July 27th, 2012
04:33 PM ET

Time to face facts on gun control

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?


soundoff (2,981 Responses)
  1. Dean

    Mr. Zakaria,

    You've obviously slanted your article to make it appear that control is needed when actually it is the opposite.

    First of all. You cannot buy "automatic" weapons off the shelf in any gun store as you make it appear in your article. You can buy "semi-automatic" weapons but not full auto. In order to buy a fully automatic weapon you either need to have a class III license from the ATF or purchase ones manufactured prior to May of 1986 with a $200 tax stamp that have been registered with the ATF on or before that date. If you lose your class III then you have to also get rid of all automatic weapons you purchased with that license. The ones before May of 1986 you can keep but they have become increasing expensive to own starting at several thousand dollars. So it is not easy to obtain an automatic weapon. If you convert one to automatic then you face 10 years in jail but someone determine on committing a violent crime isn't going to deter them from such a stiff penalty. Only law abiding citizens.

    You mention the statistic of 3 per 100K homicide rate which is true but you left out the fact that it has gone down significantly since 1991 which was the peak of murder rate in the last 40 years. since 1991 it has gone from 10 per 100K just over 3 per 100K as you mentioned. In this same time frame we gone from 9 to 42 states that allow conceal carry. 230 to 300 million guns and approx 8 million citizens that carry. So more guns have not cause more crimes. Also, it has not been nearly flat since 2000. We gone down from 5.5 per 100K. I would say that's pretty significant. This all can be downloaded from the FBI which I did and consolidated it into an Excel spreadsheet. You also did not mention that Chicago, D.C., and CA have the strictested gun laws in the nation but their murder rates are higher than the national average. (CA – 4.53/100K, IL – 5.17/100K, DC – 17.48/100K). Maryland has fairly strict gun laws and it's murder rate is 6.96 per 100K.

    Also, if you look at the FBI stats on "Aggravated Assaults", it's lower for states with conceal carry than those that don't. So gun control is not the issue. It has actually helped in lowering the crime in this country.

    July 30, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Reply
  2. RAGHEAD

    WHY IS THIS RAGHEAD STILL POSTING..Back to pakistan with you raghead.. you have no business trying to disarm americans.. someone deal with this guy!

    July 30, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Reply
    • Paul B

      paranoid armed rednecks scare me more than ragheads do, any day of the week.

      July 30, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Reply
      • Bob

        Paul, Just a couple points:

        1 .Thank you for solidifying part of the reason for the second amendment(read it carefully).Of course, you won't read it or try to understand it, but defending yourself or family is an "inalienable right." I'll bet you don't understand that one either.
        2. Why do so many people in the United States (not excluding Zakaria and other liberals) want to be like European nations or other countries around the world? Are those countries really that great?
        ...By the way, thanks for the compliment 'redneck.' I own...I carry.

        July 30, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
  3. JCK4567

    For those arguing about automatic/semi-automatic/Fareed messing up about his weapon's classifications...I believe you are missing the point of the article.

    July 30, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Reply
  4. Mark

    Lets face the truth, people are crazy, whatcha going to do when they take all the guns away, and a gunman busts your door down..... Cause its so hard for criminals to get guns illegally right, I mean our government is giving them away to the mexican cartel, look at operation fast a furious, so before we worry about disarming the public how bout we worry about our government selling guns to the mexican cartel? I dont want people to not have guns if our government is selling them to known criminals, just saying......

    July 30, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Reply
  5. TomAZ

    Mr. Zakaria assumes his statistics are indicative of his "facts".

    Not so fast Mr. Z. As a famous pol from yesteryear has said....... there are 3 kinds of liars; Liars, Damn Liars, and Statistics. Your facts are wrong, your assumtions are yours, and uninformed. For myself, I just sent another $100 to the NRA......In your honor.

    July 30, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Reply
  6. Mark

    So I saw a post up top about how its always white males who do mass murder, maybe in the united states thats true, but we aren't the only ones. Looking the mexicans who are in the cartel, pretty sure they have guys who put 100's of people in acid to get rid of evidence, or hang people from bridges to warn you. Africa we have many mass murders going on, not white people but black people killing black people. There are plenty of mass murderers who aren't white just happens that america has been predominantly white for a long time so yes white people kill more people cause there are more of us, this is soon to change as the demographics change though as well as the social status of minorities.

    July 30, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Reply
  7. John

    The 2nd Amendment gives me the right to bear arms to defend myself, no State, County or City has the right to take it away. Everyday some politician takes it upon himself to take away more of our liberties. Enough is Enough

    July 30, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Reply
    • Paul B

      when the time comes when this stupidly archaic amendment is finally repealed, will you shoot those who try and take your dangerous redneck toys away?

      July 30, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Reply
    • independentlyowned

      Name a law that a politician has proposed that would actually take away the guns you currently own and your ability to purchase any firearms in the future. Just one.

      July 30, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Reply
  8. anotherday_2012

    I'm not saying I'm for or against guns. I'm not saying we need more or less gun control. I'm not saying objects kill people, and I do agree that people kill people. I'm saying that if you're going to argue for or against something, be logical about it. Make some sense. To anyone who argues that cars kill people, and wires kill people and blunt kitchen butter knives kill people, therefore should we ban these things too...it's a bad argument. Guns are weapons, designed to kill or injure. The other things you randomly list are not designed to kill or injure – even though they've been used as such.
    I say you can have your personal weapon to protect your family from intruders or a future hypothetical tyrannical government, but how far, how strong of a weapon would you like to go? What is the scope of your 2nd Amendment rights to ownership of a weapon? How far until you too agree that a weapon is just too much for the public to bear on their person? A grenade? A tank? How about a nuclear weapon?
    The goal we should acknolwedge across the board, unilaterally, is not to decide whether to or not to ban weapons from the public, for we are given a right, but to decide how much is too much. We need to agree on what weapon and everything more destructive than it should be banned from public right of usage.

    July 30, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Reply
  9. C S

    To those who are saying the outcome would have been less worse if there was someone in the theatre who was carrying and shot at the nut case:
    Are you even thinking? So you would actually start shooting at the nut case in that chaos? With the smoke, with people running around, with his body armor and protect head to toe (he even had neck guard). Now what should people think about you when you pull out a gun? Are you another nut case or a savior? What if another guy with a weapon who is close by thinks you are a nut job too and pulls out his weapon and shoots at you? What about you shooting some innocent person while trying to shoot at the actual nut job?
    Your arguments for having armed citizens in the theatre are all flawed. I am not for disarming citizens. But I think people drinking NRA's kool-aid and the second ammendment obsessed should re-think why they would need automatic/assualt/tactical weapons/gear available to public. Why do you need a weapon that fires more than 60 rounds a min?
    Put some thought into what you are saying.

    July 30, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Reply
    • Paul B

      They can't think about what they are saying. They have the mentality of children. They want the world to be like it was in the wild west days, shoot outs in bars, etc.

      July 30, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Reply
  10. Paul B

    gun nuts want their "rights" and their guns. fine: let them keep the damn things and tax the living hell out of them. $2000 for a permit to own a gun. $1000 tax per gun per year for owning a gun. And a 500% tax on the price of bullets. You want them rednecks? You can have them this way.

    July 30, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Reply
  11. Pew pew pew

    I don't own a gun but I should.

    If you take away guns from the common citizen, you leave them disarmed – and who still has guns? Ah, the criminal element, because they never cared about having a legitimate gun to begin with!

    Granted we cannot control or predict nut cases like this Joker guy.

    And it may be a good case for prohibiting ownership of automatic or guns that can hold LOTS of bullets.

    But taking basic gun rights from law abiding citizens? No.

    July 30, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Reply
  12. Art Farkle

    Thanks Dr. Zakaria, I had not run across a doctor of everything since the professor on Gilligan’s Island. By your own admission firearms homicide rates had remained stable from 2000-2009 when gun ownership in America was increasing. You ought to consider explaining this for your upcoming publication in the Journal of Uncorrelated Data along with the rest of the misconceptions already dismissed by sociologists and other professionals you wish we would ignore. When I asked my neighbor, he disagreed with you too – and he’s a doctor!

    July 30, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Reply
    • Mike in NJ

      Is stable acceptable in your world?

      July 30, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Reply
  13. Aaron Gross

    You guys never watched the bump firing AKs on youtube...?

    July 30, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Reply
  14. Jorge

    Didn't this guy's weapon jam?

    July 30, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Reply
  15. Mike in NJ

    Warren: It's kinda hard for me to kill another person by smoking. It's also hard to kill someone by drinking... unless there's a gun or a car handy, and I use them irresponsibly. (Oh, I guess I could start a fire by smoking, so there's that.)

    But guns are designed to kill. I can buy a gun today, and use it responsibly for years, then one day get a mental illness and kill dozens of people at a whim. Possible with other means, like a car, or an explosive, but more difficult. The number of people who have defended themselves with a gun is miniscule compared to the harm. Someone said a theatergoer could have stopped him with a gun – really? Against that body armor? Maybe if he was packing cop-killer bullets – you really want people walking around with those?

    I am baffled by the ignorance. I don't want to ban guns. But I think it's ludicrous for people to think the current state of gun prevalence in this country makes any sort of logical sense.

    July 30, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Reply
    • Vitz

      "Baffled by ignorance" Do some fact checking SIR! Cop killer bullets? You mean hollow points? Designed to mushroom on impact so that they flatten out.... yes causing more bodily harm but also preventing that round from traveling through a few layers of drywall and into your neighbors house. Those rounds have never been used effectively to penetrate police armor! Your average hunting rifle will tear through any armor.... So logically we have to stop Americans from hunting?! You Sir do not know what you are talking about, I only buy hollow points because IT IS SAFER! God forbid someone breaks into my home and I'm forced to take action but at least I don't have to worry about hurting my neighbor... So please stay in your gun fearing state and enjoy hiding in a corner while you frantically call the police for help! You, like MANY others have no right to take away other peoples' liberty ESPECIALLY when you do not know what you are talking about...

      July 30, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Reply
  16. Vitz

    So gun control is the answer? Stricter gun laws the ONLY way to go? FBI Crime Statistics from 2010 (most recently available) Cali = 1,257, Illinois = 364 New York = 517... These are just the handgun related deaths but my point is compare these 3 states that have some of the strictest regulations with Alaska = 19, Arizona = 232 and Colorado = 65, states with very little regulation and clearly there is no direct correlation between laws and gun related murders. Call the Aurora shooter what he really is/was that night... a DOMESTIC TERRORIST! Don't blame guns, this guy had explosives too, Timothy McVeigh used fertalizer, we going to ban gardening? I am an honest law abiding citizen and no government will ever take my guns away from me! I enjoy Arizona gun laws because it allows me to protect myself from criminals by legally carrying my concealed pistol. the 2nd Amendment was so important that it came right after the 1st... It wasn't just thrown in at the last minute! It was to protect citizens against the British Army but also to make sure that Americans would never fall under a tyrannic government. "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. " -Thomas Jefferson Obviously not a fear most people have in this country but look around the world at the governments that are failing... Things happen that we can predict, call it what you want but I call owning guns being prepared...

    July 30, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Reply
    • Paul B

      You named the three states with the largest populations dummy.

      July 30, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Reply
      • Vitz

        name calling... very mature! Maybe states with very large pop. just saying that these are the states that PRIDE themselves on STRICT TOUGH LAWS. Sure Alaska is empty but they also have some of the highest gun ownership per cap... Point of this is to show...drum roll please...... criminals don't care and laws don't make a difference!

        July 30, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • Michael

      Good comments, and facts about states with highest crimes – most prohibit guns. How many in the theatre in Aurora wouldn't give their left arm to have had a legal gun with them?!

      July 30, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Reply
  17. TheCommoner

    To the nuclear deterrence kind of arguments:

    So why don't we just go around and supply nukes to all the countries surrounding the rogue countries (the likes of Iran and North Korea)? That would be a hell of deterrence, wouldn't it. But we don't do that. Why? Hypocricy?? Or may be we are using better judgement there?? May be having everyone armed to the teeth is a bad idea?? THINK PEOPLE THINK? Don't just blindly go defensive, and shun the idea. Think if reducing the range of publicly available weaponry is good or bad. We don't need to ban gun ownership. We just need better control!

    July 30, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Reply
    • Dave

      So instead of arming everyone you'd rather arm only those with no regard for the law (e.g. criminals) and leave the rest defenseless? On paper it sounds great, in truth you can never remove all the guns so any legal stance you takes serves to limit only one side of the equation.

      As far as the argument for nuclear deterrence the situation was not that any one country could control the supply and therefore you had to be ready to respond when needed...that has not changed and we continue to stock-pile as much fire power as is necessary to make it fruitless to attack.

      The biggest argument on nuclear deterrence was not should we do it, but rather how much is too much?

      Would you propose talking softly and carrying no stick as a foreign policy for all other countries, do you believe that we need zero military might (you brought up the global nature of nuclear deterrence). If this is the case then we should not be wasting our money on defense when we could be feeding people here in the U.S. of A. Then when other countries attack, you could run out and let them know that we're not a threat so they should just leave us and our resources alone because we're doing the same for them. Can you support this position with history/facts?

      July 30, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Reply
      • TheCommoner

        Sorry Dave, your surgical response isn't exactly logical. I didn't say we shouldn't arm people, I just said we shouldn't arm everyone to the teeth. I said we should reduce the range of weapons available to the public. I don't see a reason to buy a weapon that can fire more than 60 rounds a minute. What is the purpose of that kind of weapons? Are you trying to protect yourself from a small army or something?
        And the rest of your post doesn't make any sense. I just alluded to the fact that the nuclear powers are trying to avoid nuclear proliferation. Didn't say anything about soft talking or reducing our military might.
        The analogy here is that, the response to crime is not weaponizing. And where would this end exactly? You buy a hand gun and deter a bad guy. now the bad guy comes back with a shot gun. Now you get a shot gun. And where does this stop? The bad guys won't certainly stop, since you all agree that the bad guys get guns no matter what. So every body just buys a tank or something?? Freedom doesn't mean you can do anything to alleviate your fears. And I am pretty sure this country's fore fathers didn't have assault rifles and automatic war-level weaponry when they gave us the second ammendment.
        Again, you just prove my point. Whenever someone brings up gun control, people like you automatically assume your guns are being taken away. NO. That is not my intent, I am just saying you don't need powerful weapons, weapons that are only to be used by soldiers, not citizens. We need laws controlling those weapons! Those laws would certainly help reducing the number of mass shootings we have been witnessing the past several years.

        July 30, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
  18. AceRyder

    1 out of 3 americans knows someone who's been shot? don't think so.

    July 30, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Reply
  19. Rob Martinez

    "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

    -Heinrich Himmler, commander of the German Schutzstaffel (SS)

    July 30, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Reply
    • Paul B

      This makes sense. You want to play with deadly weapons, join the army.

      July 30, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Reply
      • Vitz

        yup sure doesn't make it easier for the government to come to your house and take you and your family away never to be seen again... To my knowledge that never happened in Germany, right?... The Holocaust... what was that? Was it like our Woodstock but earlier? YOU SIR ARE A MORON... only point your proving on this board is that the American Education system is broken!

        July 30, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
      • Dave

        You seriously just agreed with a Nazi?

        July 30, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
  20. Whodat

    The whole gun control debate is a canard. Even countries with strict gun control have shocking massacres.

    A person who is committed to inflicting havoc on their fellow human beings will eventually find a way to do it.

    The challenge is to inject in every human being a beleif that every other human being is valued.

    Gun control can;t do that.

    Sorry Fareed, another vacuous commentary on your part.

    July 30, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Reply
  21. Drew

    Here's a gun control thought: Try to take them away and see how many people say "Come and Take Them!"

    July 30, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Reply
    • Paul B

      so you can have a good old wild-west shoot out with the law huh?

      July 30, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Reply
  22. Greg

    your data says that gun bans don't work. In 2000 assault weapons were ban and have been available for perches from 2004 through 2009 yet the rate did not increase. further more they have had a 20% increase in non lethal use as protection against attacks and assaults. and finally automatic weapons have not become easier to get. they are still governed by the NFA act of 1984.

    July 30, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Reply
  23. TheTruth

    The FBI has created a national crime report annually since the fifties (Uniform Crime Report). Some important (and remarkably unchaging) statistics: 99.7% of all gun-related crimes are committed with guns that are stolen, smuggled in or home-made; when strict control laws are passed, gun-related crime rises 17.5% faster than the national average for 4 years, then levels off. Fewer than 1/2 of all homicides involve guns (men prefer blunt instruments, women kitchen knives). And murder is illegal regardless of method used.
    Something to think about: Switzerland requires military service of every able-bodied male. At the completion of service, each soldier is given his service weapon by the state (yes, even heavy machine guns). He s also given a large ration of ammunition, which is replenished annually. These guns and ammunition are passed down from generation to generation. Which nation has the lowest gun-related homicide rate in the world? Switzerland

    July 30, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Reply
    • Paul B

      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."

      July 30, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Reply
  24. Paul B

    gun nuts want their "rights" and their guns. fine: let them keep the damn things and tax the living hell out of them. $2000 for a permit to own a gun. $1000 tax per gun per year for owning a gun. And a 500% tax on the price of bullets. You want them rednecks? You can have them this way.

    July 30, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Reply
    • Vitz

      Once again because criminals follow the law? And we don't already have a problem with billions of dollars of contraband coming into this country? Lets not even think about the economical effect of taking that entire enterprise out of America... Your answers to a real debate are childish and foolish. Let me guess middle age, upper class, CA hippie? Give me my weed but take away the 2nd amendment from law abiding citizens... Taxing people out of their right to bare arms yeah that sounds real American

      July 30, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Reply
      • Paul B

        which is it, contraband coming in, or an industry we have to protect with the huge weapons sales? upper class? check. middle aged? not quite, but closing in. west coast? no, east (ny). I don't know too many pot heads that kill people. But paranoid gun toting red neck freaks (all by your definition "real amer'guns")? happens every day in this country doesn't it?

        July 30, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
      • Vitz

        Well you should be happy to know that the only people that can afford automatic weapons, pay the outrages fees in NY, and deal with the taxes that you think will answer our gun problems are the upper class... $20,000 for a pre-ban M16 when my AR-15 only cost $900... All that will happen is force average citizens onto the black market. Yes we have to protect the firearm industry just like the auto...what the hell else do we export? You don't think the second strict laws go into effect that the cartels wont take advantage? Becoming more ruthless and two branching off into another service to provide another illegal commodity that Americans want.

        July 30, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • Natfka

      Yea, grow up Paul

      July 30, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Reply
  25. TheBuckStopsHere

    So Aurora happened because there was no gun lock law? Really??

    July 30, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Reply
  26. ciaopaparazzi

    More BS from the paranoid Left. With every right comes a concomitant responsibility. Only a fool thinks that you giving up your rights is going to make someone else more responsible. I can kill more people easier with my car than with a gun – and get away with only a few years in prison if I don't advertise the fact. The people who carry guns aren't paranoid – sheep like Zakaria are.

    July 30, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Reply
  27. StatisticalFailure

    One thing i learned in statistics is numbers can show whatever you want them to. If we want to prove that guns are the answer then issue everyone an m16 and have a stand your ground law in every state. This will ensure everyone is safe 24/7, right?

    July 30, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Reply
  28. susjam

    More people are killed in alochol related deaths than with firearms. Check the CDC website. Where is the cry for alcohol prohibition? Two young people were killed in my community recently due to an alcohol related traffic crash. Alcohol serves no legitimate purpose, does it? Lets outlaw high fat foods. Heart disease kills more than both of them combined. The author also points out that crime attempts have DROPPED in recent years, and gun laws have become more lax. So, how are firearms making us less safe?

    July 30, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Reply
  29. Raab

    1 in 3 Americans know someone who has been shot ? Get out of here FZ.. Loki is right....you are a tool and a liar.

    July 30, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.