allow me to be your enabler.
1)
According to the FBI, during the first year of the Obama administration the national murder rate declined by 7.4% along with other categories of crime which fell by significant percentages. During that same time national gun sales increased dramatically. According to Mr. Lott 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than November 2007 which represents a 40% increase in sales, a trend which continued throughout 2009. The drop in the murder rate was the biggest one-year drop since 1999, another year when gun sales soared in the wake of increased calls for gun control as a result of the Columbine shooting.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2009/crime2009
-------------
In reporting on the only independently refereed study on firearms to be verified and validated, economist John Lott's original analysis by The Chronicle of Higher Education said that although his findings are controversial "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes an increase in crime."
http://chronicle.com/article/More-Guns-Less-Crime-/12081
------------
From May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. have killed at least 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers. There were about 25,000 murders by firearm that period, which means that concealed carry permit holders committed less than 1% of the murders by firearm.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2009/crime2009
----------------
According to the FBI, the vast majority of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not involve killing or even wounding an attacker, with government surveys showing 108,000 to 23 million DGUs per year, with ten private national surveys showing 764,000 to 3.6 million DGU per year. That averages over 1 million instances where lawful gun owners protected themselves. frequently without ever firing a shot.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=112
---------------
Additional Info:
David E. Olson, Loyola University Chicago, and Michael D. Maltz, University of Illinois at Chicago, "Right-to-carry concealed weapons laws and homicide in large U.S. counties: the effect on weapon types, victim characteristics, and victim-offender relationships," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001. They found "a decrease in total homicides."
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/338345?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101128845341
--------------
2)
"People are lawful until they aren't."
It's extraordinarily rare that a concealed carrier will suddenly become unlawful. As noted above: less than 1%. Even still, as long as there are other lawful people around, they would immediately stop the converted unlawful individual. I know you'll disagree, but concealed carry is a self-correcting principle. It's just how it is whether you agree or not.
3)
True. Not much can be said about tyrants past. It's the tyrants to-be that we need to be vigilant of. Regardless, you DID illustrate our point in Stalin giving his people guns to fight Nazi criminals. At least you do recognize the effectiveness of an armed populace in preventing lawlessness actions (even if it comes from their own ranks)
independently refereed study on firearms to be verified and validated, economist John Lott's..............
I forgot to include the name of the study: "More Guns, Less Crime" by economist John Lott. Please feel free to read into it......though I doubt you will.
Sorry Stephanie, but you're flat out wrong about Switzerland having the lowest gun crime rate. Nowhere near: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
7000 times a day americans use personal weapons to prevent crime or defend themself. you don't hear about those. even the clinton admin admitted to 1.5 million times a year. approx 8500 persons die each year in the u.s. due to personal weapons.?
in criminal situations. over thirty thousand die in vehicle accidents. should we take cars away first?
We should not be looking at other countries and drawing conclusions from how much violence they have vs. us. There are just too many factors involved (culture, social issues, demographics, history, etc.) to extract out one variable (eg. gun availability) and draw a meaningful conclusion from it.
so stupid you are Stephanie.
IN Switzerland you can buy a hand gun only after you have proven to the gun control office that you need it, and guess what, self defense is not considered a valid reason.
Yes thew armed forces give an assault rife to each serving man in the armed forces .. but they also screen them for psychological wroth .. if you are not healthy, you do not get a gun in Switzerland
Now n the US if you are not healthy, not only you get a gu,m but you also get to kill people and get away with it
pbernasc, guess that blows your comment, the assailant was under psychiatric care at the time of the shooting.
First off this Swiss are trained in weapony, as members of a standing militia-the land of Heidi doesn't have a standing army, and most citizens are members of that militia.
Secondly, you really want to trust the average Joe Six Pac taking the place of trained Law Enforcement. OK, then go live where there are no cops, and law and order is kept by a trigger happy populace.
Actually, the percentage of "bad" shootings by concealed carry permit holders is much lower than that of police officers. They are not particularly fond of that fact, by the way.
Steph, no on could have written it better!!! This guy has his facts all wrong, worse, has no concept of what the second amendment is all about ad how the majority of gun owner are responsible people
People seem to have a diminishing sense of history. The second amendment was not meant for hunting. Do they not teach history in school anymore. All your rights are ensured by the threat of arms, not by the U.S. Government. This lesson was learned long and hard through-out history.
Well Said! Well said indeed!
Dear, ignorant Steph:
Hitler and the Nazis actually repealed laws on citizens gun rights. Under the 1938 gun law all restrictions on ownership of long guns were removed. So much for tyrants seizing guns.
Stephanie, you left Mitt Romney off the pro guy control list. He signed an assault weapons ban into law.
It is mandatory for Swiss citizens to maintain proficiency and function of select fire (full auto) military grade shoulder weapon in each household and they have never been dominated by any other country,including Nazi Germany.This is how they maintain their "neutral" status.
And you believe with terrorism, this will last long? No one is neutral anymore, you're good or evil.
Very well said!
Stephanie, you'll like this graph. It shows that no we are not the country with the most per capita. Another lie from the media saying we are the deadliest Country. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/28/guns-ownership-around-the-world-graphic/
Hey Stephanie: you forgot another expert: Hugo Chavez. In response to an overwhelming crime rate that plagues certain sectors in Venezuela, he's proposing to disarm the population. Apparently he's counting on criminals giving up their guns. Of course, the population is so fed up that they might just accept this. Needles to say, from the outside is easy to see what Chavez is doing in following the standard model for totalitarian regimes, and neutrilizing or diminishing potential armed resistance to the revolution.
What are you talking about? Homicides committed with firearms have fallen as the homicide rate as a whole has fallen. You are way off.
I am largely respectful of Zakaria, and still am despite my strong disagreement of this.
However it should be pointed out that it has NOT been easier to get automatic weapons: those have and still are highly restricted to mostly Class III FFL holders since 1986. Of all of the regulations we had during the AWB, automatic weapons was not the common theme, it was semi-automatic weapons that to the Hollywood trained eye looked like they could be automatic because they were black looking.
Violent crime as overall been decreasing in this country, and shootouts have occured in other nations. Norway had the worst, and that nation has one of the toughest gun control laws in the nation. It's their nations responsibility to secure their trade borders, and that is certainly easier to do there than in the United States where border security is a much more serious issue. London too had a mass shooting leaving 12 dead just 2 years ago, and that wasn't with a semi-auto rifle.
In fact, semi-auto rifles have the lowest lethal % rate in illegal shootings. Pistols are the highest.
It's not good to look at the issue of gun violence alone, its a matter of looking at overall violence, both successful and attempted and then look at guns as both a catalyst and preventive force in a region by region basis. Within the country, there is a fairly decent correlation to gun rights leading to safer communities in regards to CCW presense, and other gun purchases.
Semi-auto rifles are only 0.5% of all gun deaths. You honestly need to be dozens of times more afraid that the asprin you take for your headache will kill you than a .223 round from another Holmes, Loughner, or Cho.
This really frustrates me – people pull out isolated incidents of gun violence from other countries and somehow think this proves gun control doesn't work. No gun control advocate argues that strict controls in other countries works 100%. But the overall figures for each country speak for themselves.
Go ahead argue till your fingers get numb; one thing is always true, if guns weren't as available as they are, JH would have had to resort to throwing popcorn balls at the audience.
"Go ahead argue till your fingers get numb; one thing is always true, if guns weren't as available as they are, JH would have had to resort to throwing popcorn balls at the audience."
Or he may have used some of the explosive devices he made, and killed everyone in the theater.
Two items:
I am not worried about being shot by a madman – I am outraged that a madman can legally get hold of enough firepower to kill a dozen innocent civilians, including women and children!
I am also outraged that an organization (NRA) that 'says' it is patriotic fights any attempt to keep killing machinery like handguns and assault rifles restricted, just so its funders (the gun makers and sellers) can maximize profits.
@flip. no Flip, as determined as he was it would have probably been home made pipe bombs. nice thought huh?
gun violence doesn't even make the "top ten" causes of death in the U.S. Yasser Arafat accepted the Nobel Peace Prize while he had a .357magnum tucked under his man dress.
In the U.K. knife crimes have escalated,bet the law on that will be draconian.
At Scott....Very well put. You can take every weapon you can think of away from man. A violent person will be just that. How many people have been beaten by baseball bats, or bricks, or rocks? So should we outlaw baseball and building materials? Take one weapon away, they will find another "Former Police Officer" said it best "pretty soon we'll be eating steaks with plastic forks and riding bikes to work." But then again, you can make a pretty nasty shank out of melted plastic, and bicycle parts." Just watch Lock Up Raw.....
I defer to comedian Chris Rock on gun control.
If you defer to Chris Rock on anything, you're the comedian.
some people depend on others for their safety
Mr. Zakaria, You make perfectly good sense. Outlaw private gun ownership and the criminals won't buy or steal any because that would be against the law. Thank you so much! Such insight!
Sarcasm doesn't bother Z or his ilk because they are convinced of their own rightness and that they truly know better than anyone else.
"Sarcasm doesn't bother Z or his ilk because they are convinced of their own rightness and that they truly know better than anyone else."
True, that is what makes zealots so dangerous.
If we stopped coddleing convicted violent criminals with weight rooms, flat screen TVs, and three hots and a cot, along with life time health care, then maybe they would think twice.
On this we both agree
If it's such a great deal why don't you go and apply for it? Prison may be many things, but coddling isn't one of them. Even in the minimum security prisons you have to keep your head on a swivel or you'll lose it.
Your sarcasm is not even based on fact and your logic is flawed. Gun control will help because a number of gun crimes committed are people who either do not have a past record or have some kind of mental imbalance.
By your logic every illegal activity should be legalized because criminals cannot be controlled anyway and will find a way around it, so why bother.
The fact is that gun control works elsewhere. Even in more violent societies like South Asia the fatalities in gun related incidents are lower – well because there are not enough guns in people's hands.
Hiding behind an outdated amendment of which even lawyers cannot agree on the actual intent is misguided at best.
Look at the above map America, please!
The US outlawed alcohol in the 30’s and 40‘s and that only made the Kennedy’s rich men.
"We cannot change the tortured psychology of madmen like James Holmes. What we can do is change our gun laws."
What gun laws could have been changed to stop him? He planned the attack out for months, he had no previous criminal or psych record, and he demonstrated a clear knowledge of constructing explosive devices. In fact, one of the big reasons the body count was not higher is that he used a hi capacity magazine, which are prone to jamming. He chose a gun free zone, knowing that law abiding citizens would not be armed.
Personally I think it is more than a little disgusting that you would use the deaths of the people in Aurora to push to limit the rights of US Citizens. Much like Senator Schumer, who slipped a magazine ban in the cyber security bill. As for your "facts" the chart you refer to does not show population density of the respective states, thus is nothing more than propaganda. Nor does it show overall crime statistics, and the correlation between gun laws and crime rates.
Just another example of how the 4th estate has been destroyed
What gun laws? How about a restriction on expanded ammo clips?
Oh, please anything but that!
Actually, the drum magazine jamming the rifle meant the body count was less than it would have been if he had been carrying multiple 10 round magazines. Anyone who has used these magazines, will attest to how unreliable they are. I have one I use for a bench rifle, since the weight keeps the rifle more stable when I go the range, but I would never use it if my life depended on it since it jams 1 out of every 7 or 8 rounds consistently.
Had he brought any of his home made explosives or brought quite a few low round magazines (if the scary expanded magazines had not been available) I would say there would have been many more deaths.
I do not think you can assume nutcases are equally dispersed throughout these countries. I think what you can assume is that we alone are a country that says it prides itself on its individualism. I think most of Europe and especially Asia prides itself on family and community ties. We do not. Most of Europe truly believes in taking care of its more vulnerable citizens. We do not. We are a country all about individualism, and I do believe it affects some people mentally and emotionally. Combine that with 300,000,000 guns here with the strain of sink or swim by yourself, and they don;t mix really well.
Also include that America shows more violent shows in a week than most other countries show in a year. Our hollywood culture glorifies violence yet when the violence comes off the screen we shudder in horror. When a culture feeds its brain violence one should not be surprised to find a violent culture.
Let's do an experiment. For one year, let's make all kinds of guns cheap and easy to obtain. Make it so anyone can go into Wal-Mart and by a fully automatic machine gun with 1,000 rounds or a missile launcher. No waiting period, no background check. But you have to be at least 18 years old (I mean come on, there have to be some regulations). This is basically the NRA's wet dream.
Then, see what happens over the course of the year. Will America be safer?
Can you cite where the NRA has said it wants this? Or is Alinsky's 9th rule the only way you know to debate?
That's pretty much how it is now, so probably nothing would happen in your little 'experiment'. I don't think if Colorado banned all hand guns, James Holmes wouldn't have done what he did any how.
Lets make our congressmen walk to work, and back in the late evening to a parking lot about 10 blocks from the Capitol. Who's ever left after six months can vote on lifting restrictions on assualt weapons.
On this we agree as well. But can we make all the lawyers do the same?
Hah, guns don't protect people. People protect people.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who didn't
Or we could just neuter all the idiots, and everything would be better in one generation. Your day is next Tuesday.
You first Paul.
Well presented, Fareed, but when it comes to gun supporters in the US, you are dealing wth people who have made up thier minds and will not allow thenselves to be confused with the facts.
Much like gun control supporters eh?
Go ahead, tell us the facts.
Well presented? He invented most of his data, or found it with random google searches. He'd get a "D" if he turned this in as homework in most high schools.
We Americans are gun happy. God gave us guns and the law recognizes our right to bear guns. But times have changed; we need to take the blinders off and effect sensible changes. First, tighten-up access to guns making sure that only law-abiding citizens have free access in specially designated outlets, e.g., no gun shows! Second, design rigorous training to include much more than the usual 2-hour course on gun safety mandated in some states. And as corny as it sounds, it is true, guns don’t kill people!
Ever been to a gun show? Everyone I have been to requires the same background check I get when I buy from a gun store. If you wish to impose these requirements on one civil right, do you support them being added to another? I hope so, since you are creating precedent that any right can be treated as such.
If we enacted what you just suggested, James Holmes still would have been able to do what he did, you realize that, right?
If you buy a gun at a gun show you fill out the same paperwork as you do at a gun shop or any other retailer that sells firearms. In our state you must either have a handgun purchase permit which requires a background check or you must wait for the background check to go through before taking possession of the firearm. Lying on the transfer of ownership form is a federal offense. The "gun show" argument does not hold water if you have ever been to one, but that does not seem to stop liberal writers or politicians from spouting off whatever they please.
God didn't give us guns... MAN created GOD... go figure...
Mr. Zakaria continues to beat the liberal book of revelation. Of all people, Mr. Zakaria has really no excuse for such ignorance. In the third world, a LOT more people die from violence than the US. Its simply not reported and thus is not in the statistics. Mr. Zakaria hails from India where communal violence, road accidents and plain thuggery kills many.
If you want to be taken seriously, sir, think through before you keep spouting your liberal rhetoric in the name of "facts".
Crime in the US is down, according to the FBI, not up. Polls mean nothing because they are based on feelings not facts.
Fareed, you forgot to put up the graphs that show murder rates. For example, Brazil, which has tight gun control and lower per-capita gun ownership has over 4 times the US murder rate. I guess that fact slipped your mind, or undermines your argument. So much for pesky things like facts.
Being able to buy and have guns might be a right as US citizen, but it protects only yourself. Banning guns totally could protect a whole society. The problem in Colorado is that there is not control at all, no registration is required, no laws against carrying weapons or keeping them in your car. This shooter was able to purchase several guns and 6000(!) rounds without being detected by authorities. This is a major problem that has nothing to do with individual rights and protection. Getting this registration and getting a license (like a driver's license, nobody complains about requiring a driving license) should be standard practice in all states. That way criminals and crazy people will not be able to legally get weapons, while honest citizens will be able to get a weapon for their own protection. That said, I have never fired a weapon myself, and have not desire to.
In Aurora it is illegal to carry a firearm, might want to look at the actual laws before ranting. As to the 6000 rounds, were the authorities alerted when you bought your car? If not they should have been, the day after the Aurora shooting 13 people were killed by an illegal alien driving a overloaded pickup truck (21 people in it) in Texas. Should we not classify certain vehicles as assault vehicles since more than twice as many people are killed by auto accidents every year. Could James Holmes have shot anyone if he had to use public transportation? Blaming a inanimate object for someone's use of it makes no sense. Just as punishing over 56 million gun owners for the actions of a few is no more than a type of discrimination. After we were urged not to judge the actions of all Muslims due to the actions of a few, should not US citizens who own guns get the same consideration?
"That way criminals and crazy people will not be able to legally get weapons,"
Respectfully Bob, Do you seriously beileve the criminal is concerned if his weapon is purchased/stolen legally or illegally? I mean seriously Bob.
I do, but I'm probably an aberration. I'm a convicted felon, but don't try to get a firearm illegally. Odd thing is I know where I could acquire more than a few for a wink and a nod. Ban them if you want, but it will have the same effect as it does in Mexico where it's illegal to own a firearm with a military caliber (5.56 Nato, 9mm Parabellum, 7.62mm Nato.) If you've been keeping up with Mexican news you know that drug gangs are shooting the place up and beheading people by the dozens using military caliber rifles and handguns.
How many criminals and nutcases out there actually purchase their weapons leagally? This one in CO may have but I'm willing to bet that a majority of guns used in violent crimes were not purchased from a gun show or sporting goods store but from theh back of some guys van down by the river...
Bob, you said it all right there. You are assuming that criminals are going to obey gun laws. That's why they are called criminals. They break the laws. To echo what many other commenters have said, this guy was going to kill a lot of people any way he could. We hear about one guy inflicting so much horror, yet we never hear about the millionis of gun owners who never kill anyone, or the countless times that the mere act of pulling a firearm stops a crime. I got to the Luby's massacre five minutes after the shooting stopped. I can tell you, had there been three or four TRAINED Individuals in that place, it wouldn't have been near the carnage it was. I have had guns all of my life, and they have never killed anyone.
In society, like in the animal kingdon, the predators go after the weakest members or those who can't defend themselves. Take a look at the per capita homicide and violent crime rates and you will see that the places that have more gun control have teh higher crime rates because the people that follow the laws are the ones that will turn in their guns and when something happens call 911 (or dial a prayer. same thing) while the predators have a field day. The only to protect against superior strength and numbers is with an equalizer. They don't play by anyone's rules. You have to play by theirs.
Bob,
If someone is bigger, stronger has a knife and is going to murder you ,You would be more than glad society is able to defend itself with a gun.
part of the problem is cultural. We were a frontier society and in many ways still have that mentality. Part because we glorify violence in our sports and entertainment. The other part is if a government doesn't trust it's citizens to be armed the citizens shouldn't trust the government. To all those who argue that we ned to civilize our selves and trust the police I say- bettered to be tried by 12 than carried by 6- and remember, in this country the law is on the side of the criminal, not the victim.
Lies, damned Lies and Statistics.
If you want to throw around statistics... 35,000 + people die each year in the US in automobile accidents.
Should we then ban cars as being too dangerous?
People die in bed. So don't ever go to sleep, then.
Nice survey, I think it's a little odd that you used a survey the UN took five years ago to spread your propaganda seeings how they are in a meeting as we speak to try to take our guns away from us. So far, from what I've researched your 'facts' are seriously misguided or plain wrong.
Taco Bell and twinkies kill more Americans than guns each year. Let's ban those first.
You can have my chalupa when you pry it from my cold, greasy fingers.........
The latest issue of Consumer Reports has a study that shows 180,000 people a year die from mistakes in hospitals and by doctors. Using Fareed's logic, we should get rid of doctors and hospitals. It's a shame his well thought out (snicker.. snicker) screed should include some statistics on all the crimes and murders that were prevented due to a well armed citizenry.
Wow, talk about poorly thought out... The doctors aren't going out to kill people while the murderers with guns are looking to kill. Please don't drink and post.
"as guns laws have gotten looser and getting automatic weapons has become easier." Really we can buy automatic weapons?!?!? If I've read the laws correctly you'd have to have a Class III Federal license to do that. What about all the "other" murders that have been committed without the use of a firearm? If you're going to have statistical correaltion then let's look at the complete spectrum of what the human does. From reading another headline on CNN Holmes was apparently seeing a shrink. What happened there? There are a lot of openings in this.
@ Carl M: Good point: both guns and cars are dangerous. Therefore it would be best if both would require a license (obtained by passing a test) and registration...
And do you apply this to all the rights then? We get told that having to show id to vote is discrimination, and voting is a right much like owning a firearm. Does that mean that you support discrimination when it is against a right "you" don't like? Why would you support discrimination?
Totally off track.... If showing ID for voting is discrimination, it is also discriminating to not let people vote if they live here, possibly their whole life (visa or greencard)!
How is it off track? Both voting and owning a firearm are rights. The same minorities who can not legally vote due to not having an id are stripped of the right to bear arms by not having an id. How can you call it discrimination one way and not the other?
In no other country is violence shoved down the throats of its citizenry like in the U.S. Every unimaginable act has been portrayed on screen, and written as lyrics to music here in good old America. We've all read the reports of how many murders a child has watched on screen by the time they're ten years old! Come-on wake up people! It is simply impossible to expose ourselves to this junk and expect not to be affected. Some more so than others.
If this guy didn't have a gun, he'd make a bomb or something, nothing would have stopped him from doing what he did. He simply would have done it differently! The question isn't about how to control guns (or any other possible weapon), the question is how to stop people from wanting to view violence. Do you enjoy violence? Do you really think that because you're an "adult" you "can handle it"? If so, then you're part of the problem. Yeah, yeah, you have the "right" to look or listen to what-ever you want. Just because it's your right doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Why didn't this problem exist back in Grampas' day? You know the answer. Remeber the words "offensive", "immoral", "obscene"? People didn't do certain things because they knew those things were harmful to them, their family and their country, and to society as a whole. Today.... well, who cares?
Bob, it is the old chicken or the egg argument. You think that life imitates art, but it is the other way around. Humans have been violent creatures as long as they have existed. We fought wars for thousands of years before the first movie or TV show was ever made. Our art emulates our nature and we are a violent species by nature. I doubt that the children in Somalia firing AK-47s spent much time watching movies during their short lives.
My questions are: where do you get your facts (the UN agencies never lie, or fail to get all the facts)?? What about all of the unreported deaths in 3rd world countries (CNN and Channel 29 aren't known for wondering what is going on in sub-Sahran African villages)? What about weapons in undeveloped countries that are owned illegally/unknown by the government? What would be happening in Syria right now if not for weapons not controlled by the government? If we outlaw weapons here, will the Nicaraguans refrain from sending some that they bought from Russia, if it means a profit, and it damages the USA (a few years back we did that favor for them)?
People like Mr. Zakaria always cherry pick their data and never include Mexico in their discussions. Mexico has much stricter gun control laws than the U.S. and, according to the map, substantially fewer guns per 100 people. If gun control is the answer, why does Mexico have substantially more murders per capita than the U.S.?
For the same reason the US will resemble Mexico in 10 years if these people have their way. Mobs and mafias will have all the guys while the average Joe follows the rules and finds himself dead.
Stricter gun laws cause more murders by gun and more total murders. Britain enacted stricter gun laws after a big shooting rampage several years ago and now murders by gunshot are up. Same story in Australia.
Conversely, loosening gun laws result in fewer gun murders and fewer total murders. Several states in the US have reduced gun restrictions in the past decade or two and these states have seen murders by gunshot and total murders drop.
Then of course there's the little reminder that time and time again (from Nazi Germany to the Boxer Rebellion and on and on), the first thing tyrants do is confiscate citizens' weapons in order for their oppressive power to be secured.
Considering these points, it should really be the end of the discussion, period.
Nice map, now try comparing state-by-state or county-by-county in the US gun ownership vs. homicide rate. Oh look it's an inverse correlation! If only there were some kind of academic field where you could find relationships between numbers or something.
Good. Mexico and South America are light green? Compare the US to Switzerland? How many people in Switzerland compared to the US? We have more nut jobs because we have more people.
David
Your argument fails to establish causation. Let's ask some logical questions. (I highly doubt they'll be answered.) If guns are so evil, why do the police carry them? I asked an officer the other day why the folks with shiny metal disks carry them, and he informed me they did so for self-defense. He thought that disarming him while still expecting him to face violent criminals was laugh-out-loud crazy. However, the rest of us are expected to do it every day. I notice that many folks often suggest disarming the general public with a straight face. Why aren't suggestions that society would be safer if made completely helpless met with the same incredulous guffaws? There must be something in those shiny disks they pin on their chests that suddenly make a firearm a valid means of defense. Here's another question I have (Let's see if this one gets answered, as well): How is it that, 1) Dialing 911 2) Speaking to an operator 3) Waiting for a dispatcher to contact an officer 4) Waiting for that officer to drive his squad car to your location 5) Expecting the officer to analyze the situation 6) Identify the threat and the victim, and 7) Risk his/her life to 8) USE A GUN FOR YOU get classified as "SANE" and any more responsible than 1) Using a gun yourself to protect your family when you need it? Protect yourself? Why...why...THAT'S CRAZY TALK! Only human beings with shiny metal disks (who aren't here, right now) should do that! Remember: 187,968,742 guns in the hands of law abiding Americans killed nobody today.
The old Switzerland dodge huh...they dont accept everyone into their military..they weed out the insane and criminal..and while they allow guns in the home of their soldiers..they DONT ALLOW AMMO!
ummm....I don't see Switzerland mentioned in Steve Larson's post
Z looks at the map and sees a problem. I look at the map and see the freest country in the world (although constantly becoming less free, still the freest) is "brown." A correlation between "Americans' love affair with guns" and freedom? D'ya think?
Also "serious but non-fatal gun injuries caused during assault have actually increased in the last decade by 20 percent, as guns laws have gotten looser and getting automatic weapons has become easier." Really? Where has the "serious" gunfire rate gone up? In the states that actually relaxed their gun laws, or in Chicago, where the weekly body count is in double-digits? NYC? Other places where firearms ownership is still seriously restricted? I'd like to see a breakdown about WHERE this rate is increasing, and I'm willing to bet that it's not in those places where gun/concealed carry laws have been relaxed. Also automatic weapons are essentially not available to civilian buyers (and prices for those automatic weapons that can be transferred are astronomical and the transfer still requires fingerprinting, a background check, a checkoff signature from the local police and the payment of a transfer tax to the ATF, a process that hasn't changed in many years). Jeez, you'd think journalists would know this by now, us gun nuts correct them often enough!
How many times has a governing group taken away everyone’s rights and weapons in the name of the greater good, only to turn around and exploit those very people? From where I stand, the only problem was that the good folks in that movie theater were unarmed. If they had been, they could have taken care of this guy and gone back to their movie. My grandfather used to say that “locks only keep honest people honest”. In the same manner, gun control will only increase the number of victims out there because the honest people will stay honest and vulnerable because the bad guys don’t care about laws.
The US has at least four times more fatalities from automobile accidents than from guns, according to the Department of Transportation. The US leads the world in automobile fatalities. Where is the outcry?
Gun control to solve gun violence is like abstinence to solve AIDS. It's great in theory, but it isn't practical.
"The data shows we compare badly on fatalities, too. The U.S has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. That’s four times as many as Switzerland, ten times as many as India, 20 times as many as Australia and England."
All of that is true, but South Africa, which is very strict on gun laws, has about 75 per 100,000, which is about 18 times more than the US, among many other countries that are a lot higher. Your 'data' was clearly meant to deceive. So we have a lot more countries with a lot stricter gun laws that have several times higher gun related homicide rates. Your entire argument is completely garbage.
Here are some other facts for you Fahreed.
Since 1933, the U.S. has tried to crack down on guns 3 times, and in every case, the incidence of gun-related violent crime skyrocketted to anywhere from 150% to 300% of what it was before gun prohibition took effect.
Prohibition of guns does NOT work to reduce violent crime.
If gun control laws work, then Chicago and Washington DC would have lower murder rates than surrounding areas with less restrictive gun control laws. Yet they don't.
Both those cities have high crime rates for a very obvious reason: they have high populations of criminals.
Had to be one story. Usually love his writings, but this story reveals its flaw very early. The U.S. is not 'every other country' comparable. Apples and oranges. Just because there is no gun violence in Vietnam, Chad, or Olympus Mons, it means nothing in relation to the citizenry of this country.
You statistics are wrong. First, you need to count household, as many owners have multiple guns, and also, there are countries where that number is right around 100% on purpose with super low crime rates.
The fact that you used the Swiss as a fact seems to make it likely you know of your error and slanted viewpoint but doubled down anyway. From appearances, what we're missing is quality guns and training in the hands of poor people.
Remove the 4 or 5 democratic, gun controlled, high crime inner cities from the equation and gun deaths become as scarce as bigfoot sightings.
Facts are only useful if used in an unbiased way, for example many types of incidents are included in violent gun death, the numbers don't mean anything used this way.
People with a small dick will always find a reason to say guns are not t be controlled .. for them is the only way they can fell their small dick is not a big deal .. even though they never get to make woman have an orgasm..
The reality is that fun owners buy a gun to compensate for personal deficiencies , starting with the size of their dick
did you really think that up? wow. you are an idiot. seriously. get some help.
you seem abit preoccupied with the male genitalia, Or this could be a crude attempt at Alinsky's 5th rule
Wow. That was so stupid that the word 'special' comes to mind.
Statements such as yours make it PAINFULLY clear that it's time to cull the herd. Perhaps IQ testing should be required instead? That, and the ability to construct a grammatically correct sentence. Clearly you should be the LAST person who has access to a gun......wow!
wow. seriously? You obviously swim in the shallow end of the Gene pool don't you?
This argument that people are making, that criminals will obtain guns no matter what, is just plain WRONG, lazy, and disturbingly cynical. You're basically saying to the victims' family members, "Sorry, this was going to happen anyway... nothing to be done."
How can a rational person not think that making guns harder to get will decrease the likelihood of shooting sprees? A lot of the naysayers here sound like they're pretending to be psychologists or statisticians, but you don't need to be either of those to have a little common sense.
Honestly, people's reactions to gun control are sometimes as upsetting as the incident itself... Why do you cling to your fragile illusion of "safety" at the expense of other people's lives?
A criminal doesn't obey the law, what makes you think that they will feel any different about stricter gun control laws. MOST criminals dot not obtain firearms by legal means. It no secret that the states with stern gun control laws have the move gun related crime. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop a dedicated psychopath, you can just force them to work harder at committing what ever heinous crimes they plan to commit.
So if gun bans work, explain how drugs are easy to get while being illegal. In DC and Chicago during their gun bans the crime rate was staggering.
If this is about saving lives, why are you not decrying automobiles? In Texas the day after Aurora a pickup truck caused a accident killing 13 people, including 2 children.
Why do you think safety will come by stripping the rights from others?
Tell that to the Syrians or the people of Burma
You must have forgotten to take a serious look at Mexico before you made your point. Tough gun laws equals a thriving black market. Drugs are illegal and I still score a bag of weed whenever I want too...Tell the mother of the kid who OD'd that we did all we could...we made drugs illegal!
There's nothing fragile about a .45 Magnum, or a lot of other firearms for that matter.
.
I've been a gun owner since I was 7 years old, over 30 years now. I never owned a BB gun, but own everything from .22 pistols to a Barrett .50, so yeah, I support the right to keep and bear arms. That being said, every time I go to a gun show, I shudder a bit when I see some of the mouth breathers and gangster wanna-be's, swinging guns around test driving them like they're screen testing for a Hollywood blockbuster. I'm know I'm not the only gun owner who would support sensible gun laws and expectations of responsible ownership, so what keeps myself and other responsible owners from backing new gun-control legislation? It often has to do with the fact that many of the individuals and organizations drafting these "sensible" gun laws have previously gone on public record indicating that their long terms goal is to completely remove firearms from the hands of all private citizens. Would I trust an elitist politician with their own armed security team, someone who slips earmarks and completely unrelated riders onto legislation, who has shown nothing but complete ignorance of and consequential disdain for my way of life, to draft an honest law affecting my ownership of firearms? Don't bet on it.
Actually it sounds more like YOU are trying to be the psychologist. Sure. it has happened. Legally obtained weapons HAVE been used by people for crimes. But I wonder what percentage that is compared to illegally obtained weapons? And I am interested to see what percentage of those "Gun related" deaths are the death of the criminal by someone acting in self defense, Is it also possible that these numbers have been artificially inflated to include people who were killed by Law Enforcement Officers in the line of duty? Do they include Suicides?
Fareed Zakaria,
I find it really hard to read something like this coming from you. YOU, who are witness to the very problem in Syria that you imply could never happen here. How many Syrians right now wish they had weapons? As to your reassembling of statistical facts; Look at your own data! Since 2000 crime has DROPPED in the United States. Do you not think that the fact that more CRIMINALS know that MORE people are carrying concealed weapons has something to do with the overall drop? Especially considering the faltering economy! As a smart man once said; "Guns in the hands of bad people is a bad thing, Guns in the hands of good people are the thing bad people fear." Charleton Heston, former NRA President, Gun Rights Advocate, and all around GREAT GUY.
Please re-read the article. Gun related crimes have NOT dropped in accordance with the overall drop in crime rate. This would be related to the "guns in the hands of bad people" part of the statement...
Also, your analysis of Syria is embarrassing for you.
People like Fareed don't think their gov would ever turn on them. And if it did, it would likely be Fareed's party that was doing it, so of course he would not think that gun rights are important. And yet if Bush did half the things that Obama has done, Fareed would be going nuts right now.
Obama would sign this UN treaty in a second, if it were up to him. I've never been in the camp who thinks our gov will attack us, but we are as close to that as we have ever been.
Fareed, please show us what federal law you refer to that loosened control over automatic weapons recently and made them easier to get.
Oh wait, you can't, because there isn't one.
This story says that "gun laws have gotten looser and getting automatic weapons has become easier." What?! Seriously, how have gun laws gotten looser? And as for automatic weapons, i.e., machine guns, sub-machine guns, etc. that are continuous fire with one press of the trigger, I'd like to hear how it has become easier for regular citizens to buy automatic weapons. No such thing. I sure haven't heard about the Federal government overturning the long-standing laws prohibiting citizens from owning automatic weapons.
Fareed probably means the AWB sunset in 2004. Which had literally nothing to do with automatic weapons.
But the AWB did prevent bayonets from being used on rifles. Would not want to get stabbed if some one attacks me with a gun
Yeah, lets change our gun laws to match other countries, and while were at it, lets change our immigration policy to match other countries too. You ever try to get a work visa in Holland?
With all due respect Mr. Zakaria, I will respond with just two words, 'Kennesaw, Georgia'.
You Americans and your insance gun culture. You're hopeless. Thank God there's a whole ocean between my country and yours.
Yeah. if it wasn't we would have already taken you over.
Not sure where you are from, but I'm pretty sure us and our insane guns culture either A: saved your ass in WWII or B: our insane gun culture kicked your ass in WWII (if not more recently on both counts
)
and maybe you are right, maybe we just need to stay on our side of the ocean, you all can deal with the dictators, terrorists, famine, disease, wars on your continent. we will stay on ours...cleaning our guns to be ready when they try to cross the ocean when they have finished with you.
I do think Obama should run on gun control, he could use Chicago and NY and Washington as examples of liberal gun control lowering gun crime. Oh wait. lol
there's nothing 'lol' about people dying
unless it's a mime
Right!
That's why the good guys need to carry guns too.
No, but the failures of the gun control mayors and their cronies sure puts them in a bind. Running on the record of NYC or Chicago would be a sure way to lose.
Whether we agree or disagree on gun control, I don't see what could be served by allowing 6000 rounds of ammunition or assault weapons to civilians (like Holmes) and saying that makes us safer... not very different fundamentally from countries that want to acquire nukes, saying that it makes them 'safer'... nor very different from the old west where guns were the only way to keep us safer. Have we not progressed significantly beyond those days and times?
If you think 6,000 rounds is a lot of ammunition, you are kind of wrong.
.22 LR is sold in 500-round bricks. .223 Rem, 5.45×39 and 7.62×39 are sold by the case.
Correction - 60,000 rounds... which is what Holmes used
Whoa! 60,000 rounds? What did he haul them in, a semi? Let's see, $350 for 1000 rounds x 60 = a whole lot of money. Now add the shipping for it, truck to haul it, and forklift to unload it and this guy made a major investment in ammo.
Can you at least get some of the facts straight?
Is this in addition to his "AK"?
I don't know. Is people dying because they weren't allowed by the local government to defend themselves considered progress?
Sorry... I got the 60,000 rounds quote from Bill O'Reilly... this is what happens when you start listening to Fox News.... facts start taking on a life of their own
The simple fact is that caucasion Americans are quickly becoming the most hated race on the planet. The Jews still hold that position but I'll be damned if I am gonna go the way the Jews did in the holocaust. I guarantee you that the holocaust would not have happened if the Jews were armed as heavily as the US is today and if you gun control people think that could never happen here your dangerously naive to yourself and your families. If you don't believe that millions of people on this planet would cut you and your newborn son's head of with a rusty blade and do it with a smile, you better wake up, it happens every day. Just ask the the Russians under Stalin... 6 million dead or the Cambodians and Pol Pot if they wanted to be armed. Scarier yet Mao Ze Dung up to as many as 78 Million dead in China and Tibet and who is on the rise big time again, China! I'll trade our current gun violence over a Red invasion any day of the week! The fact that our country is so heavily armed deters any country from invading the homeland and is a major reason it has never been attempted (unless you count 911). Either way, no one is going to take my family alive and shave my head and put me in a shower, you can count on that.
You're a special case alright... A nutcase, uhhh go get a psychological check up or something.
And why would China bother with invading the US? If you kept up with the news in the pacific, I'd be more worried about the US starting a real war in South East Asia, either that or cold war... or maybe trade war. The only Chinese going to the US are business people, immigrants and international students. Sooo many wackos! Glad I'm north of your border! ^.^
All of you are crazy, what you people are talking about is letting your rights go, you're right, some people will die, it's a sad fact of life. But to let YOUR 2nd amendment rights be taken away over FEAR and IGNORANCE is flat dumb. The 2nd amendment was put in place not to protect us from our neighbors, but to protect us from government and tyranny. If you want to live in the 4th Reich then by all means give up your 2nd amendment rights. I WILL NOT give up mine, I was born an American I will die one. Isn't convenient that the CO issue RIGHT BEFORE a UN resolution on gun control. Here's some more food for thought.
"It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so." – Ronald Reagan and
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." – Ronald Reagan
You forget to let no tragedy go to waste, and the undercover gun control the President promised to the Brady campaign
There is no law regulation or screening process that can determine if a person is psychopath that will go on a rampage and kill innocent people.
I'm happy to see most of the people here have their head on straight and are not buying into this. It still scares me to think that MANY people will read this and believe what he is writing because it's on CNN.com so it MUST be true. Critical thinking skills are very undervalued in our society. And for everyone who thinks that "we're in a different time so the rules need to change", WWII was only 65+ years ago! People are still alive who fought! Do you think guns are more dangerous now than they were 65 years ago? Look at the past and you will see what happens when citizens lose their ability to protect themselves. Imagine how the folks over in Syria would be doing right now if they had to defend themselves with slingshots and sticks?
Does CNN hire every idiot on the planet? The intentional murder rate is different from europe by 1person per 100,000. What do guns have to do with murder more than making it /100000 easier apparently.
"Facts" and causality are very different things. If we accept your "facts", then in any random group of 100,000 people, there should be 88,000 guns. If we have three deaths out of 88,000 guns, how do you imply that the guns are the problem. Out of 100,000 people, many more than three will die of diseases. Should we ban doctors? Out of 100,000 people many more than three will die of automobile accidents. Should we ban cars and trucks? Out of 100,000 people, more than three will drop dead of natural causes, so I guess we should ban people too. Your logic is faulty and you are just intent on pushing your personal agenda and view on readers. CNN is no better than the other media networks. You are all a bunch of progressive, liberal elites who think you have all the answers and the rest of us are just too stupid to understand. Surprise, you are the ones who lack understanding and you are not nearly as smart as you think you are. See you in November!
If we can ban lawyers, and mimes I would be for banning people
What's the point of arguing on here? I have my beliefs & views on gun ownership & you have yours. Nothing anyone prints or voices is going to change those views & beliefs. Rant if it makes you feel better, though.
Fareed....using your logic, since we have 50% of the guns, we should acount for 50% of the gun violence. But we dont. And we are NOT the "rest of the world", nor should we be compared with the rest of the world.
The real question to ask is: "What type of people are most likely to be violent with guns?" I maintain that 95% of our citizens that own guns do so in a lawful and safe manner,and they can be trusted. Who are the other 5% that should not own weapons? Where in our country is gun violence the worst? Answer: The folks with the biggest gun problem are inner-city minorities. Fact. Sorry.......
Well written!
I completely agree with you. And the funny thing is all those people calling you "racist" are those minorities. At some point people will realize the 'White Man' isn't the cause of all this violence, it's just 'Man'.
Fareed is so un-American. There is not enough guns in the US. If everyone in the theatre had a gun, the lunatic shooter would be dead now and only one or two would have been hurt.
Gun ownership is what makes the US great. The chinese army may out number the US's but they would never mess with Americans because they are armed.
If Obama strays outside the American way, the armed citizens will overthrow the government just like the 2nd amendment intended.
Your argument is ridiculous. If people had started shooting back in a dark theatre, eventually no one could readily identify the bad guy. Do you think the good guys and the bad guys wear uniforms? How would the second 'good guy' know that the first 'good guy' was not the bad guy? And how would the third good guy know who was assaulting and who was defending. Do you think that innocent bystanders would not be cut down by friendly fire?
If more guns make a public gathering more safe, then why don't they hand out guns when the President comes to visit?
The problem with gun control is that it focuses on the tool and not the motive. If you remove the tool, and the individual is set on causing harm, he or she will choose another tool. Now, the chance you take, is that the tool the select will be either less lethal as in a knife, or, it will be more lethal, for example a bomb or arson.
What we should be doing is addressing the root cause of the problem, which would be mental illness, anti-social behavior, and violent tendencies.
With that said, sensible gun control would include ensuring individuals with mental health issues are not given permits to own firearms; mandatory safety training; eliminate sales of firearms at gun shows; and finally, registration of firearms.
Re: The arguments along the lines of "Why don't we ban cars, too...?" A car is not a weapon. It is not meant to kill. A gun is. Killing is a gun's purpose-slant-function.
Re: Limiting one's ability to acquire guns. It comes down to a very simple fact: the more guns, the more people get shot. Which is okay by me, as there are too many of us, and I don't particularly like people (myself included). So, if we're all okay with that very simple fact, then hey: More guns! More, more, more guns! Yay!
Oh, and pundit: Please check the very simple fact I've outlined above. Had more people in that theatre been carrying guns, more people would have gotten shot. (And the original shooter was wearing body armor, so... Oh, what am I saying? All of your concealed-carriers would have gotten him with a stone-cold, calm-and-collected single, perfectly aimed shot to the head, right? Oops My bad.) And now we'd be busy sorting out who shot whom– which "hero" managed to shoot which innocent moviegoers in all that darkness, noise, and chaos. So... please: Go polish your popgun and leave the discussion to the grownups.
Anything you can use to harm or kill is a weapon regardless of it's intended design. There are over twice as many car deaths in the US per year than gun deaths. To argue otherwise is semantics and dishonest. For example my target rifles are designed to punch small holes in paper at long distance. I know their purpose since I built them. Could they be used as weapons? Sure, but they were not designed to.
History has proven that when something is banned, or made harder to obtain a black market is sure to follow. Prohibition is the perfect example of this, alcohol was banned and the black market quickly rose to fill the void. The war on drugs is another example, how easy is it to get pot? Laws only constrain those who follow them.
You make a valid point that a ccw carrier would have little chance to hit the shooter in the theater. You do make the assumption that everyone carrying would have started shooting blindly, the Gabby Gifford shooting shows that assumption may be erroneous. There were multiple ccw carriers there but none of them engaged the shooter with guns due to not having a clean shot and being afraid to hit bystanders.
As for your statement to leave it to the grownups, your inability to make a rational point without conjecture and insult may follow along with Alinsky's rules 5 and 9 but exclude you from the conversaton.
you, by way of your inability to engage in a discussion without slinging insults would exclude you from and discussion we adults are having.
What happened in Colorado was a tragedy of great measure, that is for sure. Gun control laws however are not the problem, nor will it stop random violence. Stricter gun control laws will only effect the already law abiding citizen. Criminals and mad men with the intention to kill will always find their weapons illegally. Close to 11000 people were killed last year in deaths involving drunk drivers. Should we then ban alcohol or cars? Nothing would have stopped this unspeakable act. If he couldn't have used guns, he would have used bombs like he did in his apartment. I know at times like these we want to make sense of it all, find the reason so we can fix it...sad truth is, sometimes there are no way to fix something. It was not the guns faults those people died. It was the the man with an evil soul, the gun is just what he choose to do it with.
Words of wisdom. Thank you.
s there any topic on which Fareed is not the expert?
The more law abiding citizens wih a concealed carry weapon, the less likely it is for a criminal to do something wrong without dying for it!
Sorry, you need to go farther back than gun laws. You need to backup to the woefully distorted elections system that gives wingnuts control of who gets to be a candidate. With only wingnut approved politicians making it through the primaries to the general elections, nothing will be done about any of the major problems that confront the nation.
The reason the crime rate has dropped is because more people have access to guns. Criminals do not like to be shot. If the people in the theatre were prepared to defend themselves i.e. concealed carry permit, it would have ended badly for Holmes.
I love these buttheads that have never been in the military or even held a gun , make these assanine comments ,the educational system in this country ought be ashamed of themselves , but then again you have to have pride to be ashamed, this country is doomed , its all catching up.....
As a Muslim, Farheed would love to see us disarmed and defenseless.
Wayne is exactly right...
Banning guns will ONLY take them out of the hands of LEGAL owners.. Criminals will not give up their guns since they were obtained illegally to begin with. But don't take my word for it. Marijuana was banned in the US, starting back in the 1860's thru the 1930's. So, why is it that there are 12 million regular Marijuana users in the US? Why has 1/3 of the population tried Marijuana. A Banned, illegal substance.. Today, is the Most popular illegal drug out there, obtainable at nearly every street corner. Metric Tons of the stuff crosses into our borders from Canada and Mexico every single year. So, Tell me, how well has the Ban of Marijuana worked for the United States.. Banning guns will do nothing to the criminal element. If you want to Control Guns, then pass laws to punish gun crimes so severely that no one will ever consider using one. Add a 100 year, mandatory additional years to ALL crimes that involve a gun... No plea bargains, no parole possible. As for James Holmes, what he did is an act of Terror. Put him in Gitomo for life. He took away the rights of those that he killed,. He's a terrorist plain and simple, hold him under terrorism laws...
Read carefully. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA’s high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
Exactly, DC's gun control has only taken guns out of the hands of Legal, Law Abiding owners. Crimanals have nothing to lose by obtaining guns illegally. Gun control has doing nothing to help the District of Columbia.. Now, if they took the logical step of punishing all gun crimes with 100 year prison terms, people will think again...
Unfortunately they won't think again. Having been on the receiving end of a "state sponsored" 2 year vacation I can tell you that 99% of the people in prison don't think 3 hours ahead of the present. Those same people would have no qualms stealing a firearm to commit a crime whether the sentence would be 1 year or life without.
dude have you been to Arlington? it's a yuppie town. Arlington is only a few minutes away from DC where most likely the criminals come over to mess with passive rich kids who don't own guns.
The only reason there has never been a war in this country is that the opposition is so afraid of the number of weapons in this country.
yup that Civil War never happened.
Phah Q CNN
If you are going to use statistics then correlate gun crime in each country with it's racial and ethic poulation. Then calculate the percentage of gun crimes by race or ethnicity. To much to ask? To politically incorrect? Afraid of the results?
oh yes & if your half-baked theory were correct there would be next to no crime in Chicago, New York City & DC b/c they have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.
WHOOPS again! they also have some of the highest homicide rates in the nation.
rationalize that one for me sir!
Zakaria thinks more gun laws will reduce crime. Vermont (very lax laws) is the safest state in the union while California, Maryland, and New Jersey (with very strict laws) have much higher crime rates. Chicago has draconian ant-gun laws and is a crime wasteland.
Zakaria = retarded.
Crime and gun ownership is not related. Crime directly depends on education, lack of opportunity and poor upbringing of children. A loose gun control will have more dead bodies in the street.
Fareed, I am a little confused with your logic >> The US has 88 guns per 100 people and light green countries like India have between 0 and 10. So then the US has between 8.8 and 88 times the number of guns per 100 people as compared to India. Then you state that the US has 10 times the number of homicides per 100K people as compared to India. I am not a statistician but it appears that the US does very well considering the number of guns in our possession. And your article does not factor how many homicides are committed with illegally obtained weapons. There are plenty of those no doubt- where gun control laws are irrelevent to begin with. Sorry Fareed, I like most of your articles but I'm not buying your argument here,
The problem with Fareed's argument is that the parts of the USA with the most guns have the lowest violent crime rates, and the places with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime rates.
and your source is FOXNEWS, I am sure
or you could use Google, it's free and easy. Of course that may contradict your hyperbole
here is some more facts fareed.you attend bilderberg which would to see a population of 500 million and who desire to have a one world government and kill all freedom in the world. do my facts matter more than yours?
Mr. Zakaria:
Before you rattle off any more of this nonsense, I ask you to take a look on the map and tell me what colors have been painted on Egypt, Syria, and Lybia.
Supposedly, according to you, they have less guns per capita than the united states.
All three of these countries are going through the termoil of revolution.
Two of the countries have toppled their dictatiors, and the third is hanging on by his finger tips.
They didn't do this with water pistols.
According to you, they all have fewer guns than the United States.
Now, let's compare deaths by firearms between these three countries and the United States in the last two years.
Who has had the most deaths by firearms?
And by the way, Afiganistan is quite green as well.
When people want to commit horriffic acts they will find the tools or make the tools to do it with .
Banning guns is not the answer.
the answer is..... cuz Americans have the luxury to spend money on guns...that's why we have more guns than anyone else.... our country was formed because of the rule of tyranny and that's why we will never let any government including ours to step all over us. but with so many guns, what do you expect? no crimes committed by guns....it's all stats ... it's like if you have more cars on the road, the chances of an accident is higher... duh
What do you mean by ”our country was formed because of the rule of tyranny and that's why we will never let any government including ours to step all over us.” I find that statement very confusing, incomprehensible. What is your agenda?
Then, you compare cars (accidents, I imagine) to guns? Most people who own guns are well aware of the dangers of owning them. Yes, not all people are as careful as they should be and children die. However, by far, gun owners are most responsible or there would be “accidents” every minute.
yes lets give up our right to own guns. only police and soldiers should have guns, yes. none of them kill people by mistake nor do any of them kill people illegally and none of them are bad or evil. i think that makes sense. also people in the media never loe and are never wrong and are the smartest people in the world. also, politicians do not lie. i am making so much sense right now. fareed, such an american name. can we rename george washington fareed washington?
There has to be a lot of discourse on gun possession, sales and purchases in the USA. We can not deny the fact that we have a lot of gun violence for a first-world country. Apparently having guns, having the 2nd amendement, and the liberty to deal guns, and the enourmous lobbying machinery wielded by the NRA have not diminished the number of deaths our society suffers annually at the hand of someone exercizing his or her right to shoot a gun.
Especially, The NRA...howcome they have not proposed any strategies to minimze gun violence..? How come they only predicate the right to have and buy guns?
The reason the NRA only advocates the second amendment, and the right to bear arms because that's their job. It's the Brady campaign's job to advocate recinding the second amendment. Just because more people agree with the NRA, and therefore make the NRA more powerful doesn't make them inherently evil.
Too bad we can not count on our professional politicians as all they care is not disturbing the peace of all those affiliated to the NRA. Anything related with gun control means losing millions of votes.
On the other hand, those affiliates..how are they a part or a solution to avoid mass murders? I don't see how their help has produced any favorable change. Other than being a captive market for gun sales; they won't do anything, wont propose any ideas to reduce the damage of so many guns out on the streets...and let the victims continue falling
It looks like only the victims have the right to continue dying so that those with the freedom to have guns and to sell guns can continue to exert their right.
Personally, I thank Fareed for opening this window for us to discuss this tragic dilemma.
I concur.
It looks like only the victims have the right to continue dying so that those with the freedom to have cars and to sell cars can continue to exert their privilege.
(over twice as many deaths as guns, could have gone with falls but makes more logic to compare inanimate object to inanimate object.)
Too many Americans have an unhealthy obsession with guns and violence. The combination is deadly. Literally,
My heart breaks for the lives lost and their grieving families.
Most pointless article ever. I will NOT give up the right to defend myself just because of a few unfortunate instances of wrongful gun violence. The trade-off in safety is not worth it. If a ban is ever even considered I will immediately buy 50,000 bullets and 10 additional bazookas to live out my life in safety.
Ummmm, why not just move to a more peaceful country then? If yu need all that to keep you safe in the US....
Lmao, love it when people just keep attempting to correct people, even though someones already done it. Well put Lazy Ace, gives me confidence in my belief that there are still logical reasonable people out there.
Just take away all guns and the U.S. will be a safer place to live. Just that simple.
PPPFFFFFFF!!!! DID u tink of dat all by you wittle self? MWUAHAHAHAAAA!!!! Does anyone else out there think he might actually believe he was the first one to think this one up??? BAHAAHAHAHA!!! You are to funny.....
you are so naive your should have your computer, cell phone, and any other communication devices taken away from you permanently!
When you must fight, fight to win. Criminals do not fight fair. If you fight fair like most victims, you will lose. My advise: Never fight fair. do not become a victim.
take away all guns and this would be a safer place???? this is a joke ??? right???
The second amendment evolves with the people it was designed to protect, just as governments no longer use muskets, neither do we. It survives once again and I also won the bet,lol....
This site lists the intentional homicide rate for many countries. UK & India have very strict gun laws compared to US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Following are the rates per 100,000 population (taken from that site)
Country USA UK India
2000 5.5 1.71 4.0
2001 5.6 1.79 4.0
2002 5.6 2.1 3.9
2003 5.7 1.75 3.5
2004 5.5 1.60 3.6
2005 5.6 1.38 3.5
2006 5.7 1.42 3.5
2007 5.6 1.46 3.4
2008 5.4 1.26 3.4
2009 5.0 1.17 3.4
MostRecent 5.0 1.17 3.4
Now you decide if gun control is good or bad when India has 4 times the population of US and a much lower rate of homicide due to gun control laws.
Yeah, because they get off using stones, swords and setting their women on fire instead. A bullet to the head just isn't cruel enough for them.....
At least they don't stand a block away, throw Bibles at the person until they fall down, and then shot them as they start to get up...
Again, we are talking about GUN DEATH here... try and keep up...
Jean – you are not making any sense at all.
What are YOU talking about?
ummm most of them live in poverty? they can't even buy a bullet.
You controlled for population size by giving RATES (# of events per 100,000 people), so its not relevant that India has four times the population. Stats 101.
@jlacke: The very fact that there are 4 times more people in India than here in US and at the same time the rate of gun related homicides per 100,000 people is so much lower than US, shows that gun controlled works in large population as well as small population (like UK). US has population more than UK and less than India and yet has higher rate of gun related homicides than UK & India. To me it is very clear, if we have gun control laws as in UK/India, the rate of gun related homicides will fall down here too.
A shout out to ALL u gun owners!!! PEACE!!!! You get to keep yo PIECE!!! Did we win again? I'm sorry. I wasn't keeping up with it, since I knew it would be a waste of time again. (YAWN).....
We have more shootings because we have a lack of personal responsibility. We (Americans in general) blame others for our (respective) actions. We are a Nation of blame shifters. "It's not my fault, it's ___________________ (fill in the blank). "I didn't do nothin'" is a commonly heard phrase.
Just like the lunatic in Norway and the previous attacks carried out be lunatics, it's the LUNATIC who is to blame.
Do we blame the car or alcohol companies when drunks kill people? Do we blame the makers of rat poison and bearings/bolts when bombers blow themselves up? No, because it's the individual who did the deed. But when guns are involved, every bleeding heart comes out of the woodwork to demonize guns.
In the words of one of our greatest, "Those who would sacrifice essential Liberty for safety deserve neither iberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.
fareed should move back to Jihadistan.
Mad or Evil – Timothy McVeigh used FERTILIZER!!!!! No guns – a homemade explosive device. So What Fareed? Gonna ban fertilizer as well?...............................AND KNIVES........................and suicide bomb kits?
What a stupid man!
Your article is far too brief to really give a good understanding of this topic (I understand there is limited space).
Look up "Number of guns per capita by country" in Wikipedia and you'll see that the stats on number of guns in each country can have a very wide margin of error plus or minus. Hence, we may in fact NOT be the ONLY country with over 70 per 100.
Sure, but the reality is more people are killed by people talking, tweeting,blogging, and texting on their cell phones while driving every year than by guns. Where's the outcry over that?
If Holmes did not have access to guns, the Aurora theater would have been the site of a bombing with even more killed, because Holmes apparently was cunning enough to build IEDs around his home. And you wouldn't have solved the original problem in the first place.
More gun laws? Well here is some interesting laws on the books – In PA you can't be a felon and own a firearm yet every years 5,000 felons lie on gun applications in an attempt to purchase a firearm. And you know what PA does with these felons who attempt to illegally purchase a gun. NOTHING! So yeah we need more gun laws.
Fareed. That's an excellent exposé . Allow me to temper the tendency to be one-sided about the issue of firearms related violence and gun proliferation. While I fully agree that the statistics speak for themselves with respect to the relationship between gun proliferation and gun-related homicides; I am not in agreement that the psychology of America is on par with that of the rest of the world- nor for that matter, with America itself in the past!
I have written about this in various places, particularly right after a mass murder spree such as the most recent.
What you may find even more alarming is the combination of gun proliferation combined with a progressively worsening social and psychological topography added to a deep and prolonged recession, spell real trouble for the US.
It is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff at times. I advocate stricter enforceable gun laws plus more common sense as well. America's problem is a National Psychosis. If the violence wasn't enacted through guns, it would be implemented in other ways. Witness the booby trapped apartment of the perpetrator in question. Gun control is very helpful but it really boils down to healing a sick nation.
Well said.
Fareed, I always enjoy your perceptions and opinions, and most days I agree with you. Today, is not one of those days! Perhaps you might rethink your position on guns in America when you have a 45 cal.a.c.p. (pistol) at your head 30 minutes after you have dialed 911. Then just maybe you might want to have yourself and those around you armed. Because the criminals will always have guns.
I failed to answer the second part. "What would you change"
1) I would put a halt to the glorification of violence in media for the sake of entertainment and profit
2) I would limit the number of guns a family may own
3) I would put strict limits on ammunition
4) I would demand a full course of training and PSYCHOLOGICAL assessment of each and every gun purchase applicant prior to granting a license
5) I would require re-certification of gun license holders every 5 years
6) I would ban assault weapons for all except military & police
7) I would instate a nationwide system of community watch so that errant persons can be helped before they can do harm
And how long until your changes are applied to the other rights? By limiting one right in these ways sets precedence to limit the others.
I don't know about number #7... look what happened to Trayvon Martin.
Why not just declare martail law? How about house to house serches? One reason that thsi debate never goes anywere is becuse people do not think befroe they write or speak. I have owned firearms for over a quter of a centry.
I have not shot anyone. But lets just say we use your plan. Can you promise that this will never happen again?
No one is safe against a mad man hell bent on mass murder. There is no law for that. BTW I have lost loved ones due to gun violence. So I know the pain. However I will not let my pain obscure my thinking abilities.
We may have bought some time, but I and countless other people have gotten ready for it if they ever do get their way. All of my guns just,...... diappeared... Where did they go??? lol. Be prepared. Anything is better than being taken by surprise. Research about what is best for you. Mine's a good one. I keep the gun I use for work, but anything else I had just,....... disappeared......
Please tell us where you work...
Why not ban swimming pools lots of people die in those too. It is ignorant to think that we can legislate ourselves into safety, evil people simply do evil things and taking away guns prevents good people from having the right to defend themselves.
Noone is going to take a swimming pool to commit a crime.
Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
A gun is a machine that without it's user, remains harmlessly dormant. One could stand in the middle of one-million loaded ak-47's and NEVER receive a scratch....EVER.
Zakaria, do you REALLY want to stop gun related crime in the U.S.? It can be accomplished, but not by some fanciful 'restrictive' law being passed...
No sir. If you REALLY want to things like this to stop, assign a weapon to every single adult in the country. Pass a law that make it a REQUIREMENT
The second Amendment made it a Requirement. Time has changed the meaning.
jUSTtHEfACTSmAAm
Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
A gun is a machine that without it's user, remains harmlessly dormant. One could stand in the middle of one-million loaded ak-47's and NEVER receive a scratch....EVER.
Zakaria, do you REALLY want to stop gun related crime in the U.S.? It can be accomplished, but not by some fanciful 'restrictive' law being passed...
No sir. If you REALLY want to things like this to stop, assign a weapon to every single adult in the country. Pass a law that make it a REQUIREMENT
...to carry a firearm.
True 'Gun Control' is the ability to hit your target.
I'll go with that one....
For sale: genuine howitzer, fires 1,200 rounds in 15 seconds, attatched to small size tank. Any buyers?
I'll buy it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol.
Here we go again... discussing the same topic we always discuss after a crime has been committed with weapons. Hey Zak.. if you don't mind me calling you Zak... actually I don't give a _____! So Zak... I say this... lets go ahead and delete the 2nd amendment. What happens after that? No longer does the American Government have any fear of its citizens. No longer does the American Government need to give people the right of trial by jury. No longer does the Government see a need in preserving the rights of people and effectively turns us all into sheep. Come on... seriously? Do we really need to have this conversation again? Its the price of freedom folks. Give your 2nd amendment rights away the federal government no longer fears you.
right said Fred....the 2nd amendment gives us the power to protect our self from the possible tyranny of our own government... our government was formed because of that reason. the people of this country threw out the British government from this land.... that's why our country is the country you know today, not some lame duck country like Canada.
The individual is always the root of whatever act of violence is carried out, that being said the weapon of choice becomes secondary. The point is that guns are inanimate objects just as knives and the materials to make bombs and without human interaction are all harmless. This leads to another problem, if guns are not available what will be chosed to carry out a given violent act? A knife, a bomb, a vehicle? Again, if someone is in a state of mind that results in planning a violent act with the intent to cause death, fear, damage or sende a message the lack of a legal means to obtain an object or materials to craft an object will not stop the act from being carried out....maybe make it more difficult, possibly...but stop it, fat chance.
Consider the last time that your pots, pans and cooking appliances and utensils got together and made you a nutrtious hot meal on their own....what? that has never happened? that's what I thought just like a gun has never wandered out on it's own and killed someone!
The bigger problem is that governing bodies feel the need to govern to the lowest common denominator...example – a story makes the news where a man is burned by scalding hot coffee from a fast food restaurant...sound familiar...suddenly labeling and warnings are required by law that inform people that the coffee served is extremely hot and will burn should it come in contact with bare skin. It's as if we are all suddenly infants again and we need some great authority to tell us what to do at every turn.
Remember that each bit of legislation is new and does not replace existing law so the mountain keeps getting higher and with the passage of each law an equal amount of freedom dissapears!
can' cure stupid !!!!
...also you are citing statistics...give me a break, statistics can be manipulated to support any arguement. Give me a challenge and I will show you how to do it. Tell me if you would like me to present my own set of statistics to negate your claims.
After so many pieces that are inaccurate, I believe the CNN public deserve you be demoted or fired. Where you come up with your fiction. . . er. . . facts is beyond reality. Maybe you should be working for Schoolastic in the fiction department. You obviously do NOT fact check. Where IS your paper trail or your recorded factual interviews. Ohhhh that's right, you have nothing but a keyboard and a deadline. You ARE a hack of a newsman. Seen better and more accurate reporting in the volunteer section. . . iReport section. Oh by the way. Pack up the things in your offce, YOU ARE fired before you cause us a libelous or defaming law suit. Now that part is fiction that would make wonderful reality.
Fareed wants to draw a connection between having guns and gun violence but his cause and effect analysis is, well, lacking. The US has the worst road rage in the world. This must be caused by our highest percentage of automobile ownership too, right? We are also the most overweight country in the world. Must be caused by the most forks per capita!
As a gun collector I must say that gun control in America is sort of retarded. It's retarded because when you fill out the local and federal criminal background to register the gun the applicants need to make a check mark if they are mentally ill or not.
If I had the power to pass a gun control bill I would have every applicant who wants to buy a gun
- First, pass a criminal background check of course.
- Second, get certified by the state that the applicant is sane, not some nutt job.
- Third, only civilians who are employed that requires a firearm be able to purchase bullet proof armor.
- Four, high capacity drum magazines should be banned.
- Five, get rid of state gun laws and instead just have federal gun laws.
- Six, limit high capacity rounds to 30ish.
- Seven, make it harder to get a Concealed Weapons Permit. I think it should be as hard as getting a Class III license...this would eliminate people like Zimmerman.
......that's all I can think for now.
I am glad it is not up to you.
1. already done 2. virtually impossible to do, and leaving it up to local authorities has already failed in many areas 3. body armor available to civilians is pretty poor stuff – dealers will only sell upper level protection to buyers who can prove they are in the military or are LEOs 4. the drum mag the guy used in CO jammed, like they usually do, so it may have saved lives 5. Only federal laws? Have you looked at the way DC is doing things? 6. most mags already fall in that category 7. CCW already takes classroom and range time as well as finger printing, proof of citizenship, etc. Last – you seem to have already judged Zimmerman, before any trial. Let's wait until all the facts come out, OK?
#2 So you're saying that when I check mark that i'm not insane on my application and they just take your word for it fine...why even have it on the application? I have to check mark every time I buy a gun.
#3 I don't know much about body armors that are available to civilians, but logically who needs bullet proof armor if it's not job related? tell me one good reason why you or I should have one. you seriously think that you can put on the armor when someone breaks into your house middle of the night?
#4 I have heard the high capacity drum magazines tend to jam, but 100rds really? I am ok with 100rd drum magazines as long as they allow us to buy full automatic weapons that are currently produced... I can unload my 30 clip FN Fal or my AK47 semi automatic in seconds... every gun "expert" knows that a shooter is more accurate with a semi vs a full automatic to begin with...it's all about placement.
#5 I live 45 mins away from DC – to me they don't have any gun laws in DC because there is not even 1 gun dealer in DC LMAO..... For example, just make Virginia's gun law or even Alaska's gun law which I have no idea make it all uniform country wide... because in my case when I go to a shooting range in MD from VA different laws apply transporting firearms...that's silly... it's like the Tint Law MD is 35% all around, VA is 35% rear and 50% front so even if you have MD tags you can get a ticket.
#6 Class III weapon license (full automatic weapons made before May 1986) requires you to get endorsed by your local police department and then get approved by the ATF. CCW permit is a joke in VA. You just take a basic safety class which doesn't require range time and this can be done in few hours... proof of citizenship is also in the basic license.
Btw i'm a member of NRA and Virginia Citizens Defense League and I have collected guns for more than a decade. I have more guns and ammo than this wacko Holmes, but you all were lucky that I was actually sane when I check marked that I was actually not mentally ill...like the VT massacre where one guy with two handguns killed 32 people...he's a clear example of someone who checked marked that he was sane when he wasn't. How hard is it for someone to get certified by the state to be sane? I bet you no more harder than getting your annual physical.
yup those criminals really care about Federal laws as much as they do State laws. Let's just keep giving the Feds more and more power because they have such alacrity to do so many things well. Just not on any planet with gravity.
I like the federal law vs my state's law... you ever been to VA? it's a police state, they tax you for everything, you can't buy liquor from the grocery store only the state regulated store, i don't even think we have a strip club in this state, no radar detectors, 50% front tint law... but guess what... in our state you can have a gun holstered in plain view in public....aka open carry like the wild wild west.
why does everyone try to compare America to every where else? if we wanted to be like everywhere else we would still be British...
everywhere else is NOT like Britain! I live in Canada,and we re not like Britain, nor are we like the US (THANK GOD)! I would bet you ve never been to britain,or anywhere else!
In nearly every massacre that occurs on schools, universities they are "gun free zones". This assures the psychopaths they can murder with impunity. When only criminals can get guns and this seems to be beyond the cognitive function of he gun control advocates and the fool who wrote this article-criminals don't care about laws. That's why they are criminals. At Columbine-17 laws were broken. So what? What is the democrat argument? We need more laws that will save us all...
You are so correct.... any criminal or a nutt case right now can walk into a class, theater, restaurant, church... basically anywhere you can find venerable people and shoot them like a fish in a barrel.
Worse yet, if we wanted to be like everyone else, we'd be French! (Why do the French plant so many trees beside their roads? So invading armies can march in the shade.)
The NRA has this fantasy about how owning lots of guns is somehow protecting our rights as Americans against the US Federal government, but have guns ever been used successfully, at any time in history, by US citizens to protect their rights against the US Federal government? Has it even happened, once?
The only cases I can think of are cases like Wako, Texas... the Civil War... the Freemen Standoff...
Usually it doesn't end well for the guys trying to use guns to defend their rights.
Mr. Zakaria is a remarkably informed and intelligent commentator on international events. In most cases, his Harvard education has served him well.
However, in this case he shows a level of ignorance that is nothing short of remarkable. He reads a few bits from articles he happens to agree with and then says that there is only one solution; no guns means no crime. During the 1920's people believed that if there was no alcohol there'd be no crime. Then in the 1960's people believed that if there were no drugs there'd be no crime. Neither has turned out to be the case.
Americans are the freest people in the world. To attempt to infringe on one right to satisfy the public's sense of vengeance will eventually endanger all of our rights. After all, someone could easily use statistics and pie charts to say "If there are no Muslims, there would be no terrorists. We need laws to control them!" Such an argument is just as one-dimensional and unjust as Mr. Zakaria's and would be as great a threat to our country's freedoms as the laws that he is proposing.
The problem with gun laws, is that a person intent on committing murder, doesn't care about other laws they break along the way. Gun laws overwhelmingly affect law-abiding citizens more than inconvenience criminals. A high quality handgun costs upward of $600 now, but stolen guns are sold on the street for less than $100. Where will a criminal shop? What good will background checks do? No city, locality or state that has passed a restrictive gun law has seen a reduction in gun crime as a result. A lightly armed populace is a magnet for criminals, ask the folks in Morton Grove or Washington D.C. The FBI estimates 99.9% of guns are never used illegally.
I always find it extremely funny when gun ownership is equated with "gun violence". Has anyone heard of a little country named Switzerland? People are REQUIRED
(cONTINUED) to own at least one firearm there. Now look up their murder rate. What are they doing that's right when we are soooo wrong?
America will destroyed by enemies both domestic and foreign and the first part of that is gun control. Bad people will always find a way. gun control will not stop anything, this is anti american article and anti belief in the basic part of america.
Odd that he mentions that other countries, with less guns, have fewer gun-related deaths... he doesn't mention how many deaths (homicides) are caused by other means... I would imagine that britain's cicket bat-related crimes are much higher than in the US, because we don't have cricket bats... people find other means to kill each other. The fact that other countries with less guns have less gun-related crime is moot.
Oh, Boy! Always be good at crying out to people about changes before doing something in helping with the changes, somebody seems to have inherited Obama's fault. Do you agree with that, Mr. Fareed Zakaria? Those callings for changes would not cost Americans’ vitalities on doing the jobs while they were undergoing certain recoveries, for American people are energetic, right?
please tell me more about how these criminals follow currant gun laws and how they will follow new ones.....
I respect Fareed. He is one of the few journalists that I pay attention to, due to his lack of obvious bias. But, I disagree with his conclusion here. I think that James Holmes could have done what he did by carrying a bag with loaded pistols. Also, had he not been able to get guns, he had the know how to rig a bomb. So, I don't think focusing our attention on guns is will do much good. I don't know what the answer is, but I think it's something to do with our culture. Why do we allow movie makers to make movies that show such awful violence. Common sense tells me that the images stay in people's minds; and, for some people, they end up acting out what they see. I just wish more people shared this view and we could end such movies. But apart from movies, we need to figure out a better way to recognize that people like James Holmes are dangerous, and do something before they lose control. I think that if we focus on these two goals we would be better served than focusing on guns.
Yeah, but it's never going to happen.
1) Since there are so many guns out there already, banning them now is like closing the gate 200 years after the horses left
2) There are a lot of guns because there is demand for them. As a result there is large industry (i.e. lots of jobs) that are associated with guns
3) Banning guns will just create a huge black market. The Mexican drug cartels would make you an honorary captain for opening up a lucrative new market for them
I live in a remote roadless community of about 450 people where guns significantly outnumber people. A large number of those guns also happen to be semi-autos, and as for ammunition, people typically buy by the case, instead of the box. Even with all this firepower, gun crime is nearly non-existent. Food for thought.
Without a doubt the pro-crime NRA will come moaning and crying about the negative effects of so many guns loose in our society. The NRA loves guns and hates people. That's a fact based on their actions, and every single member of the NRA shares in the responsibility anytime someone is shot.
The mere thought of my guns being taken away from by the govt, and sent to Mexico to track drug cartels...is..WAIT WHAT!....You mean we have to worry about American Citizens having legal weapons, when the Govt give weapons to criminals?
A Proper Gunsmith would refuse to convert a Semi-Auto to Full Auto, a unscruplous one however has no such problem and when it comes to the all might dollar.
Interesting to read some comments: Like little children some people don't understand the problem and not being allowed to have a gun, means America is finally disappearing. The liberty thinkers in the tradition of the founding Fathers get cold feet: suddenly the world changed and having a gun to shoot something to eat; like a rabbit this isn't necessary in times of supermarkets. Oh dear! Probably women should start to question the role of strong men with guns, weapons, fast cars and all this macho-behaviour and choose those with diplomatic skills and cleverness...
Some of us gun owners are women! This Mach.o stereotype is ridiculous.
Ok lets ban guns. In 50 years maybe they will have worn out and stopped circulating. Lets ban cars and motorcycles because some idiot drove at 150+ miles a hour and killed people. Lets ban nailguns on a worksite. Point is that a gun isnt dangerous until a idiot picks it up. This idiot was under care from a psychiatrist. Its not a failure of gun control its a failure to disclose information due to client and doctor treatment laws. This guy should have been reported, flagged and investigated.
3 gun homicides per 100,000 people? and fifty percent of the worlds guns? uhhhmmm, sounds like a low ratio to me.
"We cannot change the psychology of madmen"?
Oh really? Then why are there mental health professionals?
Wasn't this "evil" "madman" seeing a psychiatrist?
Was he not reaching out for help by seeing a psychiatrist?
Why didn't the psychiatrist have this evil madman in the hospital?
Why don't insurance companies pay to have a patient's psychiatrist actually listen to the patient?
Why do insurance companies routinely tell mental health professionals to treat their patients at a less expensive level of care, even when the patient's clinical symtomotology suggest the need for a more restrictive level of care?
Why do psychiatrists choose to ignore their patients?
Why do psychiatrists always seem to be the doctors that finished at the bottom of their class?
Why is the suicide rate among psychiatrists so high?
The discussion of gun control as a result of this incident will last as long as it did as a result of Virginia Tech and incident after incident before it.
These incidents are simply the result of a society that is F**cked up. When people see no meaning to their lives, they behave in meaningless ways. Did I just rip off Monte Python?
If we pass laws to limit he 2nd Amendment then the rest of the Bill of Rights can't be far behind. Freedom of the press, Freedom to worship, Freedom to express our opinuoin etc. " Those that give up saftey for security, deserve neither saftey nor security" Benjamin Franklin. See Goerge Orwell's "Animal Farm"
the 2nd amendment is an amendment to the original bill of rights, and wasnt there to begin with.It was only added later(as an amendment), and could be removed or changed(amended) to reflect modern society.
I'm a gun owner, and was ready to make a post going on about doing more to lessen the number of crazy people walking the streets instead of guns, but what's the point? Bottom line, both sides will cling to what they believe, damn any differing opinion, and again we have an issue that no one is willing to compromise on and no meaningful change will come of it. One side gets their way and goodbye 2nd amendment, the other gets their way and tragedies like this keep happening. I really do hope that this country can come together eventually and learn to compromise for the good of us all.
you sound like a reasonable,responsible gun owner.What would you think of a law making gun owners responsible for the crimes committed with their gun,even if it was stolen? I mean, if your a responsible gun owner,and most crimes are committed by illegal guns(which is what most responsible gun owners tell me),shouldnt you be responsible for keeping that gun safe?And if you cant guarentee the safety of your gun,why should you own such a lethal weapon?
Great idea. Let's do the same if your car is stolen and used illegally. This country is big on blaming someone else, this would really be a great way to legally get rid of any personal responsibility.
I think the map makes it clear..... Just pick the shade where you would rather be if you could live anywhere in the world you chose. Select the area where you would feel most secure. So easy.
antarctica!
We tried to outlaw alcohol and that didn't work. Drugs are illegal, how's that working? It's illegal for people to enter this country without permission. Why would anyone think gun control laws would be any more effective?
You can't enforce a law that most people won't obey.
because if guns are harder to get they will be much more expensive and less available,therefore less gun crime.
Or more guns get stolen. I don't think the cost of gun has anything to do with it being used to shoot someone.
Hello. Earth to dokron. So you're saying that because drugs are illegal they are much more expensive and it's harder to get your hands on them? You can get drugs and nearly every high school and middle school in the country. And with the current administration giving guns to criminals who then use them to murder U.S. citizens, I'm a bit skeptical about trusting our government with any more guns.
So where in his article did he say we should ban guns entirely? Plenty of people have made comments against him on that basis, but he is talking about stricter gun control laws, not banning guns completely
america will never have decent gun laws because it is no longer a democracy;it is a plutocracy(gov of the wealthy...all your gov lackys are multi-millionaires) and an oligarchy(gov run by a small number of people-corporations,like the oil corporations,pharmaceutical companies,and the NRA,which get their policies and laws passed by lobbying(paying) gov. lackies.) They even get to decide who the american citizen can vote for...only a small number of people decide who represents the dems or repubs,not the average american.
Just blame it ALL on bush, isn't EVERYTHING that's wrong , Bush's fault anyway? the president and demoncrats say that all the time.. isn't what these 4 years were about, placing blame instead of actually doing something that was promised.. da mn bush and all that's wrong with this country..
A lot of comments focus on automatic vice semiautomatic. Mr. Zakaria appears ignorant of guns, perhaps he has never even fired one. In his defense, his article focused on gun control, not the type of controls that should be put in place. I am an avid 2nd Amendment supporter but understand why many people believe why gun controls should be put in place. One nice one would be to not allow gun sales to nut jobs. Since most of us are nut jobs, this one will never work. How can you accurately identify a nut job? Another is an assault rifle/large magazine ban. I hardly look like Rambo with my 45-70 lever action rifle. In many of these shootings, I do think the Rambo factor does have an influence. Assault guns are cool and you look cool and feel cool firing one. I personally love them. But the ease in which one lands in the hands of a real nut job does scare me. No doubt many people's lives could/would be saved if there were no assault rifles/large magazines in our country outside the military. But, since there are so many already out there, an assault weapon/large magazine ban would just drive up the price of assault weapons/large magazines (buy now!). The nut job looking to use one would just have to pay more. Sadly I think good gun control will have to remain close grouping at 100 yards.
Mr. Zakaria and other anti-gun zealots can skew the data on personal gun ownership in FREE NATIONS like America, but do not take into account that many gun owners own more than one gun. For him to say that there are 10 guns per 100 people in America fails to take into consideration that, for example, I personally own 10 firearms in different calibers which I use for legitimate hunting and target shooting purposes. I also have a toolbox full of different tools for different purposes. Does this make me a "tool nut"? Hardly. It is not the proliferation of guns that Mr.Zakaria should be concerned with, but guns in the wrong hands. His op-ed smacks of anti-gun bias.
I'm statying out of it. I agree that I see no reason for anyone to have an AK-47. However, I do NOT see Governmnet being aable to regulate such a thing. Now the only people that won't have one are the law abiding people, the criminals will still have them. Plus, thhis law wouldn't have prevented the Colorado shooting. Best case scenario, he would have used another weapon. So you guy go ahead and fight amongst yourself about a problem I do see, but you will never successfully do anything about. I wish you luck though.
Anti-gun people always pull out a bunch of statistics and go "See? Guns killed all these people!" What they don't accept is that gun owners have guns to avoid becoming statistics. There are thousands of incidents each year where guns save lives, often without firing a shot. But those incidents don't generate statistics. It doesn't mean they don't happen, and in large numbers. People who drown become a statistic. When they get saved by a lifeguard, they just go home and don't add to the body count. If there's no statistics on people saved, are you going to tell me that lifeguards don't save anybody?
Quit picking on guns. A club in the right hands is a deadly weapon. Sling shot? Crossbow? Poison in the popcorn? People kill people.
I noticed they leave the stats out that would contradict this. Common media one sided mentality. Their are many other data points that could be used. Why are they ONLY using the ones that help their cause? At least be fair and show all the data so one can make their own logical opinion, instead of this brainwashing video.
One reason this incident still would have happened, evern if ALL guns were illegal. Did people not read about his appartment? All the bombs he had built, that would NOT have been subjected to the illigality of guns. He would have just took the smoke grenade, goglle, gas maks and bomms in there, and started blowing everything up. We would then not be talking about illegalizing guns, but maybe goggles, or smoke, or some other checmical he used to make them.
If Mr. Zakaria were really interest in "facing the facts", he would go to the United Nations Office On Drugs and Crime (UNODC) from where he "cherry picked" the map accompanying his anti-gun op-ed and read what they wrote on their official site on 6 July 2007 when the reported on the destruction of 14000 illegal firearms in Columbia (which has the highest number of firearms related killings in the world) on July 9th's International Gun Destruction Day.
For the benefit of those who don't have the time (like Mr. Zakaria) to look this up, here is a direct quote from the UNODC report:
"Colombia has one of the highest homicide rates in the world. In 2005, 70% of over 17,000 homicides registered were committed with firearms. Cities registering the highest numbers of legal firearms were also those showing the lowest homicide rates. Conversely, cities with the highest murder rates were those with the lowest number of legal arms. Most homicides in Colombia are connected with the illegal ownership, manufacture and trade of firearms."
As I stated previously, it is not the presence of guns in a FREE Country like America that is the problem. It is illegal firearms and guns in the wrong hands.
Wow...Fareed simply proves his ignorance concerning weapons. Getting automatic weapons is not easy at all. It actually requires a special Federal permit to even obtain an automatic weapon. And the comments referring to the conversion of semi-auto weapons to full auto are also a bunch of bunk. Even trying to do that is illegal and most of the time ends up in fialure of the weapon, sometimes the failure is fatal to the operator. But hell, when do criminals follow the law anyway??
The only reason the US is free is because of the God-given right to bear arms and overthrow an oppressive government. if you want to look at countries with gun control: Nazi Germany and Mexico come to mind. Oppressive governments always try to control the guns because they are the last defense against despots. If you exclude the suicides and the police shootings, there are far more instances of people using firearms for self-defence than there are for murder. America has a problem, but it isn't guns. Liberals, with their namby pamby approach to locking up the mentally ill and their desire to create dependence, poverty and illegitimacy in the US are to blame for our current state of lunacy. People are buying guns like hotcakes because we know that your current road leads us to totalitarianism or anarchy. Both conditions require lots of guns and ammo.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
What this piece fails to mention is that the guns available illegally in countries with strict gun control laws often come from--the USA!! They are acquired from folks who buy them legally here and then sell them to folks who smuggle them into those countries. So there would be fewer armed criminals and nut-jobs in those countries if guns were't so easy to come by here.
Yep, and if our government would quit selling guns to narcotraficantes and allowing them to walk across the border there would be fewer armed criminals shooting our border agents.
I donot think that gun control is the solution. What is important is why there are so many psychs and why are they not getting enough treatment . We have to find the root cause of increase in psychs. Yes we can change the psychology of Holmes.
OK a few stupid things to ponder...someone sitting there was carrying a 45 cal and fires a few shots and hits the shooter. Vest or no vest it will knock him down to the ground and at the very least it will disrupt what he doing. now with that said I don't see much use in the civilian world for 100 roung magazines except wasting ammo. as far as taking away my guns...good luck. When you have no criminals on the streets with guns you stand a small chance of getting mine...I said small..OK now go look under your kitchen sink and see what chemicals are there. Yep you could build some nasty bombs that ould have been just as destructive if not worse for causing injuries. This nut case showed us what he could do when he rigged his apartment for an explosion when the door opened, we got lucky there. You will never be able to stop every person that is intent on harming someone else. Did we miss the boat and not catch this guys warning signs? Maybe. Will we miss them the next time around? Probably. The guns did nothing, the person did.If someone is without a gun and wants to cause comotion they will find a way. Yes Europe has gun laws restricting ownership so what do they do... build bombs for mass causualities. Still it was a person behind it all. The police did their job in Colorado except for one small detail....this nut bag is still walking. I feel for his parents and their grief for the families involved. Gun laws are NOT the answer..never will be either.
Whooo hooo!!!! U.S.A. #1!!!!!! We are the most violent country in the world. Since guns don't kill people, people kill people we are #1!!!! Lets remove all restrictions on fire arms so we can ensure we will always be #1!!!!! /endsarcasm.
There are no dangerous guns. There are dangerous people, who will use whatever means that they want to carry out their sick plots. If they think that a bomb will get them the attention that they want, they will build a bomb (look at the "Unibomber" among others). If they think that a car will get them what they want, they will use a car. If they think a knife will get them what they want, etc., dtc., etc. Let us keep the focus on the sick person, not the tool(s) that they use.
Let's practice gun control in Syria Fareed. Wouldn't that be best for the government and society there?
I found this article to be missing the larger picture of violence. Mr. Zakaria links gun ownership with gun violence. His conclusion is that stronger gun control will decrease gun violence. This may be true, but a decrease in gun violence is not the desired outcome. The desired outcome is a decrease in violence.
One could compare it to illegal drug activity. In State A there are more $20 bills in circulation than State B. More $20 bills are used to buy drugs in State A than State B. Does the availability of $20 bills result in an increase in drug activity? Maybe, but it is not a conclusion which can be drawn from the above comparison.
If the argument is to be made that a decrease in guns will result in a desired outcome, then the comparison needs to be between gun ownership/ availability and overall violence, not just gun violence.
Is nobody even questioning his statistics? Where did he come up with the numbers? Do you really think Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, Guatemala & Honduras track and report gun ownership as well as the US? Read the UN reports, Honduras has the highest homicide rate by far!
Your point being that we should compare ourselves with states that are so unstable? I think FZ's point is to compare us to first-world, stable and democratic nations – company amongst which we generally feel we belong. But if your argument includes the need to compare us to failed states to look better... what can I say?
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." – Thomas Jefferson
Yet another reason for Texas to have removed Thomas Jefferson from the state's textbooks.
What a load of crap this article is that cites statistics that include "Asia" which includes 1.5B Chinese who live under a repressive dictatorship that bans gun ownership. Add another 1B Indian and the statistics go out the window. And one can't view crime in a fishbowl. Chine has low crime because they will execute a politician for graft while the good old USA lets rapist and murderers free after a few years in prison. What about Mexico which is a country with strict gun controls? How does Fareed reconcile that with the fact that nearly 10,000 people ahave been shot to death annually for the past few year?
And how do we, as Americans, reconcile the fact that the majority of firearms used in Mexico to such terrible effect are produced in America, and that our government protects and promotes their sale and exportation?
In World War II government nut jobs with guns killed 1 in 4 Germans including a few million Jews that daGubamint first there was gun control then came a Holocost. Not to be outdone Stalin and his red commie friends of the Bolshevik Ilk massacred at many more millions persons including Germans, Russians, Croats, Hungarians AFTER the war ... all unarmed people and unable to defend themselves from state sponsored terror. Then there was Moa in China and many tens of millions more. Cambodia ... Libya, Sudan ...
So here is the deal if Citizens own guns a few dozen people die each year because of them while thousands of law abiding one save the day just like in Ocala FL just a few weeks ago. Two armed robbers with 30+ hostages saved by an 80 year old with a six shooter. Not a scratch on anyone except the thugs and their injuries were NOT life threatening but the trail of blood made apprehension a few minutes later real easy. As Bill Mayer would say to Right Wing Fanatics, you (ie liberal CNN/Zacharia) just can square this circle. Popular gun ownership is good for Peace, Justice and it IS the American way. For once FOX gets it straight – now that is what I call News!
More people would have died in a fire or if an 18 wheeler had been rammed into the theater or an airplane engine dropped through the roof. People live and die. Deal with it and as you folks say, Move On!
Here is a basic fact about gun ownership in the United States: there are a lot of firearms in the U. S. because a lot of Americans WANT to own them.
Why is it that the second amendment has been split to mean unilateral, unfettered civilian gun freedoms? The text is only one sentence: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Taken as a whole, the founders extended that right to a "well regulated militia." I would have no problem at all with gun ownership in this country if there were at lease a mandatory Federal registry of firearms owners and the ammunition they purchase (currently against the law), as well as membership in a well regulated militia – much the same as the Swedish model. Honestly, of all of the NRA's – and it's supporters – positions, the refusal to allow a gun owner's/ammo registry is the most transparent. There is no reason to oppose a registry that would expose hoarders and impulse-large purchasers, and frankly, this puts us all at risk. Case in point: a guy arrested last week in Vermont with 540 firearms in his house – one of his guns was used in a homicide in Boston. Our police – those we rely on to protect us – need to know who's stockpiling guns and ammunition. Would a registry stop gun crime in the US? No, but it wouldn't increase it now, would it? The founder's model of a well-regulated militia has another huge benefit for our society: in the time of tragedy and chaos, such as 9/11, part of the immediately nearby populace would be able to fall into rank and file to help, avoiding some of the confusion of disorganized concerned citizens and volunteers.
Nobody cares what you think.
I agree with almost everything you said Claire. I'm not crazy about requiring membership in a militia. I believe that mandatory training, done right, could create a de facto militia, as opposed to the 'wild west' scenario we have now where almost anyone can buy a gun and use it without really understanding the implications of actually pulling the trigger.
Everyone on society is a member of the militia. It is not necessarily an organized people. That is why in the 2nd Amendment it makes clear who the militia is by saying "the rights of the people" Who are the people? The same people as "we the people" It is US not the police, military, or the government but your neighbor and yourself.
Another reaction from a CNN pundit based on feeling, but hiding behind so called "facts". I bet the rebels in Syria wish they were better armed. Let's get back to the "facts' though. The weapons used in Colorado were not automatics, they were semi-automatic. Fact, the guy could have brought in 5 handguns in holsters and caused the same amount of damage. Fact, the guy could have stolen a truck full of gasoline and caused a even more damage. The weapons are irrelevant but our right to own them isn't. Especially when we have the winds blowing the way they are today with government wanting to put their hands in every aspect of our lives.
Oh please, that map is so severely distorted that no truth can be drawn. Imposing restrictive gun laws always causes an increase in gun crime. The theater shooting is a statistical anomaly and the result is the liberal knee jerk reaction.
Do not allow yourself to be disarmed and defenseless.
The biggest cause of the gun violence in the US is the drug culture. Remove that first and then the liberals will have no complaint about guns. Leave the drug culture as it is and no amount of laws will reduce the violence.
Crawl back to whatever tird-world shize hole your two moms shat you out in, Mr. Zacharea!
Amen...
How DARE you take my guns away!
My guns are the only thing that's preventing the liberals form kicking down my door and forcefully aborting my wife's pregnancy since our baby isn't a Kenyan Muslim Communist.
My cousin's boyfriend knows someone who had that happen to 'em- Nancy Pelosi herserf administered the abortion.
So gun control laws will do what to stop criminals who don't really care about laws? You can pass all the laws you want, but unless you do something about the issues that cause people to turn to drugs and violence all you're really doing is putting a band-aid over, well, a gunshot wound.
Many of the countries on your chart with "low gun deaths" also have poor to horrible human rights records. I would be interested to seeing the same map showing how many people per 100,000 died as political prisoners. I think that you will find an interesting correlation there as well. Freedom is dangerous. "Give me liberty or give me death." is not a battlefield idea. It means everyday life in a free society is not always about safety.
Further, if countries like China regularly under report the effects of internal tragedy, like the recent flooding, do you really think that you have accurate gun death numbers?
I used to have a great deal of respect for Mr Zakaria.
No more.
I agree. He was a much more reliable voice before Jon Meacham destroyed Newsweek and he had to slum it here.
Facts are facts indeed.
Its all about money folks – gun production and sells supports lots of families, and hence...
And when money is involved, lots of advert/etc happens to fool the masses, and some fall for it, thinking that they need one
Most folks i know have guns b/c they know a bunch other crazy ppl have it, and they are afraid of them, not b/c they want to have a gun
Good luck with changing the mentality of people. Have you read the logic behind some of the arguments of the gun supporters?
1. Legal "Automatic" weapons are regulated under the National Firearms Act, are very expensive and difficult to get, and the use of legally registered automatic weapons in crime is statistically negligent.
2. Most of the data cited does not directly compare; to compare effectiveness of gun laws, we need at minimum the following information:
(a) Total deaths, total homicides, total suicides, total accidental deaths
(b) Total gun deaths, gun homicides, gun suicides, gun accidents
(c) Each category of gun death broken down by category of gun, particularly differentiating between firearms subject to different gun laws.
(d) Homicides broken down by type of crime: i.e. drug related, gang related, domestic violence, etc.
(d) All the above information broken down by jurisdiction, allowing a comparison between different gun control regimes.
A detailed analysis of the data would probably reveal some interesting relationships and demonstrate that gun-control laws are an either-or proposition that can only block some deaths.
I imagine, for example; fewer guns mean fewer suicides and accidents, but more power to gangs and organized crime; banning assault rifles makes it no harder for an abusive husband to beat/stab his wife to death; and street criminals tend to kill each other with small caliber weapons that are also frequently less-regulated.
Zakaria, how many of those "gun homicides" were actual gun owners using them to protect their life and property?
"Face the facts on guns?" Facts? We're Americans! We don't need no stinking facts!
I am in full support of the 2nd Amendment. I enjoy target shooting and though I've never been a hunter, I know that if it came down to it, I wouldn't starve.
That said, I don't believe 'gun control' is necessarily a bad thing: Mandatory firearm safety course, 15-30 hours, AND a THOROUGH background check before your first permit is issued. The permitting process would require a mandatory 30 day waiting period for ALL firearms, during which the background check is re-run and updated. This would be followed by 6 hours of training and testing for each new weapon. The permit process would have to be completed before any other permit application could be started. The 30 day waiting period would apply also to sales of ammunition and those sales would be tracked, both by individual and region. Indications of stockpiling would trigger an investigation. This would apply to any sale of firearm or ammunition, including gun shows.
More severe punishment is needed for those who commit crimes with guns: possession of a firearm while committing a crime would require a mandatory 15 year prison sentence; discharge of a firearm while committing a crime would require a mandatory life sentence. Anyone who sells firearms or ammunition outside of these regulations would suffer a mandatory minimum 15 year prison sentence.
Bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with the regulation of firearms. In fact, the 2nd Amendment demands it.
Why a life sentence. I do not want to support them. If you have a gun during a crime you get 2 bullets and the gun back..keep reading... if you discharge the gun during a crime you get 1 bullet and the gun. Take the offender, the gun and the bullet(s) and place them in a rattlesnake den. end of story. done. Until the fear of the punishment is greater they criminal swill continue to mennace society.
True. Punishment for gun crime can not be sever enough.
A background check?? What if they change the requirements of the background check? What if they just arbitrarily put you on a no-fly type list like the TSA does...no crime just the opinion of a bunch of Bolshevik government operatives? The devil is always in the details.
Six hours to train a person on a new firearm? You don't catch on quick do you?
It's not for me. I have enough guns!
Come at me, Fareed.
Zakaria is one reason why many viewers see CNN as a bunch of left wing whackos.
Molon Labe, Fareed. You people have been beating this dead horse for how long now? I for one am tired of "talking" about it – go ahead, pass the law to take our guns – any of them. Talk is cheap.
"The tree of Liberty must periodically be watered with the blood of Patriots and tyrants." – Jefferson
Zakaria must want Romney to win. Only a fool would start a gun grabber campaign 3 months before a presidential election.
Owning guns is a right for Americans and there are both good and bad aspects to that, the problem is not everyone can be responsible with a gun, and it has nothing to do with intelligence, but proper perspective. What is disturbing is that Holmes was seeing a Psychiatrist at the same time that he was acquiring weapons. People who want to buy guns should have to undergo some testing to make sure they will be responsible gun owners.
This man acted without any fear of the consequences. He planned it carefully, strategized and managed to kill a bunch of innocent people. We need a more efficient way to weed out people like this to prevent them from buying 4 guns in the space of a month.
How does someone under psychiatric care get a gun anyway?
10 times the gun related violence in India?? Wow that is bad....since our numbers are high the number of crimes are proportionately higher(though percentages will be lower). These numbers should be argument enough for gun bans. To all advocating legal gun sales, they just sold guns to a madman (saw an article on CNN which said he was an ongoing patient). How do you prevent this from happening? Background checks??(If yes how can this be done reliably??) Simple solution..ban gun sales to civilians and civilian gun ownership.
And something even simpler, you be the first one to go door-to-door and take them.
Cheeky...need my address?
Or better option is you can move out of the US and live in a place that dose not allow guns ownership. But that is not going to be in American, Sorry it our founding rights. Another option is you give up our rights in the 1st amendment then we can talk about the Second amendment.NO, O'll yea the bases of the 1st amendment and all you main rights today was forged on the men's lives that used the there weapons to made sure we would have these rights today. They ensured this by creating the Second amendment as a check and balances and never repeat lessons of the past.. Trust me you can just move, we will not miss people that what to change our rights to feel a false sense of security No Sir!!
Hahaha...i do not intend on staying at all....I am here for the time being....good universities here are easier to get into (since you guys dont bother trying to get in at all even with all the money on offer )....Once I complete my degree and get a few years of experience on my resume I am out of here.....founding rights??? Are you bracketing your founding fathers with gun crazy guys like you??
More laws are not going to fix the problem of mad men or stopping these terrible acts. They are only a reaction of false security or illusion of thinking your feeling safer but there is no such thing of being always safe.( Can you say Norway Massacre) and this is country with tough gun position laws Still happened) Sorry but this is the real facts..
Spin much?
Most other countries the people are either forbidden to own guns by their gun-totting overlords, or they are to busy spending their last cent trying not to starve to death to buy a gun.
He goes on to argue that everybody– except him– has a press inspired misconception of violence in America.
What a pompous, clueless a s s.
Clueless liberals V. Know it all conservatives.
T u r d sandwich V. a giant d o u c h e!..
Unbelievable...the USA is soooooooo far behind other countries in a lot of social ways.......so sad...and too bad!
Can you provide aaaaaaaaaaaaaaany example to back your statement?
I'm willing to talk gun control and make informed concessions. I just know the nature of politics. The anti-gun crowd will ask for too much, and the non anti-gun crowd will allow too little.
Which is the only real flaw in MY plan...(see above)
People tend to forget that this Country started with an armed rebellon. Yes times have changed in new technolgoy, but the world and this Country is the same – evil and good. Look around the world. The UN wants a treaty to ban all small arms. Why? Because they can maintain their dictatorships over the people longing for freedom.
Remember –
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
– Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942.
In the US, the frontier mentality of the 19th century west still grips the imaginations of most people, even though the rational reasons for such thinking became obsolete more than a century ago.
Freedom, regardless of the century is still valid.
In an averagr year. almost 5,000 pedestrians are killed by automobiles I guess we should outlaw autos or maybe ban pedestrians.
In the U.S. it's about 30,000 deaths/year due to automobiles. Not sure about the pedestrian deaths to be completely honest.
Tom;
I agree with you saying "The USA is a country like no other, on many levels and to make the simple comparison he makes is just not accurate. We have more cars, more single family homes, more of everything than almost every other nation because we have been blessed with wealth." We also seem to be a nation with the most gun murders and that is happening for the reason stated in the article.
( I dont own a gun but, I am a big 2nd amendment supporter)
First there is a gun law which prohibits a person from purchasing a 100 round magazine, and guess what. HE HAD ONE!
Soo all your talk about "oooh we need stricter gun laws" they're already in place and it failed.
Now you want to punish those who did nothing WoW!
"Those that give up their freedoms for safety deserves nether" – Benjamin Franklin
Unfortunately this opinion column only goes to prove that if you pick and choose the statistics then you can use them to prove your point. Take Mexico, for example. A much lower gun ownership rate than the US, but in 2011 they had 11.4 gun deaths per 100,000 people (based on CNN data). That is almost 4 times the gun death rate of the US. So there is not a direct relationship between gun ownership and gun death rate.
Gun laws would prevent shooting sprees? Please tell me more about how criminals follow laws....
I can tell you thousands of criminal who follows the law and still is classified the ones whom are sent to prison for not paying taxes. There are no laws on the books saying Americans have to pay taxes. The IRS and Federal Reserve that controls the money in the US that are own by private bankers are using the government to unlawfully detain and jail these Americans. Our 16 Amendment state we do not have to pay taxes US Supreme court in 1914 up held that ruling.
With such a culture as US, this is not a gun problem this is your rap and gang bang culture among black community, because I am sure there is the highest rates. Believe me if you ban guns, you will see not only among black community increased crimes rate but in every other community too. Criminals don't abide to law, only law abide citizens do it. But any ways. I think you have to have 70 percent of IQ to see what really behind gun law. The reason is because in the next few years US economic situation will deteriorate very badly if the guns will be taken away. Otherwise, politicians will be still full of S and they will be afraid of population which outnumbers every soldier and police officer to 1 to 100,000. I am telling you, US will collapse, and pretty soon, and the only thing still stop them from collapsing and why politicians and bankers still hold on low gold price and food and gas price, is because of one thing: GUNS.
Spoken like a true American.. Amen
The NRA loves to use the slippery slope argument that if we enact any law then the next step is total gun control or some other abrogation of our 2nd Amendment rights. Has anyone considered the possibility that we may be on the other side of the slope, slipping inexorably into a situation where there is no gun control?
Good. No gun control is the best. What gun control does the government or the military have?
Doesn't the 2nd Amendment read "a well-regulated militia"? That means there can be some regulation. High capacity magazines, trigger locks, background checks, law enforcement notification for heavy weapons (as Bill O'Rielly advocates), regulating gun shows, are reasonable steps that the majority of NRA members support. My granny has to show photo ID to buy Sudafed to prove she's not a meth dealer, but she can buy as much guns and ammo from a dealer as she wants without any ID. Doesn't make sense to me.
I think American men want to be able to own assault weapons because it's a phallic thing. Sorry if I offend, but when you look at the guys demanding the right to own AK 47s they all look like they're not smooth with the ladies so they need to make up for it with a gun that shoots 100 bullets per minute. We need some analysis on these guys. Just saying. Maybe if we got them all makeovers we could tackle this problem!
You mean like when Muslims give their sons Kalashnikovs as birthday presents.
Just saying!
Paraphrasing a page from the Liberal handbook:
"If you don't like assault weapons, don't buy one".
Fareed, spend a moment and look up "illusory correlation". Then rethink your position.
Wikipedia describes the phenomenon of illusory correlation. A small minority in a large group commit an offense. What they have in common is membership in the larger group. Therefore their membership in the larger group is responsible for the offense, which is a fallacy. Which group you pick depends on your agenda.
Some make the mistake of illusory correlation when they decide that owning a gun makes a person a risk for commiting a gun-related violent crime. Others make the same mistake when they decide that the easy availability of guns is the cause of violent crime. But upon examination, both are fallacies.
the arguement is one of simple correlation, number of guns per capita and the homicide rate in america. Conclusion very high correlation ergo a problem.
Nope. You've never looked at the data – you've fallen into the trap as well – sad.
With so many gun controls already passed it is time to admit that gun controls, control nothing..try something else.Drunk drivers kill lots more, time for alchohol controls.
Yeah the war on drugs has been a HUGE success. I expect it to be the same with gun violence even if you take them all.
Nice map; I'm like "Ooooh look, we're not like the rest of the world." I say good!
I'm not doing any soul searching for the reason that I still have a better chance of getting struck by lightning or hit by a car than I have getting shot in a movie theater. Unfortunately bad news sells and shoving this bad news in people's faces by the mass media brings the neurotics out of the woodwork.
Let's take the guns out of the hands of sane people so that only criminals and nut jobs can have them. Then the chances of the next nut job not being stopped in the act will cease all together. Hell, maybe we should just surrender the country to Iran to avoid that conflict too.
Mr. Zakaria,
We have chosen to live in the United States of America. We ran away from those other lands in green!! Some of us, like me, risked significant suffering in this pursuit of reaching freedom. Please do not sell us the model of those other countries. We are in the Unites States and want to have it the American way. And that includes our firearms too. If life in the USA does not appeal to you, you have a choice too.
D.
Fareed,
You could come up with the same lovely red chart colors with vehicle deaths. Would you then argue to get vehicles out of the hands of citizens?
In the U.S. today there are an ever-increasing number of psychopaths that are "civil" only because the civil population can (and will) blow them away when they travel out of their ghettos "to Mayberry" and kick in someone's door. So you would have the U.S. civil population be at the mercy of these thugs? Ridiculous!
Ah yes those lovely light green areas. . . low gun ownership, dictators, communist countries. Government controlled. The lands of sub Saharan Africa where they are constantly at war. Poverty, mass murder on huge scale and ethinic clensing. . . Thanks no, I will keep my save high number of guns thanks.
Tim McVeigh killed more people than James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, Colin Ferguson, Charles Whitman, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold combined and no firearms were involved. So how exactly is strict gun control going to stop people filled with anger and hate who are determined to kill?
exactly, he could have fire bombed the theatre and killed much more, do we ban fire? come on, such a stupid argument..
Ordinary Law Abiding Citizens obey laws......Criminals or Crazies do not.....That is what makes them criminals or crazies. Passing more gun control regulations would just put the unarmed Ordinary Law Abiding Citizen at the mercy of the heavily, illegally armed criminal or crazy.
Mr.Zakaria you are an idiot . There is a difference between psychological and psychiatric problem learn the difference. Now fewer guns don't equal fewer deaths people will always find a way. Change the culture . Canada has more guns less deaths per capita. Something is inherently wrong.
You do realize that compared to your ideal light green areas the USA is more advanced, better educated, safer, has a working government, no Ethnic Cleansing, healthcare, a democratic form of government run by the people. . . I think you are the one that needs to face facts. Your own data shows the more guns folks own the safer they are.
Perhaps there is a correlation between increased right to concealed carry laws and violent crime being reduced?
Instead of criticizing his adopted homeland's (America's) "gun problem" and calling for greater gun restrictions, Mr. Zakaria should write about the 2008 terrorist attacks that took place at his birthplace of Mumbai, India. In spite of the fact that India has extremely restrictive gun laws, there were 11 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks across that city that year by terrorists trained in Pakistan. Please explain to your audience, Mr. Zakaria, how criminal terrorists were able to carry out these attacks in a country that has such stringent gun controls as your native India. You can't? I didn't think so. Is it possible that restrictive gun laws have no relationship to gun crime?? That's my guess.
Actually if the Indian Navy, Customs or the coastal unit of the police had done their job and intercepted the terrorists the attacks would probably not have happened. Even if the police had better communication and co-ordination amongst themselves and with the fishermen who first noticed the terrorists, the attacks would have been far less vicious. And even after all the casualties and grief, I don't see the indians feeling the need to own weapons. Almost all Indians are of the opinion that the three tiers of security should be strengthened and the response by authorities to such events be improved.
Perhaps the usa doesn't have the problems of syria bosnia iraq iran and a host of other countries because of our second ammendment rights?
I think we need to put FAREED in charge of rounding up all the guns. Come get 'em son!
I'm a liberal, and I believe gun control is ... wrong.
Not that I approve. But you can't ban something that is concealable and has been manufacturered for 300 straight years. And, come on fellow Dems, stop trying for the same utopia that is the war on drugs. Neither will work. However, how about a trade off? If nuts with guns are so serious about keeping them, let drug users use. I don't use drugs either, but that war is no more winable than the gun laws to which they are so opposed. Live and let live. Or, die and let die. If that's what you want to do with your life, have at it.
In addition, why not only rubber bullets or bullet that are not lethal are allowed for civilians.
What is desperately needed is a willingness to be Introspective and to learn from the experience of those nations even when they are are less "privilaged" than the US materialistically. Not as simple as that, in practice, but worth trying.
I agree with JD, this remains a free land because of gun ownership.
Are drugs not outlawed here in the U.S.? There doesn't seem to be a shortage of them. Why do we really want to have stronger gun laws?? Those who are responsible and law abiding will continue to do right and those who aren't will have the illegal guns? I don't think so!!
We are the only country that produces the Googles, Apples, Microsofts and Facebooks of the world. That's also correlated with gun ownership. The same could be said of high impact patents, high impact scientific publications, etc. Mr Zakaria, CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. The American spirit, thanks God!, is vey different from the European spirit. This is just plain BS. The facts are clear, the conclusions you are deriving from them are ideological, plain and simple.
America is now a slaughterhouse open for public display. The fact is, anyone can kill anyone else in any number, anytime he wants. There are no restraints except in the minds and hearts of well-balanced people.
Switzerland requires military training for all, and having gun as well.. Re your comments, there are less gun deaths there than in the USA by a factor of 4.
It seems to me that the USA is splitting from unity into two different groups, capitalist and socialist. Being anti-gun essentially equates to being with the socialist group.
It is rather disingenious to compare gun crimes between nations where guns are not allowed. Instead of spouting useless drivel, why not compare apples to apples. In the UK, where guns have been outlawed, of course there won't be as many gun crimes, but there still are some, aren't there? In the UK, since guns have been outlawed, knife crime has become rampant. They are going so far as to ban any knives at all pon people below a certain age, but also banning the ownership of knives over a certain length. In other countries where firearms have been restricted, bombs are the prefered method of mayhem. At least report the whole story, rather than just statistics you hope will convince people that you actually have a clue,.
Guns kill people!!! If he had a peach in his hand the worst he could've done is hit somebody in the eye with it.
My guns have never killed anyone. The guns of all the people I know who own guns have never killed anyone. His guns were used to kill people only because they were in his hands. Punish the person, not the tool. Give me a peach and I'll eat today. Give me a gun and I'll eat until my ammunition runs out. Silly, huh?
The gun control government are those who support blackwater and the FTA who have trained and distributed guns for their own self agenda, which includes chaos. Since their is no interview with the shooter and he was under psychiatric care he can never be used as a poster child of gun control, only why you need to protect yourself.
There are no mass shootings in prison. Put every American in a cell and this will stop.
This item by CNN is exactly why it is at the bottom of the news services. To have a reporter spew false statements as though they came from God is as bad as it gets.
What part of the Second Amendment do liberals not understand?
US has the most guns, yes i agree, but let me tell you one fact, you will never take the right for me to go get one, sorry, it's MY RIGHT!! there is a valid reason for this, prevent the government from taking 100% control, kinda like what Obama is doing. so people get over it, you not taking this right away, we can add controls to take the guns away from the unstable and pure criminall, BUT THAT IS IT, this is not even a debate..
This is not Syria or Iraq or Egypt, the citizens of the USA are not worried about their government taking 100% control of anything because, every 4 years, the members of the government are elected, or not. Americans have very good long term memories.
I'll take my chances with my gun. I think most gun owners will agree, if the need arises to defend my family, I'd be much more terrified of being helpless than of dying.
Zacharia is correct about opinions and facts. But a good liar knows how to manipulate words and facts, such as in this case and the "interesting graph" he used for support. The graph does not look at murders committed with guns; that is the reason for gun control isn't it? That graph would have you believe California and NY have lowest gun crime! Look up gun crime rates per state and you see they have the highest rate of gun homicides. Many central states it lists as the highest gun deaths have the lowest gun homicides. It's called hunting accidents. The U.S. does have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, perhaps that is why we have not had an invasion, or a government that over-reaches its authority.
no is time to face to how we interact with each others every single day of our lives
Well, FZ speaks his mind and the facts as he sees them. The effects of Gun ownership on america are fairly well known. And whats seems to be the most consistent fact is...The left believes their 'facts', and the right believes their 'facts'.
I will choose to believe the 'facts' from the right and disregard FZ.
So, in response to his question, "What would I change?". I would make easy conceal carry legal under the 2nd amendment. I would overturn the last 40 years of gun laws. I would push to see the 2nd amendment recognized in the various states that play lip service to acknowledging it but do everything the can to make ownership as complicated and byzantine as possible (New York, California come immediately to mind).
Thats what I'd change.
all this talk of control is getting old. i still have not seen anything on all the pipe bombs in his apt. rigged ti kill whomever walked in. no one is shouting angry words about the explosives, where did he learn to make them? the internet? wheres all the anger about this forgotten weapon?
Fareem,
I think you are mislead. You mentioned that the reason there is so much in the US is because there are so many guns. You also stated that there are as crazy people in other parts of the world as there is in the US. Both of these may true but if you get rid of the gun's those crazy people will just use something else.
Timothy McVeigh's weapon of choice was diesel fuel and fertilizer as Mitt Romney suggested. Should we also get rid of all the fertilizer and diesel fuel? The problem is not the weapons. Gun's just happen to be the choice for the coo coo's that want to kill people. If gun's weren't available they would use something else.
Why take away the only option good, clear thinking people have to defend themselves against those that don't value life the same as the rest of us?
I carry a gun on a regular basis but I don't EVER think about using it on an innocent person or even someone that makes me mad. I would however us it on someone that tried to do me harm or hurt my family.
America has the most guns and no foreign military will ever touch our soil for that very reason. Who want's to go up against the largest civilian military in the world? What would all the countries that don't allow fire arms do if there military was defeated and someone tried to invade their country? Pretty much just hand it over.
i see in there you have syria as a 'low' ownership rate. let's ask them how that's going...
nice
Chicago banned hand guns and now has the highest rate of gun violence in the nation. End of discussion on gun control.
How those people get the guns ? There should be a study not just this and that or here and there. Do they manufacture the guns themselves ? You will not drive a car if there is no car. It is a simple logic.
The best gun control is a steady aim.
Corporate stooge?? What are you trying to do Zach.. get your membership in the Council of Foreign Relations approved.. your a foreigner who grew up in totalitarian states.. Your only experience of freedom is here.. You have no business criticizing the sacrifices or the rights that sustain the democracy you so enjoy.. go to iran and preach that crap.. gun control works real well over there..
If the left wants to get rid of guns, then why don't they put an honest effort into repealing the second amendment? Answer: The left is too cowardly to attempt a frontal assault on the second amendment. They know they couldn't win a frontal assault, so instead they try to pick away at the second amendment in the hope that they can make it meaningless by obfuscation.
I call it treason.
@zakaria- If you are a muslim please talk about Muslims killed in Burma.............................
Bring Justice to those muslims who are killed by their government.
Yes Fareed, that evil gun pulled it's own trigger 150 times. My goodness how could I have been so silly. I guess James Holmes can walk out of jail tomorrow knowing it was that gun that killed all those people and even if it had not been available there is nothing else he could have used to commit mass murder. Why is it that whenever something like this happens that all you anti-gun fruits and nuts want to strip every person of their second ammendment rights that our founding fathers wanted? By calling gun owners nuts your calling the founding fathers nuts. Did Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, or Charles Manson use a gun to commit mass murder? NO! Were they able to do so easily? YES! ENOUGH!
This article lacks enough information to draw any conclusions. Here in Philadelphia, most of the gun-related homicides and shootings are tied to the drug trade. Perhaps we need to see if our drug laws and war on drugs is a connection. Are most gun deaths caused by legally purchased firearms or by either stolen or purchased from the black market. How do our mental health laws & system compare to other countries? Fareed gives short-thrift to severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. There is very little in the way of early intervention for schizophrenia. Usually only after a person either breaks the law or commits a violent act is something done. Funny how we cant force a schizophrenic to get treatment until they kill someone. Then they can be forced to take medications so that they are fit for trial. Doesn't make sense. So while usually enjoy Fareed's writings, this one gets a D as it is not objective and lazily jumps on the gun control bandwagon without any intellectual rigor.
You know Zakky, when Sgt Robert Bales murdered 17 civilians in Afghanistan, including 9 children, we did not have a knee-jerk reaction about gun control, but the mass media instead went after the tiniest details. Why? Because Robert Bales was in uniform and a government sponsored killer. Yet, what is the difference between Sgt Robert Bales and James Holmes in their acts of violence? Nothing.
But when a civilian commits mass murder? Mass media screams gun control. So I wonder, when a soldier commits mass murder, what do we control?
Can you guarantee the same act of tyranny by a uniformed 'professional' wouldn't happen at home? I doubt it. Hell, its happening all the time. What about the homeless man who was beaten to death by a group of officers? What was his crime?
And I am being told I should give up my 2nd, the very amendment that is the last line of defense against tyranny of any sort? Not a chance in hell.
- – - – - –
In response to people claiming that having a CCW would not make a difference in the Aurora shooting. Well, yes and no. I won't claim that having a CCW would have made a difference, but who are you to claim that it won't? Self-defense is a risky business, but if I was forced into that situation, what choice do I have? Am I to stand up and run while making myself an obvious target? Or do I stand my ground, cling onto my dear life? Hell, if I was to die anyway, at least try to make a difference.
I refuse to become a sheep to be herded into a slaughterhouse, I am a human being. Two basic instincts to a human being include freedom of thought and self-defense. Cherish them.
test
passed.
As demonstrated, your incapability of reporting facts based on truths and not misconceived notions implies your immediate removal from a nationally published opinion column, be immediate and without prejudice.
In fairness, this is an opinion piece, not a fact-reporting piece.
Whatever. When a nationally recognized columnist cannot get the facts straight, what is left for public consumption? Journalists are held in the highest esteem to report fairly and accurately. Mr. Zarakria misstated the facts. Bottom line is who can you believe in for timely accurate reporting and opinions. Or,will garbagebe left to abound. Enough said. Mr. Zarakria is forever tainted, period!
FZ states: In the decade since the year 2000, gun homicide rates haven’t improved at all. They were at roughly the same levels in 2009 as they were in 2000.
So even with more firearms being owned, Gun homicide rates have not increased or decreased in the last 10 years.
Doesn't this disprove his own point?
So we outlaw guns entirely. Does that mean they will be impossible to get like other things that we have outlawed like: cocaine, ecstasy, marijuana, heroine, meth, etc. After all, ever since these other things are outlawed, we have not had any problems with them whatsoever, right?
We have had significantly less problems with these things outlawed.
The map is false, Africa and the Middle East should be black. I must say that the preferred weapon in Africa is a machete, they killed eight hundred thousand in two months there. Every time some crazy here shoots some people the politicians get involved, all trying to make a record for themselves. Human nature has not changed much in the last thousand years but here is the point, Adolf Hitler took away gun rights and not long after he killed eleven million people and today is not looking much deferent than nineteen thirty three. More and more the federal government is taking away our jobs and our rights and that is the reason for the second amendment, for the people of this country to protect their rights. Unfortunately there are now a lot of people on the street that think they can take your life if they want your shoes, I maintain the right to protect myself from them too.
A lot of people killing for shoes..I think you'd better look again. Blacks aren't committing mass murders and what you're referring to is usually black on black crime similar to the Mafia murders. Mass murders and pedophiles are predominantly non-black.
We'd better find something to stop these madmen because neither life in prison or execution is....They've stop a copycat of Holmes thankfully. Realistically, what is going to stop them? I never thought I'd own a gun but it's so much madness in the world now I am now considering it. I don't want to go the mall, movie, park, etc and become a victim of a 100% senseless crime. They're not even robbing you for valuables anymore just killing as many as possible. It's sick. Killed those poor people including a 6 yr old baby girl and for what? Causing trauma and destruction. Put him in a prison like Dahmer and let someone beat him to death; Shoot him and let him bleed slowly to death while his family looks on.
If you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
Did anyone else notice how many of those "so much better than the US" countries are also heavily controlled by their government ... "elected" or otherwise?
Hmmm . . . I don't think it's true that the nutcases are equally spread out throughout the world. There ARE sociological facts, and they can't be ignored. You make that statement with nothing at all to back it up but an assumption. Based on what? Many cultures do not produce violent individuals the way America does. A combination of the rugged individualism and the easy access to guns along with the cowboy mentality that prevails is not present in every country. Nature/nurture. Nurture does a lot. In fact, these nutcases seem to all be WHITE men. That's sociological too. Cultural. This is not a well thought out argument.
This failed out student dmonstrated the ability to make a bomb and had he been throwing bombs the audiance would have been trying to catch them. I am glad this mass murderer had a gus, as had he not here would have been bombs.
If he was not so serious.. I would be laghing my rear end off. I have never seen such a poor use of skewed statistics before in my life. Why look at the Swiss to make a point? Why not Mexico where they have severe gun laws and border our country? Why not look at the difference between states like VA and DC to see if your theory is based in fact? I love a good debate, but this a joke and has ZERO credibility. F-, Back to to school for you.
The purpose of the second amendment isn't to hunt or for sport its to PROTECT YOURSELF from both criminals and a corrupt government.
The only thing banning guns will do is make it so LAW abiding people cant get them, but criminals always have and always will. (there is a such thing as a black market)
If more citizens were armed maybe that madman in the theater couldve been stopped before he killed so many innocent people. (How does a wacko like that obtain military grade armor and expert bomb making know how by the way?)
If you wait around for police to protect you, youll most likely end up a victim. Better ARMED than HARMED.
Criminals and fascist dictators love a disarmed public, makes them easier to subjugate and exterminate. The Nazis were a big fan of disarming people, so has every other despotic regime been throughout history. Criminals of every sort want no one to have weapons but themselves.
I am a law abiding citizen and I support the second amendment. The right to protect myself AND my family.
The REAL issue you should be addressing is the use and misuse of Psychotropic drugs like antidepressants.
I'd be interested in finding out what would happen if the US switched to Open Carry Laws instead of Concealed Carry. I've heard many criminals say they hate an armed population. Remember, gun control only disallows law abiding citizens from owning guns. Criminals are already criminals, what do they care.
An Armed society is a polite society – R. Heinlein
I see a lucrative gun smuggling operation starting not to mention the old fashioned zip gun. With todays modern tools I could make a one shot gun with no trouble at all. At one hundred each I could make a grand a week. Gun powder and shot is not a problem either after all Colt got it's start with a cap and ball. With a couple of good double edged knives in a crowd a dozen could be killed without a sound. With fifteen hundred dollars I can build a forty watt Co2 laser that will burn a hole in a half inch of steel, you cannot see it so that would be a real crowd pleaser. Then there is poison and germs, anyone can make some pretty nasty stuff if they really want to. What are we to do? Are we going to have to have a federal permit to buy steak knives or buy tools at Home Depot or Lowe's?
Let's look at some facts, Fareed; starting with gun homicides per 100,000 people (world rank in terms of gun ownership in parentheses):
Bahamas: 15.37 (98)
Belize: 21.82 (62)
Brazil: 18.1 (75)
Colombia: 27.09 (91)
Dominican Republic: 16.3 (99)
El Salvador: 39.9 (92)
Guatemala: 34.87 (49)
Guyana: 11.46 (45)
Honduras: 68.43 (88)
Jamaica: 39.4 (74)
Mexico: 9.97 (42)
Nicaragua: 5.92 (77)
Panama: 16.18 (26)
Puerto Rico: 18.3 (not given)
South Africa: 17.03 (50)
Trinidad and Tobago: 27.31 (129)
Venezuela: 38.97 (59)
Zimbabwe: 4.78 (106)
Sudan: Not given, but known to be high
Somalia: Not given, but known to be high
Botswana: Not given, but high
In fact, data for most African countries not available, but the UN has noted that Africa has extremely high gun homicide rates.
United States: 2.97 (1)
So the US has the highest rate of gun ownership, yet doesn't come close to the gun homicide rates of the other nations listed above, despite that they all have significantly lower levels of gun ownership; with some being near the bottom in that category. Globally, there is no correlation with gun ownership and gun violence. But I may have noticed another correlation, let's look at a few more countries and see:
Australia: 0.14 (42)
Austria: 0.22 (14)
Czech Republic: 0.19 (38)
Denmark: 0.27 (54)
Finland: 0.45 (4)
England and Wales: 0.07 (88)
France: 0.06 (12)
Germany: 0.19 (t-15)
Iceland: 0.0 (t-15)
New Zealand: 0.16 (22)
Norway: 0.05 (11)
Switzerland: 0.77 (3)
Come to think of it, I may see a correlation between gun ownership and gun homicides – the more citizens have guns, the lower the gun homicide rate. But I see something else, too. I'll add one more set of data:
White Americans: 1 gun homicide per 100,000
Black Americans: 22 per 100,000
Latino Americans: 12 per 100,000
Hmmm....
You nailed it. Zakaria is clueless. Globally, the US has a low gun homicide rate and the countries with much higher gun homicide rates typically have stringent anti-gun laws and, as you point out, fairly low legal ownership of guns.
There's more. Zakaria emphasizes the gun ownership rate of the US as a whole. If you look state-by-state you see that many states with very high gun ownership rates have gun homicide rates that are about the same as in Europe, while states with the highest crimes have the lowest gun ownership and the most stringent gun laws.
Your statistics show developed countries in the second set only – and the US. These have gun homicide rates of 0 to 0.77, except the US which has a rate of 2.97. To quote you "Hmmm..."
And you completely ignored the last set of statistics. The US has a higher gun homicide rate (compared to other industrialized countries) entirely because of blacks and Latinos. The white rate is in the range of European countries (at the high end, though). Worldwide, blacks and Latinos have high gun homicide rates, whites have low gun homicide rates.
In fact, whites have low gun homicide rates regardless of gun control laws, and despite high levels of gun ownership. Blacks and Latinos have high gun homicide rates regardless of gun control laws and despite relatively low levels of gun ownership.
The correlation isn't between gun control and gun homicide. Its between race and gun homicide.
Racial discrimination j. What color is holmes?
You're absolutely right. The massive difference in gun homicide rates is irrelevant because Holmes is white; since the difference in gun homicide rates isn't absolute (0 homicides by whites vs. all homicides by blacks), there is no meaningful difference in gun homicide rates between the races. Let's apply this to other areas:
Since some countries with strict gun control have higher rates of gun violence than other countries with loose gun control, there is no meaningful effect of gun control
Since not all smokers get lung cancer, and some non-smokers do get lung cancer, there is no link between smoking and lung cancer.
Do I even need to go on?
Absolutely, Fareed Zakaria is a Pakistani exchange student that decided to stay in this wonderful country after living in a s***thole. So let's make it the s***hole that HE came from.
Did you concider population in your ajenda along with the social and mental dynamics of the population?
No...
Population is controlled for by using gun homicides per 100,000 people. So yes.
No, I did not control for "mental dynamics" – but neither did Fareed. If "mental dynamics" can be shown to correlate to gun homicides, then we'd have to question if gun control has an effect wouldn't we?
Did you question Fareed about his lack of accounting for "mental dynamics?"
No...
Very well put and very clear. Remember, statistics dont kill people.. only the people manipualting them do. The author should lose his job do to the manner he attempted to make his slanted point of view. Remove the emotions and the truth will survive. Thanks for the much needed counter point.
The above data comes from the UN, and can be found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/data.html
The US racial breakdown in stats can be found through the FBI website. You'll have to do the math, and you'll have to factor the Latino rate out from the white rate (the FBI counts ALL Latinos as "white" when they commit crime).
What happened to Switzerland? It's 100% gun possession and near ZERO gun crime rate somehow got missed in this hatchet job.
Gun control is hitting your target AND not hitting anything that is not your target.
Personally, considering how this kid had his apartment rigged I'm GLAD he chose to use a firearm to commit this atrocity. If he had had to put his mind to work to come up with another way to make his "point" I believe that the death toll and number of casualties would be considerably higher. If you don't think that is a realistic opinion, just ask someone from OKC.
CNN: Please take Zakaria off any of your programs and off the air.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the work of John Lott who has shown that more guns equals less crime in America. There have also been numerous peer reviewed studies that also show this. The author did very little work other than his off the cuff, emperical evidence that skews the answer to his question. Lets control for race, money, education, etc too and you will see the truth about gun control.
That would not push the hidden agenda forward....
So now this guy is an expert on gun control too? He wasn't even raised here and he claims to know our national psyche well enough to tell us no to handle the issue?
Most people have already forgotten the LEGALLY ARMED private citizen who helped subdue the shooter in Tuscon at Gabrielle Gifford's event. More live would have been lost if he had not been carrying and chose to get involved.
Cars kill more people than guns each year. I don't hear a call to bans "Car ownership".
He conveniently leaves out Switzerland in his stats. There is a rifle in every single home in Switzerland, all Swiss citizens have firearms, all of them. So...what does that do to his theory?
This is idiotic, guns are here for a reason. To allow us to protect ourselves, period.
In fact, our gun ownership levels relative to the amount of citizens we have is LOW.
Look at Switzerland. EVERYONE is REQUIRED to own a gun, train with it, carry it, and is allowed to use it to defend themselves. Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world.
Look at places n the U.S. with the highest levels of gun control. For example, Washington D.C. You are not allowed to own a handgun in DC, and all rifles and shotguns must be disassembled and locked in a safe. Ammo must be also locked up in another safe in another room. You may not carry a gun in D.C., period. D.C. has the highest amount of crime in the U.S., particularly in murders, assaults, and robberies. It also has the highest amount of gun crime with an overwhelming majority (some 80%) of all guns confiscated from those crimes being ILLEGAL firearms. 30% of those confiscated firearms are HOMEMADE.
Similar stories are true for New York, Detroit (especially), and Chicago. Likewise, statistically, the highest areas of violence and gun crime in the U.S. occur in places with strict gun control.
The Aurora shooting happened in a theater which BANNED the carrying of firearms, open or concealed.
2.5 million Americans use guns to save their lives every year.
Recently a man carrying a gun concealed in Salt Lake City stopped a stabbing spree:
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment
Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem.
Gary Kleck, "Point Blank: Handgun Violence In America"
The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed.
Jeff Snyder
"...to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Likewise, what is more effective against a rapist? A cell phone to talk to a cop who is miles away, pepper spray that is effective for only a few seconds, or a gun?
If African American slaves had access to, and owned firearms, do you REALLY think they would have been slaves for very long?
Gun control doesn't work.
I don't know about all of the statistics you all are spewing but I've got one I'd like to see if you might now the answer to. How many US citizens who own there guns legally do you see just giving those guns up? I've gotta a lot of friends who believe the second amendment was written for just this type of discussion. When the government tries to take away the guns that my friends own they will have a fight on there hands, I can assure you of that.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
They can take our guns when they pry them from our cold, dead fingers.
"I saw an interesting graph in The Atlantic magazine recently. A spectrum shows the number of gun-related deaths by state. Now if you add one more piece of data – gun control restrictions – you see that the states with at least one firearm law (such as an assault weapons ban or trigger locks) tend to be the states with fewer gun-related deaths."
Presence of laws don't make a case for cause and effect. Look at chicago, washington dc, oakland, any most other major cities. They all have the most laws regarding firearm owneship and they also have the highest crime rates.
Interchanging "Automatic" for "Semi-Automatic" seems as common as using "Immigrant" for "Illegal-Immigrant". The terms are not the same and will change the meaning of the statements in which they appear if used incorrectly.
Mr Fareed, quit comparing the USA to the rest of the world. Sure, we have issues that need addressing. But our success, thus far, comes from the USA NOT being like the rest of the world. We have more freedoms than most countries. But people like you want us to be socialists like much of the world. Innovation rarely thrives under socialist regimes. Please go home. Or, if you gave up your citizen ship to become an AMERICAN. IF you desire to continue to enjoy your American citizenship, then embrace WHO we are and quit trying to make us into the country you left behind.
You're probably big and fat.
PROPAGANDA!!
Right, Zakaria, you cannot have your own facts, but you can pick and choose which facts you put forth and which you omit.
Facts such as, Most gun murders are by handguns, not assault rifles, in the hands of UNLAWFUL owners.
Can't have it BOTH ways, NO US-MX Border to speak of AND a ban on ANYTHING!! lol
Come on Fareed, you know as well as anyone our gun violence rates are so high because of cities are filled with gang bangers who think every time they pull a trigger their penis grows an inch.
The unfortunate reality is that gun control won't do any good. There are too many other methods of killing. From knives & clubs one on one to arson & explosives for mass murder. There are many, in fact MOST of us capable of killing with our bare hands. Most just don't know they have the capability. There are at the MINIMUM tens of millions of unregistered guns on the street. Most people ARE NOT going to give them up. Criminals surely won't. IEDs are simple & cheap and MUCH more dangerous than guns. Be careful of the law of unintended consequences.
How come countries with gun control don't have as much gun violence or as many homicides?
Cause they banned guns from the start.. + we are a country bent on freedom. We are casing our tail to the death.. And I am armed only to avoid that death.
wii republickins dun sowt don lyk u demokrates triin 2 tayk awhey r gunz. wii lyk r gunz fer pertekshun. wii republikins dun wunt r taxiz razed neder fer skools. wii kin bii hom skoold lyk mii. ger republikins!!!!!!!!!!
I home-schooled your two moms!
This article is absolutely right. There are too many gun nuts in America. They should all go start their own country and leave the rest of us – and the rest of the world – in peace. Yes, crime will still exist whether guns or around are not, but with guns, it's much easier and convenient to kill someone. The shooter wouldn't have been able to set up his booby traps in a crowded and watched theater.
You lead the parade, Jeff.
It's be a short parade..
Is this guy for real? C'mon Fareed, quit pretending your name is Jeff.
Gun owners are dumb. The debate is not that if we had more gun laws that all gun violence would go away. Of course there would still be gun violence! But, there would be much less violence than there is now with stricter laws and with harder to find and obtain weapons. Anything can be gotten illegally. Just because drugs are illegal doesn't mean we don't have people with drug problems, but it would be a much bigger issue if there were no laws against drugs.
Does your Mother know you are using her computer? Childish posts son.
We don't get how gun owners are dumb though, Jeff. Is the theater in Aurora dumb because they prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying their gun in there?? YEP. What good are guns everywhere if you cant have them in society? Somethings dumb, Jeff.
Zakaria speaks a lot about a subject he knows very little about. This "article" is a waste of band width.
Too late to control guns laws if you just said America has 50% of the worlds guns. -You just said it.. Plus, let's say you require heart meds and they are on the 2nd fl. of your house, you are in the bsmt. one day and fall to your knees in heart pain. It's no good on the 2nd fl.. Same with guns- we have guns, but the Aurora theater prohibits law abiding people from bringing them in. And we see how the shooter walked right around that. I would sue the theaters ass off if my ked died when I wasn't allowed to protect myself- we need more good guys with guns. Are you one of them?
Grant, we are on the same page.
STOP using Switzerland in your pro gun arguments, you are making yourself look ignorant.
Guns in Switzerland are a very diffrent story. Private ownership and collecting is regulated with private ownership of military weapons being prohibited by law. The military weapons in our homes are not ours they are the militaries and there are rules, restrictions and penalties for using them without proper authority. Many Swiss chose to hand them in after their service as they do not want an assault rifle or hand gun in their home. These weapons are for military use not for private paranoid protection.
We are a very content society, we are not lonley, disenfranchized, and angry with the world. That is why we do not have as many gun crimes. It is not because of our arms.
By the way we do have a small standing army, who do you think flys our F18 and trains our militia.
And the assault gun / semi auto argument is a misnomer as the patterns of the weapons are similar, they have similar roles and in many ways semi auto military rifles are just as dangerous as each shot is aimed while the shooter fires where a fully automatic has vibrations and is harder to aim. Fully automatic are tipically for suppression keeping heads down where as semi auto is for targets. Having shot many a machine gun I know this.
As far as I am concerned military patterned auto or semi auto weapons should be for trained personel only. That also makes it harded for criminals to acquire these weapons. But for this to work you need a content population.
I personally hate guns and the very sight of them scares me. But I firmly believe the right to bear arms was a very hard-fought right and the reasons for having this right are as valid as they ever were. I think that we are too quick to believe that our country is incapable of the problems we have seen elsewhere in the world and that tyranny is something we will never have to face. We are also too quick to believe that gun control will ultimately stop mass murder. Recall that Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. Are we going to outlaw fertilizer too?
Gun control needs to happen and happen soon. But it needs to happen in a way that does not make the government the only body that has access to weapons. Particularly at a time when our government is becoming so influenced by special interests that is a scary thought.
One thought I keep having is that if we make it illegal for civilians to own guns then the police will not need guns either and they will not be outgunned since no civilian will have them. If that is wrong, and it probably is, the police will still have to carry guns, And then only two classes of people will have guns and be shooting at each other. The government and criminals, neither of which we Americans trust enough to allow them the sole right to bear arms.
It is likely that a total ban on guns would not stop massacres since there are so many other things that could be used. Ground vehicles, airplanes, flammable liquids, chemicals, improvised explosives, kitchen knives... you name it.
In any event guns are a symptom and not the disease.
America is a free country. Simple statement, very complex concept. For example, an American life is incredibly precious, but it is not as precious as American freedom; freedom established in the blood of our forefathers and often refreshed by those called to protect the freedom only Americans possess. Sacrificing a piece of that freedom–no matter how small or large–can never be acceptable to the sons and daughters of those American patriots: And all American citizens, whether related to those who fought and lived or those who fought and diaren't not, are direct descendants of each and every one that served or shed a drop of blood. Freedom is not ours to give away; it is ours to defend in every way we can. Some find it hard to think of any relation to people dead for well over two centuries, or almost a century or 51 years ago or even a few decades ago. If you are such a person, then just look around you and you will see defenders of your freedom all around. Maybe they are your brother or sister or mom or dad or your son or daughter. The blood shed by the founders lies on the ground upon which they were born. Sacrificing any freedom is like diluting that blood with urine. Guns in the hands of citizens bought American freedom. Guns in the hands of American citizens protect American freedom today. The price of freedom? No price is too great to pay.
Your argument is weak since there are limits. We can likely agree that civilians should not have nuclear weapons. We then go back and see where we diverge. Grenades, bazookas, tanks, machine guns, napalm. Freedom also require others to have limits imposed . Pretty sure you would not be okay if you neighbor felt they had the freedom to launch rockets at your house.
David, agreeing with you is not necessary since the arms you mentioned are accepted by our society to be illegal in the first place. Thank you for thinking about this, however. By thinking about it, writing about it here on CNN and continuing to discuss it, you are doing more to promote your considered opinions than most Americans. Engagement in the arena of words directly leads to the battle of thoughts so necessary to promote a dynamic society. Cooperating, battling, and entwining thoughts command lives of their own often making servants of their former masters while searching for a forum to be expressed, a square on which to be heard, indeed; a life of their own such as that in 1776.
David,I havn't seen napalm in the hardware store or on surplus ledgers, but i've an effective recipe should I need it.
Well being that we have that many guns and far fewer deaths than Yemen, Serbia or Iraq the next countries with the most guns, I'd say we are doing pretty well.
Comparing the gun deaths in the US to England where citizens can't own guns is assinine and irresponsible at best.
This guy is an idiot. Switzerland is the most heaviest armed civilian nation in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland They don't have a standing army, so every male from 18 -50 has a fully automatic weapon at home. Wow, liberals are idiots....less than 9,000 people die from guns in the us, to include criminals shot by cops, yet we make it out to be such a huge issue. Just like a liberal to emotionalize an issue. Lets forget the facts and scare everyone. I don't feel comfortable around guns, so no one should have them!
The Swiss have guns but no ammunition. Unlike you I am only going to say you are an idiot for this comment though from others the entire NRA culture is clearly idiotic in fighting for unlimited guns sales. 9000 is okay to you? Would 100K be okay to or do you have some limit on murder you find unacceptable? If you don't find mass shootings an emotional issue that is a problem you really need a lot of help.
Your right that 9,000 isn't acceptable, but statistically it is nothing. 200,000 die from doctor Malpractice, so you are way more likely to die from a doctor's mistake than a mass shooting. Around 15,000 people die from drunk driving a year, so lets make alcohol illegal, or better yet ban cars. One of my teacher brought up a good point many years ago, we as a society waste money on the exotic. His examples was all the money rushing into the fight against flesh eating bacteria, which kills around 10 people a year, but in a news worthy way. So millions of dollars spent to save a few, vice that money going to more common cancer research. Another is the drive to put seat belts in school bus after a child dies. One average, a child dies in a school bus crash every other year. It would cost estimated billion dollars to install seat belts in all school bus, so one billion dollars to save .5 lives a year. Yes, sounds cold, but we can't spend money or effort on everything. The real problem is the lack of MORALS in this nation. That I blame on liberals too.
Your right that 9,000 isn't acceptable, but statistically it is nothing. 200,000 die from doctor Malpractice, so you are way more likely to die from a doctor's mistake than a mass shooting. Around 15,000 people die from drunk driving a year, so lets make alcohol illegal, or better yet ban cars. One of my teacher brought up a good point many years ago, we as a society waste money on the exotic. His examples was all the money rushing into the fight against flesh eating bacteria, which kills around 10 people a year, but in a news worthy way. So millions of dollars spent to save a few, vice that money going to more common cancer research. Another is the drive to put seat belts in school bus after a child dies. One average, a child dies in a school bus crash every other year. It would cost estimated billion dollars to install seat belts in all school bus, so one billion dollars to save .5 lives a year. Yes, sounds cold, but we can't spend money or effort on everything. The real problem is the lack of MORALS in this nation. That I blame on liberals too.
Are you referring to me? Me an idiot? Don't think so.
I am Swiss, I never said people should not have guns, I am saying that there is much ignorance towards your opinons of my country. That you are so self involved with your own rights that you fail to read and educate yourself on other countries. Because I don't suscribe to your beliefs you are choosing to only see what you want to see.
Most Swiss are more trained and have more respect for weapons than people like you. We don't take our arms for granted. We also respect are fellow man more than you. We don't feel the need to carry concealed weapons.
I however will not call you an idiot.
We do have a standing army it is small, and not all Swiss have an automatic rifle.... That is a lie. My brother is a driver and he has a pistol, my cousin is a band member and he has a trumpet. No gun at all. My freind chose not to join, he had to join the civil service. He has no gun.
Not everything you read online is true.
We dohave ammo in our homes but it is sealed until we are ordered to open it. There can be penalties if you do. I am also not a so called liberal as you call me. Just because I call for responsibility and maturity along with stricter rules does not mean I'm a socialist.
You need to educate yourself more. Pointing your finger at liberals as a defence to your argument is poor.
Automatics are easy to get, period. Buy a semi and convert it. The garbage about needing a skilled gunsmith is just lies. You can also buy 100 round clips. Argue that civilians should have unlimited ability to buy guns if you want but don't lie that they are hard to get. As for gun laws they don't apply to straw purchasers once they buy the gun since they can sell to whoever they want without any checks. The stats are clear, the US has more guns and more gun crimes than the west of the world including countries at work. Taking all guns away would put law abiding people at risk but putting some limits on clips and weapons only makes sense to those that use their brains.
Go choke on a pork sandwich, you no-English speaking buffoon!
Yes you don't have to be a gunsmith to convert a semi to fully automatic. It isn't as easy as you let on but the point is doing that makes you a criminal if you don't register it like any other fully automatic weapon.
Wait...I thought Fareed was calling himself "Jeff"...now it's David? How many people is Fareed supposed to be?
The United States has 5% percent of the population, and 50% of the guns! But the United States has none of the wide spread famine where despot dictators starve their populaces, or genocide caused by tribal wars, or people dragged out in the middle of the night, from their homes never to be heard from again. The list goes on and on! We are fortunate to have an armed society, much to the chagrin of the liberal left.
This pleasant chat ought to be about behavior control because that's where the problem lies. If those who commit violence didn't have guns they'd use something else. Like usual whenever violence gets public notice the call goes out to take guns away from law abiding citizens while leaving them in the hands of bad guys.
1. Automatice weapons are already tracked and difficult to get. 2) None were used in the Theater shooting. 3) For the love of God, stop claiming that the M&P 15 could shoot 100 rounds per minute. The capacity of the magazine doesn't equal the rate at which that weapon can fire (without jamming). 4) Should we have access to higher capacity magazines like the drum magazine used? I don't think it is necessary. 5) Gun control should be about allowing all non-fellon citizens access to a firearm if they choose anywhere in the country.
*automatic
Sorry Fareed – Stick to what you know best – and I haven't figured out what that is. With you, it appears that you think you know what is best for everyone – sounds a lot like Obama. I do and have owned guns for most of my 65 years and have never shot anyone except in combat – and that is because I was given orders to defend my country. You Liberals are so interesting in changing laws, but not very interested in having people become accountable and responsible for their actions. A good example is how they are keeping a mass murderer alive that murdered many more people in Killeen, TX than Homes did in Colorado – OH – But he's a Muslim and we certainly don't want to upset the Muslims of the world. Personally, trying Hasaad and Holmes is a waste of taxpayer money – line em up, shoot em – or execute them quickly regardless of how. Their is no "reasonable doubt" about either's guilt – but why Liberals will murder babies – they will fight like hell to keep people like this alive – and then scream about gun control. The way you control guns in the hands of evil people is to eliminate these evil people when they commit crimes like this – simple solution so they don't do it again.
The American male ego is stunningly embarrassing.
LOL. My girlfriend had 3 guns to my one.
To the author: Go fuq urself in the ear.
Do you understand why criminals are criminals? Because they do not follow laws. They do not respect laws. They break laws. How many ways does this need to be said?
There is a trite expression which is nonetheless true; when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
Fareed, go back to India if you don't like americas gun laws ! keep your hands off of the 2nd amendment and keep your hands off americans' guns !!!!!
Sadly, immigrants like Fareed want to make the US into another India. And we all know that India is a portrait of justice and opportunity. Right, Fareed?
Wow, I don't always agree with Zakaria, but he usually makes thoughtful arguments. This was just silly. His argument is not one for more gun control, it's an argument for an impossibility – rolling back time and preventing the current saturation of firearms. He makes the completely fallacious assumption that further restricting law abiding citizens from purchasing firearms will have the slightest impact on anything other than the number of law abiding people with firearms. It won't keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Studies have proven that if all firearms manufacture stopped tomorrow, there are more than enough guns out there right now to satisfy all possible nefarious purposes for well over 200 years. Pass laws that take guns away from law abiding citizens – do you really expect the criminals to turn theirs in? All these laws would do is turn good people into criminals.
Ahhh how very American, don't like it go back home. Nice
Personally, the statistics comfort me. This is the real problem for the NWO. Try to take 88 guns from 100 people. Good Luck!
Author is probably a Muslim of course the towel heads want us unarmed. 70 weapons that number is a bit low for my family of 4. Since California loves to deny us our 2nd Amendment rights I had to buy a Ranch in a gun friendly state so that I can buy for myself and my sons at the same time. 70 weapons that's funny, these dress wearing liberal wingnuts would soil themselves if I allowed them a peek in my safes.
As a firearm owner I am always surprised by the 'knee-jerk' reaction to incidents such as the cinema shooting. I have insufficient knowledge to offer any kind of definitive opinion on the situation in the USA but I hope common sense overrides the customary baying of many of the so called 'pressure groups' that are salivating at this tragic moment.
Yet another outright distortion of the facts of the case by a supposed "journalist" who, (just as his peers), has no qualms with misrepresenting facts, warping statistics, referencing surveys out of proper context, etc, etc,..... the whole gamut of tricks used by the gun control lobby in a vain attempt to demonize responsible gun ownership and use. The fact is that crime of all types, (especially gun related violent crime), has dropped significantly since US citizens have turned the tide and regained their rights to keep and bear arms. The places where crime has flourished are the zones where law abiding citizens are prevented from exercising their 2nd amendment rights such as New York and Washington D.C., (something the anti-gun lobby desperately does not want known). Every day, responsibly armed citizens stop and prevent crimes all over the nation, but the left leaning media somehow never seems to find the time or print space to report these facts accurately to John Q Public. This horrific tragedy in Colorado was perpratrated at a specific location where law abiding citizens were stripped of the right to self defense and the shooter was guaranteed a ready supply of defenseless victims. No doubt this factored significantly into this sicko's plans to attack this theater. If Mom or Grandpa had been allowed to carry a defensive firearm, this tragedy may not have occurred and, if it had, could have been far less devastating. Taking the rights of millions of people due to the misdeeds of one person, (or even several), is an asinine and ridiculous response. What should be done is to determine why our society and culture has degenerated to such a cesspit where human life has so little meaning that we are raising segments of our population to be so crass and evil. That is the real issue here regardless of the loads of BS and smokescreens being thrown up by the liberal gun grabbing media. One other interesting tidbit to consider, I find this rather starnge that this horrific atrocity occured just as the Owe-Bama and the Senate are planning to voted on a UN sponsored gun ban treaty that supercedes our own sovereignty, does away with our Bill of Rights, and is a widely known planned step towards total gun banishment from all countries and their citizens. Rather fishy timing I must say.....
The facts are only warped because they don't support your views. The rest of the world is in shock of the level of violence in your society (i'm canadian, by the way) We have stricter firearms laws, but plenty of guns. Nobody would ever consider confiscating them, as it would be political suicide. But, the fact is, that we all recognize that it's those tighter laws that keep us safer. There is no debate. Yes, it's a theory, like gravity.
I posted gun homicide rates and levels of gun ownership above (it'll stand out if you scroll up – a long list of stats). I didn't post info about gun control laws, but we know which countries have the most strict, and you can also look them up. I also posted links to my sources (UN and FBI), so you can verify and look at additional countries.
Worldwide, there appear to be a negative correlation between gun ownership and gun homicides – the more guns the people have the lower the homicide rate. Gun control laws don't appear to correlate with gun homicides; if they do, its a slight negative correlation.
What does correlate with gun homicides is race. Worldwide and in the US. Look at the data; if you consider yourself a man of science and empiricism, you'll have no choice but to acknowledge the obvious fact staring you n the face.
Hmmm....let's see...11,000 people killed in firearms related homicides in the U.S. yearly, or 34,000 killed by by reckless drivers – which do you think is the bigger public safety problem, Mr. Zakaria? What is your stance on banning automobiles? You have no problem leaving personal security up to the government, so why not leave personal transportation up to the government as well? Think of the lives we could save! What'ya say, Mr. Zakaria, you give me your keys, and I'll give you my guns?
I noticed that Zak didn't mention Switzerland in his comparisons. They don't have a standing Army and all males between the ages of 20-30 (enlisted, 20-34 for officers) have a required period of active service followed by service in the reserves. Each male in service keeps his service weapon AT HOME (fully automatic Sig 550) and when his service is over he can keep his service weapon and it is converted to semi-auto at that time.
Way to cherry-pick your "FACTS" Zak.
What you DON'T point out is that Switzerland for instance has at least one gun per household by law. America doesn't come close to that. And yet they have much less gun violence (as pointed out in the piece). Sounds like a social problem to me!
Also, when D.C. had the most restrictive gun laws in the country up until a few years ago, it was THE murder capital of the U.S.
A sustained effort by the Nazi government to disarm all Jews in the period leading up to the holocaust, enabled the jewish people to be deported. From an article by Stephen Halbrook in the St. Thomas Law Review:
"Over a period of several weeks in October and November 1938, the Nazi government disarmed the German Jewish population. The process was carried out both by following a combination of legal forms enacted by the Weimar Republic and by sheer lawless violence. The Nazi hierarchy could now more comfortably deal with the Jewish question without fear of armed resistance by the victims.
It may be tempting to argue that the possession of firearms by the German Jews would have made no difference, either in the 1938 pogrom or later in the Holocaust, when the majority were deported and then eradicated in death camps. Yet this fatalistic view ignores that the Nazis themselves viewed armed Jews as sufficiently dangerous to their policies to place great emphasis on the need to disarm all Jews. In 1938, it was by no means certain that Jewish armed resistance movements could not develop, and even less certain that individual Jews would not use arms to resist arrest, deportation, or attacks by the Nazis."
Stalin and Pol Pot, incidentally, also moved to disarm their citizens before their reigns of terror. For those who invoke the rallying cry of "Never Again," it's useful to consider the role of an armed citizenry in resisting oppression and ensuring freedom.
The NRA would defend the right of this nutter to own a weapon. The NRA is morally bankrupt.
"We have 5 percent of the world's population and 50 percent of the guns."
That is a made up statistic.
Its time the USG and States Banned all weapons except for the US Military, Police and Security Guards end of story.
California has the strictest gun control laws in the nation yet the states murder rate (4.9 per 100k), per the FBI's data is statistically tied with that of Texas (5.0 per 100k). Colorado, a state with less restrictive gun laws has a much lower rate of 2.4 per 100k.
Additionally, Chicago virtually bans guns yet there are hundreds of people shot there every year. I believe there were 16 shot and killed in Chicago just last weekend. For some reason the news media doesn't place a very high priority on reporting this.
Why aren't these facts reported? Personally, I feel it's because they contradict the idiocy proposed by the left. Laws restricting behavior will only work if criminals follow those laws. Since, by the very definition, criminals disobey laws, those laws will never be obeyed by these people.
I've got a big gun. It sits between my legs just beneath my abdomen. Care to see it ladies?
Looks like a Vienna Sausage.
The Second Amendment has been converted into one of the most effective and profitable marketing strategies ever devised by man ! !
Another example of someone who only likes to show and polute the data in their favor. Switzerland is number 3 on the list of gun ownership with 45.7 per 100, yet has extremely low gun related death rates. Then again, Countries like South Africa, Colombia and El Salvador, have death rates in excess of 10 to almost 20 times that of the US, yet have only 12.7, 5.9 and 5.8 guns per 100 people. Brazil is also pretty high up there in the gun death rate, yet only has 8 guns per 100, and has some of the stricts gun control laws in the world. No, I would say the reason these other countries have lower deaths rates is because the "nut jobs" are not distributed evenly. Try presenting all the facts next time, instead of just those you like.
National insanity - Just READ this garbage ! ! !
stupid people are stupid.
There is a lot to be said about the article's statistics. BUT the dye is cast- the guns are out there and coming our way. There's no way of retrieving them. One can hear the conser SQUEEL " they are disarming us before they kill us like they did the Jews". BUT one thing everybody shares- skin that bullets can penetrate. AND things will have to get