Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns = More Gun Deaths

Via Think Progress:

The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

…The conclusion: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9” percent.

Remember that previous studies have already established that rates of gun ownership are strongly correlated with gun deaths (including accidents, suicides, and homicides).

Gun deaths graph

The three states with the highest rate of gun ownership (MT, AK, WY) have a gun death rate of 17.8 per 100,000, over 4 times that of the three lowest-ownership states (HI, NJ, MA; 4.0 gun deaths per 100,000).

Elisabeth Rosenthal:

Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

UPDATE: Right-Wing Media Rush To Politicize Washington Navy Yard Shooting

  1. #1 by tumwater on September 15, 2013 - 9:28 pm

    The gun murder rate has been dropping in the states as gun ownership broadens and this study is utter bullshit..on the other hand, the cities where concealed carry is banned have the highest murder rates in the Chicago..try again with thy rubbish.

  2. #4 by brewski on September 16, 2013 - 5:08 pm

    Maybe the causality is that gun deaths lead to more gun ownership.

  3. #6 by Nathan Erkkila on September 16, 2013 - 8:26 pm

    Maybe the causality is that gun deaths lead to more gun ownership.

    I never agree with you, but dammit, you do have a point.

  4. #7 by brewski on September 17, 2013 - 8:59 am

    Whenever one sees an association between A and B there are three possibilities:

    A caused B
    B causes A
    C causes both A and B
    It’s just a coincidence.

    • #8 by Cliff Lyon on September 17, 2013 - 9:03 am


      Perhaps you have an opinion of the cause of the correlation in the study?

      …or were you just going to take us back to junior high school?

      • #9 by brewski on September 17, 2013 - 10:09 am

        I am not allowed to give my opinions in One Utah. Your fellow Authoritarian Glenden keeps deleting my posts.

        • #10 by Cliff Lyon on September 17, 2013 - 2:07 pm

          …more likely because you’re a chicken shit. 🙂

    • #11 by cav on September 17, 2013 - 9:53 am

      Dog did it.

  5. #12 by Richard Warnick on September 17, 2013 - 9:34 am

    The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010

    “We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.”

    Excerpt from conclusions:

    The final GEE negative binomial model revealed 6 significant predictors of firearm homicide rates: gun ownership proxy (IRR=1.009; 95% CI=1.004, 1.014), percentage Black, income inequality, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, and incarceration rate (Table 2). This model indicates that for each 1 percentage point increase in the gun ownership proxy, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

    In the final model, rerun with standardized predictor variables to ease interpretation of results, the IRR for the gun ownership proxy was 1.129 (95% CI=1.061, 1.201), indicating that for each 1-SD increase in the gun ownership proxy, the firearm homicide rate
    increased by 12.9% (Table 3).

    After we controlled for all the measured potential confounding variables, rather than just those found significant in the final model, the gun ownership proxy was still a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (IRR=1.008; 95% CI=1.004, 1.012; Table 4).

    I believe this study destroys the standard gun-lobby cop-out where they claim that although overall gun deaths correlate with the rate of gun ownership, gun homicides don’t.

  6. #13 by Richard Warnick on September 17, 2013 - 11:23 am

    Here’s a correlation fail for you:

    Fox News: Guns Don’t Kill People, Video Games Do

    • #14 by brewski on September 17, 2013 - 11:30 am

      As Bowling for Columbine pointed out at length, there is a huge cultural explanation component in all this. Pretty tough to legislate culture, as much as you Authoritarians try.

    • #16 by brewski on September 17, 2013 - 11:33 am

      I think the media coverage encourages people who are mentally unbalanced and people who want to go down in a narcissistic blaze of glory to do things like this. It’s like how suicide bombers convince themselves that they will achieve martyrdom. In the US, they get their 15 minutes.

      • #17 by Richard Warnick on September 17, 2013 - 11:49 am

        I wish news organizations would not focus so much on the life story of the shooter, or even mention his name more than strictly necessary.

  7. #18 by tumwater on September 17, 2013 - 2:25 pm Cliff on here again blathering? By now he’s like obama, his freak prince, always getting the opposite of what he wishes to steal from others whenever he opens his yap piehole.

    Fer Cris’sakes!!

  8. #19 by tumwater on September 17, 2013 - 2:37 pm

    Where do you get this garbage, declining? federal numbers after the freak prince opened his yap piehole registered 65 MILLION new semi automatic weapons during the gun sales binge couple years can’t even find ammo you Knotheads!!

    Why are you believing the lies that suit you? Are you that weak minded? Stunning.

    This is not even including the massive sales of unregistered guns free flowing like river now, now that the freak prince’s push for tyranny is now obvious.

    As well, after Fast and Furious and the arming of head chopping psychotic jihadis terrorists against the sovereign Syrian government, the height of this stunning hypocrisy and stupidity in you carrying this fascist president’s water, is simply..

    ..BREATHTAKING!! You will fail, the USS FREAK PRINCE is dead in the water and about to be SUNK!!

    • #20 by Richard Warnick on September 17, 2013 - 3:51 pm

      My source is The New York Times. What is your source?

      Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline

      The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data…

      Note that while some paranoid Faux-News-watching gun nuts obsessively stockpiled assault rifles and ammo, the majority of sane Americans realized that firearms are too dangerous to have around the house.

  9. #21 by tumwater on September 17, 2013 - 8:34 pm

    hahah..the new york times? That is absolutely farcical!! Check the federal registration numbers you Knothead!!

    Um, KNOTHEAD!! The number one assault weapon identified by the FBI is a BASEBALL BAT!! Most dangerous, used more than ANYTHING in assaults..

    “Stop it Sponge Bob, your only hurting yourself” Your friend Patrick..

    • #22 by Richard Warnick on September 18, 2013 - 10:33 am

      There is no federal gun registration. In fact, federal law prohibits the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) to create any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners.

  10. #23 by tumwater on September 18, 2013 - 3:48 pm

    You really are a Knothead, they do not attach names to the purchases but the federal gov’t makes public the number of background checks requested for gun purchases that are finalized. Public information.

    I mean really are you that stupid?

    • #24 by Richard Warnick on September 18, 2013 - 4:10 pm

      You said “federal registration,” not me. There is no such thing. Also, gun sales and number of households owning guns are two different things. Are you going to come up with actual facts, or just complain without evidence that The New York Times got it wrong?

  11. #25 by tumwater on September 19, 2013 - 9:14 am

    It’s crap and you know it fool..every person who buys a gun must go through a background check, FBI, the number these upon purchases in public information.

    ..and who believes anything from that irrelevant rag of misinformation that even Jon Stewart calls the jew york times.

    So complete confirmations.. You are some kind of duplicitous shill Knothead. Period! Exclamation point. End of sentence.

    Between the jew that runs this site, and that winged monkey feinstein, we well know these zionazis want Goyim America disarmed and helpless before the filthy totalitarian government they would love implement.

    What’s your angle on it richard, or are you some kind of stupid idiot?…Knothead.

    • #26 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2013 - 10:11 am

      Here’s what I know: anybody can buy a gun online without a background check. Forty percent of all firearms purchased in the United States are sold without background checks because the guns aren’t purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer.

      Also, you still haven’t come up with any facts to back up your assertion that the number of American households with guns is not declining.

      Please join the reality-based community. I’m here to help.

  12. #27 by tumwater on September 19, 2013 - 12:12 pm

    You increase the evidence of your knotted head with every post. You here shill for some crap”study” from the proven lie mop NY times..yet cannot wrap your head around the fact that 65 million more semi automatic weapons are now in the hands of Americans.

    Now you blather on about online purchases we need no check for..good, the point is the sales are COUNTED! As it should be, as the personal right to bear arms shall not be infringed..

    I truly wonder if you are retarded, you are literate, though there are literate chimps with more than you seem to have. With the facts now coming in that even now our criminal government tortures, renders, bombs innocents, drones innocents like Nazis did, sets up and executes false flags at every opportunity to compel the citizenry to terror like a bunch of filthy animals…yet here you are willing to shill for some mindless gun control like that bat shit crazy winged monkey feinstein.
    I read you are former military, this means you are oath sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic so help you God…FOREVER!!

    I recommend you review this and get on the right side of history before the People acknowledge you as a traitor to your oath..the penalty for which can be swinging from the end of a rope.

    That is all soldier.

    • #28 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2013 - 12:18 pm

      Got a source for “65 million more semi automatic weapons”?

      There is no record whatsoever of private gun sales, including online sales.

      If all you have to offer is personal insults directed at a person you don’t even know, then you have NOTHING.

      • #29 by brewski on September 19, 2013 - 3:06 pm

        Sort of like every single one of your posts.
        You got nothing and then you have the temerity to tell him he has nothing?

  13. #30 by tumwater on September 19, 2013 - 3:19 pm

    Here ya go ya blithering Knothead!

    Geezus, incredible the total vapid disconnect..

    Retarded Knothead!

    • #31 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2013 - 4:05 pm

      Finally, a link!

      So, the gun nuts are buying more guns because they watch Faux News Channel and they are convinced President Obama is going to restrict their little hobby. Whatev.

      The fact remains the percentage of households that own guns has been declining. Try and understand.

  14. #32 by brewski on September 19, 2013 - 3:55 pm

    Tumwater, you have to realize that Richard isn’t very smart. He doesn’t know the difference between his emotions and data. He knows his emotions and he just ignores data. If you ask him for data he will tell you his emotions or provide you with a link which shows someone else’s emotions or is irrelevant to the question. But he won’t know the difference.

  15. #37 by brewski on September 19, 2013 - 4:57 pm

    I’m in moderation

    • #38 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2013 - 6:19 pm

      Ah, the dreaded socialists. For example, every British politician that’s to the left of President Obama (i.e. all of them).

      • #39 by brewski on September 19, 2013 - 6:48 pm

        Enoch Powell?

        • #40 by Richard Warnick on September 19, 2013 - 9:32 pm

          He’s long dead, but as Minister of Health (1960-63) Powell was responsible for the National Health Service, and promoted an ambitious ten-year program of hospital building.

          Can you imagine the reaction if President Obama proposed a plan to build a chain of government-run public hospitals that would not charge patients for health care?

          • #41 by brewski on September 19, 2013 - 10:44 pm

            There are lots of examples where conservative Americans are far more liberal than liberals in Europe on other issues. So if you want to go policy by policy and cherry pick, then you are welcome to it.

  16. #42 by brewski on September 20, 2013 - 8:57 am

    If you spend some time talking with Richard, he reveals that he had some sort of emotional breakdown in 2003. So because of that, he is so blind crazy that he cannot make sense out of anything. He reveals it most when he keeps maintaining that he is part Libertarian and then wants the government to control everything. He defends Marx and then talks about freedom. He makes no sense and it is all due to his breakdown.

    • #43 by Richard Warnick on September 20, 2013 - 9:29 am

      brewski– You have never spent one minute talking with me. You don’t know me. It’s easy to hurl unfounded accusations under cover of anonymity, but that’s not going to win any arguments. Therefore, I suggest we stick to the issue under discussion here.

  17. #44 by cav on September 20, 2013 - 9:57 am

    Marx was such a tyrant!

    Thanks brewski. Another astute observation from the clown car.

  18. #45 by brewski on September 20, 2013 - 12:04 pm

    I know what you say makes no sense, even Cliff pointed that out. I know that you contradict yourself on a daily basis. I know that you have no concept of history or facts. I know that you wave away everything else when it gets in the way of your preconceived emotional conclusions. What else do I need to know?

    • #46 by Richard Warnick on September 20, 2013 - 1:46 pm

      What I say makes sense to members of the reality-based community. Join us.

      • #47 by brewski on September 20, 2013 - 2:07 pm

        I’m too educated to join the willful ignorance club.

        • #48 by Richard Warnick on September 20, 2013 - 2:41 pm

          “Educated” = “I watch Faux News Channel and read right-wing blogs to stay current with the latest Republican talking points.”

          • #49 by brewski on September 21, 2013 - 8:34 am


  19. #50 by Thomas Atwater on September 21, 2013 - 12:49 pm

    This Richard has the quality of some delusion..has he had a breakdown and is yet offering his opinions here? That would not lend and credibility to this site..

    Perhaps the admins should look into it.

    Richard, to clear the air, have you had a mental breakdown in your past, and are you now or have ever been on a regimen of psychoptropic drugs? Full disclosure would serve the truth here.

    • #51 by cav on September 21, 2013 - 1:18 pm

      Thomas Atwater

      And who are you to show up here from nowhere, prescribing recipes for credibility and truth?

  20. #52 by Thomas Atwater on September 23, 2013 - 11:08 am

    This is an open forum is it not cav, or are you the blog’s nazi gestapo enforcement arm?
    Pretty pathetic.

    • #53 by brewski on September 23, 2013 - 1:13 pm

      Thomas, no this is not an open forum. They delete postings which prove that they are wrong all the time. They are afraid of informed people. They believe in censorship and even admit to it. They have Authoritarian Personality Disorder.

    • #54 by cav on September 23, 2013 - 1:22 pm

      It couldn’t be more open. I was calling into question your credentials as a shrink or arbiter of…actually, anything of value.

      • #55 by brewski on September 23, 2013 - 1:26 pm

        I seem to be the only one on here who knows the difference between spin and fact. Quoting paid hacks is just bullshit and Richard seems to not know the difference.

        • #56 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2013 - 1:35 pm

          The reason I keep serving up actual facts is because there is so much bullshit emanating from the right.

          • #57 by brewski on September 23, 2013 - 2:09 pm

            You’ve never served up any facts. You give me op-ed pieces from Regressives and you can’t tell the difference.

  21. #58 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2013 - 2:54 pm


    You ignore the facts I give you – they contradict your Faux News Channel talking points.

    • #59 by brewski on September 23, 2013 - 3:42 pm

      You haven’t given me any facts at all and I wouldn’t know what Faux News talking points are to even know to use them or not. Where did I cite them?

      You are desperate and it isn’t pretty.

      • #60 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2013 - 3:49 pm

        Come on. I’ve spent hours showering you with links to sources, posting graphs and statistics. It’s not just for you, of course, which is good because you don’t pay attention, or respond by linking to a JPEG.

        • #61 by brewski on September 23, 2013 - 4:50 pm

          Come on. You’ve spent hours showering me with op-ed pieces from paid partisan hacks. Don’t you know the difference?

          • #62 by Richard Warnick on September 23, 2013 - 5:01 pm

            Their facts are good, and checkable. Most of what you have to offer is out-of-context quotes and unsupportable claims.

          • #63 by brewski on September 23, 2013 - 6:16 pm

            Nothing more than feelings,
            Trying to forget my feelings of love

            Rolling down on, my face
            Trying to forget my, feelings of love

            For all my life I’ll feel it
            I’ll wish I’ve never met you, girl
            You’ll never come again

            Wo-o-o feelings
            Wo-o-o feelings
            Again in my heart

  22. #64 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2013 - 10:20 am


    Of course, when you lose the debate you also offer bad singing and occasionally name-calling.

    • #65 by brewski on September 24, 2013 - 10:24 am

      I’ve won every debate in a smack down. You just don’t understand the difference between facts and op-ed pieces by paid partisan hacks, so don’t realize you’ve been schooled over and over.

      • #66 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2013 - 10:27 am

        Says the guy who doesn’t understand the difference between a direct quote from the President of the United States and some filler in a budget document.

        • #67 by brewski on September 24, 2013 - 10:35 am

          Coming from a guy who doesn’t understand the difference between “some filler in a budget document” and the official explanation in The President’s Budget for the financial crisis.


          • #68 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2013 - 11:07 am

            The true explanation is FRAUD. But the Obama administration could not say that because then they would have to explain why they didn’t prosecute.

          • #69 by brewski on September 24, 2013 - 12:08 pm

            Source please.

            No op-eds either.

  23. #70 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2013 - 12:24 pm


    You have to be kidding. You believe that securitizing subprime mortgages and selling them like AAA-rated bonds is NOT fraud? I’d love to see a source for that.

    Anyway, how does it make sense that you’re unhappy with the Obama administration’s failure to prosecute Wall Street if you don’t think there was fraud?

    • #71 by brewski on September 24, 2013 - 4:14 pm

      I take that as a concession.

      Thank you.

      • #72 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2013 - 4:20 pm

        Which one of your two mutually contradictory positions do you think I conceded to?

        • #73 by brewski on September 24, 2013 - 5:31 pm

          You conceded you don’t have a source that is not an op-ed piece.

          Thank you.

          • #74 by Richard Warnick on September 24, 2013 - 6:13 pm

            I have not conceded anything. Would you care to explain how selling subprime mortgages as AAA is not fraud, in your opinion?

            The NCUA thinks it is fraud.

            BTW the sun comes up on the eastern horizon, if you were wondering. Also this is a gun safety post. 😉

          • #75 by brewski on September 24, 2013 - 7:56 pm

            I never said it wasn’t.

  24. #76 by Richard Warnick on May 28, 2014 - 12:10 pm

    Samuel Wurzelbacher (aka “Joe the Plumber”) weighs in on the Santa Barbara mass shooting and says, “your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.”

  25. #77 by Anonymous on May 28, 2014 - 1:08 pm

    Funny then how the statistical incidence of murder by firearm continues to drop as the finest gun salesman in US history is busy about his work.

    More guns sold than ever in his short tenure. Thanks obama, for spurring sales, and helping to arm us and in that way making us safer.

    What a guy.

    56% of Americans are stoopid, sounds about right, right in there with near % of those who believed and hoped and voted for the gun salesman, drone murderer, or whatever you like to call the fucker.

  26. #79 by Anonymous on May 28, 2014 - 6:56 pm

    Guns deaths and murder by firearm are not the same thing you nitwit.

    So what would like to do about it? Call a constitutional convention and see what becomes of progressive intentions…if you can get the required statwesmto agree after the clown in chief’s legacy can ever be overcome.

    Best gun salesman EVER!!!!

  27. #81 by Anonymous on May 28, 2014 - 7:05 pm

    Your facts vs others..since auto deaths have nearly halved in the last 40 years due to safety technology its an apples and oranges comparison anyway.

    The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Vermont’s constitution on the right to bear arms.

    Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

    [Self-defense right protected, State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903

  28. #83 by Anonymous on May 28, 2014 - 7:31 pm

    Its called training and the laws restricting criminals and the addled are already on the books.

    In addition while the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms without reservation despite illegally passed laws to the contrary, the right to drive a car is never implied or stated in any way, it is a state issue.

    Guns are designed to maim and kill, that is what they for, to kill people and creatues threatening treasure, that which cannot be earthly replaced, and property. I’m OK with that..I cannot control criminals, sort of their definition.

    Guns can also kill creatures you wish to eat or trophy. Not my thing but legal all the same.

    • #84 by Richard Warnick on May 29, 2014 - 7:55 am

      The Second Amendment clearly refers to state militias, as everyone knows. The Supreme Court was wrong when they said there is an individual right to own firearms. That’s absurd.

  29. #85 by Anonymous on May 28, 2014 - 7:37 pm

    I have no problem with law abiding citizens killing criminals upon their criminal acts. Its not like they were giving society a break.

    How about law abiding citizens be given the same leeway in shooting criminals that law enforcement currently enjoys?

    The upshot? Guns aren’t “safe”, people are. They are inanimate objects and improperly used in the wrong hands..well you get the idea..I try not to add something a nitwit would say.

    • #86 by Richard Warnick on May 29, 2014 - 7:57 am

      Everyone will be safer if they don’t have to worry that some doofus in Wal-Mart will accidentally shoot them, with no legal penalty whatsoever.

  30. #87 by Anonymous on May 29, 2014 - 10:53 am

    Absolutely incorrect. In Vermont the militia is the people and no outside order but what they choose upon deciding to act is required. That said no inhibition of the personal right to bear arms shall ever be restricted. Go read the charter. People get guns first without reservation the militia clause is secondary.

    Within the historical context the New Hampshire Militia which was led by John Stark had but one single requirement. You had to own your own weapons..the Militia did not provide them, and if you had none you could not participate in tactical actions, though you were welcome to push carts and provide material assistance.

    So you are completely wrong in all counts, and thankfully the SCOTUS far more erudite than you made the correct choice. The 2nd is irrevocable.

    In fact the run to the Revolution involved the filthy crown made weapons illegal to trade in ’74, made the illegal to own in ’75. Then in 1776 the Revolution is on, a use ’em or lose ’em proposition, against a far superior enemy, with 2200 ships of the line.

    How did you become such a nitwit?

    • #88 by Richard Warnick on May 29, 2014 - 11:04 am

      When are you going to realize we all live in the 21st Century?

  31. #89 by Anonymous on May 29, 2014 - 10:57 am

    As for your opinion, so you say! The right remains, and I suspect since of the over 20 odd million guns all sold in Connecticut alone by obama, less than 800 k have been registered in the state.

    So good luck with that, the right to personal weapons…shall not be infringed. Period. In fact most of these crap laws need to be peeled and tossed. ‘Nuff said.

  32. #90 by Richard Warnick on May 29, 2014 - 11:01 am

    The again, there’s also the doofus who lives in the next apartment.

    Kevin Tym, 21, was playing with his legally owned Glock 17 9mm handgun on Tuesday afternoon in his Isla Vista, California, apartment when he accidentally fired the gun, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement on Wednesday.

    The statement said the bullet pierced his neighbor’s wall and ricocheted off a television set barely missing the resident inside.

    Or a 3-year-old boy with a gun. What could possibly go wrong?

    A 3-year-old Payson boy shot and killed his 1-year-old brother after the boys found a handgun in a neighbor’s apartment…

  33. #91 by Larry Bergan on May 29, 2014 - 6:44 pm

    This video made me cry:

    This mans child wasn’t a fetus, so he didn’t matter.

  34. #92 by Anonymous on May 29, 2014 - 9:32 pm

    I would imagine given the criminal nature of our government maybe a few decades after it stops spying on us and the police quit murdering people at the drop of a hat.

    Until then, and more likely never. Best get used to it.

    Neither one of us can fix stupid, all the moree reason to have arms. I wish I could revoke licenses and seize vehicles from the obviously unqualified, but there they go.

    If you read the manifesto and were honest here, the psychotic idiot murdered half of those people with his car. So this post you have made is biased and disingenuous.

    The main reason for his horrible acts? Perceived rejection and class envy. If you read the thing is here is nothing anyone could do except lock the loon in a closet. Consider how sick this nation is, and then consider that places like Venezuela have ten times our murder rate.

    Yet you would disarm the law abiding in the gutter trash nation. Well fuck you, simply put.

  35. #93 by Anonymous on May 29, 2014 - 10:26 pm

    Oh yeah, and he murdered his roommates with a knife. It really doesn’t matter does it? Murder most foul is just that.

    What is disgusting is that some people would use this event to further their political ends..the grief of the father OK, but the rest of you pound sand.

    Pretty typical gutter trash mindset, punish others to facilitate your own distorted views.

    • #94 by cav on May 30, 2014 - 8:48 am

      Knives, assault rifles, drones – We create our carnage with the tools available to us because we can. It’s so much of what we do.

  36. #95 by Richard Warnick on May 30, 2014 - 7:05 am

    Object to the guns-everywhere-all-the-time ideology, and see who gets bent out of shape.

    The logic of the Gun Lobby is airtight. (1) They say nobody is allowed to criticize the gun culture when we’re mourning the deaths of its latest victims, and (2) Since there are so many victims, we’re always in mourning. That means the time to have this important national debate is NEVER – according to the Gun Lobby.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta ought to be studying ways to reduce deaths and injuries caused by firearms. For example, shootings are a leading cause of death and injury in children and adolescents in the United States; they rank second only to motor vehicle crashes as a cause of death for children ages 15 to 19. But the CDC receives no federal funding to study gun violence, thanks to a 1996 law the NRA succeeded in ramming through Congress.

  37. #96 by Anonymous on May 30, 2014 - 11:06 am

    It was a free country., you can say what you like. What do you say when a three time DUI loser kills someone with their car after having the state reinstate their “right”?

    No what is pathetic here is that your solution is cast everyone the same based on an wit Venezuela has ten times our murder rate and personal weapons and the right to bear them is banned.

    So what then is your point in pursuing your hand wringing over guns? Perhaps focus on murder and psychological reasons for it as this nation proceeds into the land of rendering the law abiding powerless in what is batshit insane nation.

    We have a drone murderer for president for fucks sake. What is God’s name do you expect people with Treasure to protect do? Lay down and take it up the ass?

    They simply will not, and you are about precipitating the very thing you claim to fear.

    You nitwit.

    Have your debates with the idiot parents of psychotic children, or the psychotics themselves and see how it turns out. Maybe when thought crime is instituted you can send in SWAT teams to simply kill anyone suspected of possibly doing something untoward.

    Oh wait, think we already passed that exit.

    • #97 by Richard Warnick on May 30, 2014 - 11:13 am

      Research indicates that guns kept in homes are much more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used in self-defense. My suggestion for “people with Treasure to protect” — take down that “Insured by Smith & Wesson” sign and buy an actual insurance policy. If you own “Treasure” with a capital “T” you can afford it.

  38. #98 by Anonymous on May 30, 2014 - 11:16 am

    Where you are pointing Richard, the American people will never willingly go. You wish to revoke an irrevocable human right, that of self defense, one that that is afforded even the smallest creatures in nature.

    This brands you as a tyrant, control freak, statist, all terms of pillory to free people…I will quote Sam Adams:

    ” be gone from us, let your chains rest upon you lightly, and let us forget you were ever our Countrymen”.

    The wheat shall be separated from the chaff.

    • #99 by Richard Warnick on May 30, 2014 - 11:19 am

      Make a smart gun that won’t go off accidentally when some doofus self-defense fanatic drops it in line at the supermarket, and we can talk then. As things stand now, every person with a gun is a tragedy waiting to happen. It’s the only unregulated consumer product, and the only one designed specifically to kill people.

  39. #100 by Anonymous on May 30, 2014 - 11:21 am

    You are nitwit. Treasure is that which cannot be Earthly replaced.

    I am nowm so certain, you have not the slightest notion of what true freedom means.

    That said you can defend your property as well, and do the public a favor by letting criminals take their chances with actual consequences.

    An armed society is a polite society…Heinlien.

    • #101 by Richard Warnick on May 30, 2014 - 11:24 am

      Freedom does not equal firearms. I love Robert Heinlein’s stories, but let’s face it he was a fascist.

  40. #102 by Anonymous on May 30, 2014 - 11:27 am

    Have one if you can get it. No more mandates.

    We cannot even keep people from driving drunk, and parents let their idiot teens drive to the detriment of us all. Focus on what is not a constitutional right that is killing people, if you have success there you will have accomplished something. The inane focus on firearms is your pathological fear, not others,and the constitutional right shall not be infringed by any statist machinations.

    Don’t you get it? Or do you enjoy being a nitwit?

    • #103 by Richard Warnick on May 30, 2014 - 11:34 am

      Um, in this very thread you pointed out that automobile safety has come a long way. So why not firearm safety?

  41. #104 by Anonymous on May 30, 2014 - 11:29 am

    Yah, Heilein is a fascistbook writer and you probably helped put an actual drone murdering fascist in the White House. Twice.

    There is no credibility to you much a sieve for a cup in the desert.

    • #105 by Richard Warnick on May 30, 2014 - 11:33 am

      I’m on record as never voting for Barack Obama. You read this blog so you ought to know that. Stick to the facts, please.

  42. #106 by Anonymous on May 30, 2014 - 11:36 am

    I am new to this blog, never read it before last month and yes I am only assuming due to torrent of nitwit posts and statements you make.

    • #107 by Richard Warnick on May 30, 2014 - 11:44 am

      I assume your real name is Glenn Hoefer. Unless you can prove otherwise.

    • #108 by Anonymous on May 31, 2014 - 9:10 am

      torrent of nitwit = band name…or political party!

  43. #109 by Richard Warnick on May 30, 2014 - 11:42 am

    “Guns are mostly for hunting down politicians”
    Samuel Wurzelbacher

    We need more pro-gun spokesmen like this guy!

  44. #110 by Anonymous on May 30, 2014 - 11:47 am

    Don’t know any named person, and such an incorrent focus belies the nitwit you insist on being.

    And guns are for that when their transgressions yield murder and tyranny,among other things..seeing that in Ukraine about now.

    • #111 by Richard Warnick on May 30, 2014 - 11:48 am

      Now you’re devolving into incoherence again. Enough for today.

  45. #112 by Anonymous on May 30, 2014 - 11:52 am

    Your edit feature is malfunctioning, which would follow. Why is your site an Edsel?

    Blues should be belie, querty and an old website..bad combo.

  46. #113 by Anonymous on May 30, 2014 - 11:58 am

    Proof? You are quite amusing.

    Perhaps this ghost you speak of has been more effective in influencing people than you realize.

    We are all this person perhaps? Funny, and wonderfully quaint.

    A bona fide nitwit!!

  47. #114 by Anonymous on May 30, 2014 - 12:07 pm

    Firearm safety can never exceed a locked up weapon and a law abiding experienced person, unlike a car, all these types of gun accidents are avoidable.

    All the ingredients for gun safety are already available.

    Trigger lock for chain saws? Useful item but flat hate the things.

  48. #115 by Richard Warnick on May 30, 2014 - 12:17 pm

    Florida 6-year-old kills grandfather with AK-47 left unattended by boy’s uncle at family picnic

    There is a reason why the Second Amendment was intended to apply only to a “well regulated militia.”

  49. #116 by Richard Warnick on May 30, 2014 - 12:35 pm

    Gun Nut Bingo. Everyone’s welcome to play along at home.

  50. #117 by Anonymous on May 30, 2014 - 3:50 pm

    As I mentioned before we can’t fix stupid, and what do you imagine will occur when stoopid adopts a militant bearing?

    I know some law will inhibit them, right Richard, we should all disarm and rely on the good natures and sound reasoning of the stoopid.

    Guns and kids unstuporvised obviously a bad idea.

    Misquote this founding father.

    “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?”
    Patrick Henry

    • #118 by Richard Warnick on May 31, 2014 - 9:04 am

      Patrick Henry was of course addressing the needs of state militias in the 18th Century. He was opposed to instituting a standing army maintained by the federal government. But times have changed.

      Here’s a quote from the 20th Century:

      “If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn’t be any such thing as the Second Amendment… This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud’, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”

      – Warren Burger, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, Parade Magazine, 1/14/90

      Maybe we can agree that the Second Amendment guarantees your right to own a single-shot, muzzle-loading weapon for which you make your own bullets. I think that’s reasonable.

  51. #119 by Anonymous on May 30, 2014 - 4:26 pm

    The above game doesn’t have a square for presidential from murder.

    No matter how crazy you think the people may be, nothing holds a candle to Boeing bitch drone murdering bastard, who doesn’t talk a good murder scenario..he dreams ’em up, signs the paper, and utilizes our paid for high technology to drone murder innocents.

    Yep, but the constitutional gun right is the whole problem…did it ever occur to you that there cannot be much expectation of people to be any better than their leader?


  52. #120 by Anonymous on May 30, 2014 - 4:28 pm

    Presidential drone murder.

  53. #122 by Anonymous on May 31, 2014 - 11:08 am

    What rot. Funny that Patrick and the rest all owned their own weapons.

    The point is moot and the culture set, time to get used to it.

    Patriots were about fashioning arms that were expressly banned by the crown, the rifled musket and dreams of more. Starks method of continuous musket fire began the striving for the immediate goal of a man alone having such capacity.

    The advent of John Moses Browning’s gun genius put repeating fire in the hands of any person, and there were no constitutional complaints about any of that.

    So your argument is akin to your mind here! A sieve.

    • #123 by Richard Warnick on June 1, 2014 - 12:15 pm

      In the 18th Century it was still possible for a sane person to argue the USA could get by with state militias made up of part-timers who owned their own muskets, never needing a standing army.

      Today you don’t even hear that from the Tea-GOP anybody else on the extreme right. Because it’s the 21st Century. In fact, right-wingers are the staunchest supporters of the military-industrial complex.

  54. #124 by Richard Warnick on June 1, 2014 - 12:21 pm

    Reminds me of “Duck Soup” (1933)

    Rufus T. Firefly: Now that you’re Secretary of War, what kind of an army do you think we oughta have?

    Chicolini: Well, I tell you what I think. I think we should have a standing army.

    Firefly: Why should we have a standing army?

    Chicolini: Because then we save money on chairs.

    Hail, Freedonia!

  55. #125 by cav on June 1, 2014 - 9:20 pm

    And there ain’t no ‘Sanity Claus’.

  56. #126 by Anonymous on June 1, 2014 - 10:02 pm

    Thank you helping make my point, we can expect no help from any element of the bought and paid for Congress in the expression of the irrevocable right expressed in the 2nd amendment.

    Just have to express it ourselves. Think that is well in hand given obama the best gun salesman ever, and the some additional 60 million repeating firearms he so handily helped into the hands of the Citizenry.

    Your tack is inane given the reality, so popular is the irrevocable right it is now difficult to find ammo.

    Stacked in the hands of the People.

  57. #130 by brewski on June 3, 2014 - 1:23 pm

    Breaking News (AP):
    Richard Warnick, prolific blogger, calls for the banning of all kitchen knives and duct tape nationwide.,0,7542400.story

    Says Warnick “if we didn’t have kitchen knives then there would be fewer stabbing murders. People can eat with their hands.”

    • #131 by cav on June 3, 2014 - 3:06 pm

      Better trolls, please.

    • #132 by Richard Warnick on June 3, 2014 - 6:13 pm

      When the ad hominem starts, that means the substantive argument has gone to the progressive side.

      • #133 by brewski on June 3, 2014 - 10:09 pm

        Learn the definition of ad hominem. Calling someone a troll is. My spoofing you is not.

        • #134 by Richard Warnick on June 4, 2014 - 5:09 pm

          You resorted to making stuff up. Which means you have nothing substantive to offer.

          • #135 by brewski on June 4, 2014 - 8:36 pm

            I illustrated the silliness of your own arguments. Just call me Jon Stewart-esque.

            Plus you advertised that you don’t know what ad hominem means.

            You are 0 – 2

          • #136 by Richard Warnick on June 4, 2014 - 10:15 pm

            My argument is that the percentage of gun-owning households has been declining in America since the 1970s. Which is what the facts indicate. How is that silly?

            Ad hominem

            Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone’s character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy…

            The Second Amendment guarantees your right to own a single-shot, muzzle-loading weapon for which you make your own bullets. If the gun owners want to live in the 18th Century, they can do that under our Constitution!

          • #137 by brewski on June 5, 2014 - 7:45 am

            You have been arguing that we can lower deaths by eliminating guns. So by your logic then we can lower deaths by eliminating kitchen knives. It’s your logic and I used a technique used by the Onion.

            I did not “attack the traits of an opponent”. I used your own logic to illustrate how silly you are. That is not ad hominem. That is satire. Please learn English and get back to me when you can keep up.

          • #138 by Richard Warnick on June 5, 2014 - 8:12 pm

            If you appreciate satire, then you’ll love this:

            Unsung Tragedy of Accidental Knife Death

      • #139 by cav on June 4, 2014 - 5:54 pm

        I’m not interested in ad hominem or any other of the arguments that only show how ignorant a given line can be. I just feel that if trolls want to be listened to they might be a little less predictable, a little less adherent to the A.E.I. playbook.

        Sandy Kofax had a ‘change-up’ fer Rasta’s sake.

  58. #140 by Anonymous on June 3, 2014 - 3:25 pm

    In related news Larry Bergen signed up for a remedial science class, saying “it is never too late learn”.

    Despite promoting public education that has led to his dearth of any real understanding of how anything works..Mr. Bergen insisted that ™it wasn’t schools fault”, and then went on to say that despite being stupid and unable to perceive the difference between science fact and science bullshit stated,

    ” It’s more important that we as a society are all equally as stupid, differentials in levels of intelligence being then source of all America’s ills”

    Actually Larry may well have never said that, it is quite a cogent and complicated thought.

  59. #141 by Anonymous on June 3, 2014 - 9:40 pm

    LOL!!!! More nitwit.

    This thread lost its entertainment value a while ago, it needed this boost.

    We now have the deserter prisoner swap and the shutting down of 40% of American energy production, which would have been impossible were it not for fracking’s game changing success.

    It’s comical.

  60. #142 by Anonymous on June 3, 2014 - 9:49 pm

    I have seen this phenomenon before, upon publically declared mental breakdown or a felony people often become obtuse about the right to bear arms, after due to their own batshit crazy or felonious activitities they lose that right.

    Richard, do you relate to the batshit crazy and are you embittered that people who still have that right are in fact better than you now? In short, are you projecting your own inadequacies upon the rights of freedom loving Americans?

    Have you stopped beating your wife? LOL!!!

    Do you own a firearm? LOL!!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: