This article is inspired by the horrific multiple shooting that have occurred in the past few weeks- two incidents in the past two days. The shootings in the last few weeks have included the fatal shooting of a total of 7 law enforcement officers. They’ve occurred in Oakland CA, Binghamton NY and Pittsburg PA in less than two weeks.
Let’s look at a timeline of just some of the more horrific events over the last year:
April 2009
5 Pittsburgh Police Officers Shot & 3 Killed when responding to a domestic dispute call
April 2009
13 people were shot dead in a murderous three-minute shooting rampage inside an Binghamton NY civic association building that caters to immigrants, according to federal and state authorities.
March, 2009
Four Oakland, California police officers were shot to death in two separate incidents involving one suspect near the Eastmont police substation Saturday afternoon, law enforcement sources said.
March , 2009
At least 10 people were killed in a shooting spree in southern Alabama.
December 2008
A gunman dressed as Santa Claus kills nine guests at a Christmas Eve party before taking his own life in Covina, a suburb of Los Angeles in California.
July 2008
2 people killed and 7 injured when a gunman opens fire in a Knoxville TN Unitarian Church
A few others in recent years-
December 2007
A gunman kills eight people and wounds five at a shopping mall in Omaha, Nebraska, before killing himself.
April 2007
Cho Seung-hui kills 32 people and wounds many more at the Virginia Tech college in Blacksburg, Virginia, in two separate incidents on the same day. Cho had been diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder.
October 2006
A gunman shoots five young girls in an Amish school house.
March 2005
Jeff Weise, a student at Red Lake high school in Minnesota kills five students, a teacher, a security guard, and then himself. Before school, he had shot dead his grandfather and grandfather’s companion.
And of course the one that put mass shootings in high schools on the map-
April 1999
Two students at Columbine high school in Littleton, Colorado, kill 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves.
Here is the propaganda rhetoric from the NRA- “Over the last two decades, many “gun control” laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive at the federal, state, and local levels. Numbers of privately-owned guns and Right-to-Carry states have risen to all-time highs. Every step of the way, “gun control” groups predicted violent crime would increase. Instead, violent crime decreased dramatically.”
My response is: Bull!
In 2007, Bill Marsh from the New York Times wrote that in 2004, the most recent years where there are statistics that 29,569 Americans were killed by fire arms- that is about 81 per day. 64,389 were injured- 176 per day. These statistics come from the CDC- the agency that keeps track of these things.
8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns
Since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century.
Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.
Murder rates in LA, NY and Chicago were approaching the highest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)
According to “Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996”, Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology at the University of Ottawa wrote “Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate”
Just look at the comparison of the US with other major nations. The US has the weakest gun control laws.
Gun Deaths – International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
|
|
Homicide |
Suicide |
Other (inc Accident) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA (2001) |
3.98 |
5.92 |
0.36 |
|
Italy (1997) |
0.81 |
1.1 |
0.07 |
|
Switzerland (1998) |
0.50 |
5.8 |
0.10 |
|
Canada (2002) |
0.4 |
2.0 |
0.04 |
|
Finland (2003) |
0.35 |
4.45 |
0.10 |
|
Australia (2001) |
0.24 |
1.34 |
0.10 |
|
France (2001) |
0.21 |
3.4 |
0.49 |
|
England/Wales (2002) |
0.15 |
0.2 |
0.03 |
|
Scotland (2002) |
0.06 |
0.2 |
0.02 |
|
Japan (2002) |
0.02 |
0.04 |
0 |
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.
And here is what the CDC has reported about shooting deaths of children:
In the 1994 World Development Report, 208 nations were classified by gross national product; from that list, the United States and all 26 of the other countries in the high-income group and with populations of greater than or equal to 1 million were selected because of their economic comparability and the likelihood that those countries maintained vital records most accurately. In January and February 1996, the ministry of health or the national statistics institute in each of the 26 countries were asked to provide denominator data and counts by sex and by 5-year age groups for the most recent year data were available for the number of suicides (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision {ICD-9}, codes E950.0-E959), homicides (E960.0-E969), suicides by firearm (E955.0-E955.4), homicides by firearm (E965.0-E965.4), unintentional deaths caused by firearm (E922.0-E922.9), and firearm-related deaths for which intention was undetermined (E985.0-E985.4); 26 (96%) countries, including the United States, provided complete data .
Twenty (77%) countries provided data for 1993 or 1994; the remaining countries provided data for 1990, 1991, 1992, or 1995. Cause-specific rates per 100,000 population were calculated for three groups (children aged 0-4 years, 5-14 years, and 0-14 years). The rates for homicide and suicide by means other than firearms were calculated by subtracting the firearm-related homicide and firearm-related suicide rates from the overall homicide and suicide rates. Rates for the United States were compared with rates based on pooled data for the other 25 countries. Of the 161 million children aged less than 15 years during the 1 year for which data were provided, 57 million (35%) were in the United States and 104 million (65%) were in the other 25 countries.
Overall, the data provided by the 26 countries included a total of 2872 deaths among children aged less than 15 years for a period of 1 year. Homicides accounted for 1995 deaths, including 1177 (59%) in boys and 818 (41%) in girls. Of the homicides, 1464 (73%) occurred among U.S. children. The homicide rate for children in the United States was five times higher than that for children in the other 25 countries combined (2.57 per 100,000 compared with 0.51).
Suicide accounted for the deaths of 599 children, including 431 (72%) in boys and 168 (28%) in girls. Of the suicides, 321 (54%) occurred among U.S. children. The suicide rate for children in the United States was two times higher than that in the other 25 countries combined (0.55 compared with 0.27) .
No suicides were reported among children aged less than 5 years. A firearm was reported to have been involved in the deaths of 1107 children; 957 (86%) of those occurred in the United States.
Secretary of State Clinton recently and accurately spoke about the guns that the Mexican drug cartels have in their civil war against the Mexican government – they come from the USA!
What more evidence does the NRA need? Their rhetoric and propaganda is shamefully irresponsible. I’m not a hunter or a sports shooter and I don’t understand the thrill- but I am not about to say people shouldn’t have the ability to possess guns for sport. But gun control is critical. Why on earth would the NRA fight tooth and nail against gun control? They are irresponsible and they are ultimately accountable for the gun deaths in the United States.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads- 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.
The Second Amendment’s grammar is known to grammarians as an ablative absolute. This means that the Second Amendment has been considered formed with an opening justification clause, followed by a declarative clause. In other words the opening phrase is considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause. This was a grammar structure that was common during that era and is consistent with the concept of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to firearms for members serving in a select militia ONLY- not the individual.
One only needs to look at the timeline of the original debate about the Second Amendment by the framers to understand that the intent was the collective right- not the individual right.
The original text of what became the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor of the House of Representatives of the first session of the First Congress was:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The Bill of Rights introduced by Madison on June 8. 1789 was not composed of numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. Instead, the Bill of Rights was to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The sentence that became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4, which list individual rights, instead of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, which specify the Congress’s power over the state militias.
Debate in the House on the remainder of June 8 focused again on whether a Bill of Rights was appropriate, and the matter was held for a later time. On July 21, Madison raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison’s motion, and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. No official records were kept of the committee’s proceedings, but the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.
On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20.These debates revolved primarily around risk of “mal-administration of the government” using the “religiously scrupulous” clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words “For the common defence” next to the words “Bear Arms” was defeated. The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words “necessary to”:
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.
This version was transmitted to the states for ratification and is without a doubt an ablative absolute both due to the grammar of the time but this can be garnered by the debate surrounding the amendment.
Many of my liberal friends are focused on our governments appalling breach of international law and eviscerating the Geneva Convention. We should be angry about what Bush and Company did- they are war crimes. But what about the NRA? They are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and are arming drug cartels in Mexico with American guns in what amounts to a civil war that is spilling over the border into our country
It is time for Congress and the Obama administration to say “NO MORE!” and send the NRA lobbyists packing- and I don’t mean packing heat!
The NRA is nothing but a domestic terrorist organization and they must be stopped – once and for all!
If you are going to kill yourself and take down as many people as possible with you, would you try and do it at a Gun Show or an NRA convention? No, you go to a place where you know the people won’t be able to fight back.
By: ajlouny on April 6, 2009
at 4:43 am
The Statistics shown above are misleading due to the U.S’s larger population then the other countries shown in the study…. DUHHHHHHH
By: Common Sense on May 6, 2009
at 9:19 pm
Gee – you really are an idiot-there is a reason that statistics are given as per 100,000. Maybe a simple course in high school statistics might have been in order. Thomas Paine would be offedned using the title of his treartise to make such stupid comments
By: Randy Allgaier on May 16, 2009
at 2:47 pm
the other countries that don’t allow fire arms still have violent crimes the way england is going they are going to outlaw pointy sticks liberals are all the same they think if someone is a threat to society that all someone has to do is give them a hug and every thing will be allright you are so naive that you should not be allowed out of a padded room you might hurt yourselves you need to grow up and see the world for what it is a very dangerous place you can sit there and cower thats your choice as for me i prefer to protect my self and all those crimes you mentioned above were commited by cowards who went to places where they could find liberals because they are unarmed and very easy targets i really doubt if any of those criminals were members of the nra so if you grow up and decide to take care of your self instead of having someone else do it you’ll see things differently
By: jim on May 22, 2009
at 12:51 am
First of all MOST of the gun deaths in all countries on your list are from suicides. I think those deaths are likely to continue without better health care and without better education. Which brings me to my second point, the US isn’t even in the top 25 in math, reading or science and all of the other countries on your list are. Education makes people safer in general, if you look at all of the statistics (not just guns). The three cities that you list as having the highest gun death rates are also the cities with the lowest levels of concealed carry permits. And schools are always exempt from concealed carry under federal law. I don’t agree with the NRA’s stand on most issues. I think gun owners should be trained and licensed AND held responsible for their actions. When the Bill of Rights was drafted there was also an assumption that each household would be responsible for its own security AND would come to the aid of their neighbors. If someone yelled “Stop, Thief” on the street of Philadelphia in 1789 you would be considered complicit in the crime if you did not assist the victim. Sadly, the same thing is not true today. If you want to talk about the what the Founding Fathers had in mind how about this from George Washington, “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” Statistics show he was right on that, by the way. You fail to mention that CDC’s statistics also show that since concealed carry has become more common place gun deaths per thousand have dropped. I would rather live in a world of safe, educated gun owners than in a world that is disarmed. I am working to foster and promote education and responsibility in all things – guns, drugs and blogging.
By: David on May 26, 2009
at 1:32 pm
Interesting that you mention health care and we have the lowest standard of health care than most Western democracies.
By: Randy Allgaier on May 26, 2009
at 2:06 pm
Agreed. Health care could be our biggest problem for adults, but education is the biggest problem for the young. Both of them need to be far better.
By: David on May 28, 2009
at 3:19 am
Well we at least agree on two things- health and education. But I still don’t think a society of armed people is a society in which I want to live.
By: Randy Allgaier on May 28, 2009
at 3:33 am
When are people going to realize GUNS do not committ crime or KILL people… they are merely tools like andthing else (screwdrivers). It is the people that use them in ways unintended that cause death…. Stupidity reeks here…
By: Shannan Perna on July 9, 2009
at 7:32 pm
Then why would ANY ONE need an automatic assault rifle? Yes stuipidty reeks here- it’s your “bumper sticker” argument. No thoughtful position can be summed up in an 8 word bumper sticker. Maybe you should read a book.
By: Randy Allgaier on July 9, 2009
at 7:43 pm
“But I still don’t think a society of armed people is a society in which I want to live.”
Then move someplace where the gov’t will take away all of your deciison making ability and leave you defensless to all their idiotic whims. Move someplace where you can live like the slave you desire us all to become.
By: David on July 20, 2009
at 2:40 am
It sounds like you are a slave to some pretty stupid ideas… plus I would probably take you more seriously if you learned how to spell.
By: Randy Allgaier on July 20, 2009
at 3:03 am
I suppose I am a slave to certain ideas. Individual responsibility, limited government, the constitution the way the founding fathers intended, low taxes (not just on my income), responsible and accountable government and freedom from interference in my day to day life. Damn glad to be a slave to those ideas.
If picking on a typo is your best defense, you’d better pack it up now.
Gun control is not about safety, its about power. If the current admin wants to keep up with their agenda, they will need to attack and limit the response of those who would oppose their bankrupt, high taxation, apologist approach to governing.
HR 2159 is yet another piece of evidence that our freedom to bear arms is under attack for power and control reasons.
“Gun Owner Blacklist Bill Introduced in U.S. House
On April 29, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, who calls himself “a strong supporter of the war against international terrorism, both at home and abroad,” introduced H.R. 2159, calling it the “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009.”
Given the bill’s title, one might think that it’s intended to affect terrorists. However, King and the bill’s co-sponsors—Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Mike Castle (R-Del.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Mark Kirk (D-Ill.), and Chris Smith (R-N.J.)—are extreme gun control supporters. Rather than being aimed at terrorists, H.R. 2159 is intended to give the executive branch arbitrary, unaccountable power to stop loyal Americans from acquiring firearms. Here’s how:
H.R. 2159 would give the attorney general “the authority to deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists. . . . if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”
H.R. 2159 would not, however, impose requirements or limits on the kind of information an attorney general could use to make such a determination, nor establish a standard for “appropriate suspicion.” It instead proposes that “any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security.”
The scheme that H.R. 2159 proposes is unprecedented. Since 1968, federal law has established guidelines for all categories of persons prohibited from receiving and possessing firearms, and since 1994 has expressly protected a prohibited person’s right to be told why he is prohibited. H.R. 2159 would establish no such standards, would provide no such protection, and would allow an attorney general to deny gun purchases based upon secret information, or no information whatsoever.
H.R. 2159’s potential for abuse should be apparent. A recent Department of Justice report1 states that the FBI’s terrorist watchlist doesn’t include certain known terrorists, yet includes people who are not terrorists, the latter an on-going problem widely reported upon by the media and the American Civil Liberties Union.2 Even Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), perhaps the most widely recognized member of Congress, was placed on the list several years ago. Also, H.R. 2159 follows a disturbing Department of Homeland Security report characterizing gun owners and military veterans as “rightwing extremists,”3 and Attorney General Eric Holder’s statements advocating new gun prohibitions and other restrictions.
H.R. 2159 isn’t about making America safe from terrorists; it’s about giving the federal government new, arbitrary authority to prohibit loyal Americans from exercising their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. Cloaking it in terms of “national security” doesn’t change that fact. “
By: David on July 20, 2009
at 3:24 am
Maybe if a relative of yours had died from gun violence like I have had- and my relative was a police officer who was not on duty, you might rethink your absurd comments.
You live in a world of conspiracies…. that must be a terribly uncomfortable place to be
By: Randy Allgaier on July 20, 2009
at 3:35 am
Mr. Allgaier,
This is truly a wonderful country, even someone like you who lacking knowledge of history can have a voice.
If you had taken a history course you would have learned that every country that has taken individual right to arms away progressed to liberty. From your tone you’re not concerned about your liberty, which is another great thing about this country; patriots shed their blood so you may give voice to your ideas.
One thing you might consider, the Brady campaign numbers your spouting are incorrect, however I am quite certain that facts do not trouble you, you like controversy. I may not like your opinion, in fact your words are offensive to every Patriot in this great country, I will in fact fight to death your right to express it.
If you truly do not want to live in a country fought for and won with firearms, a country that remains free only because of it’s firearms then I am very certain that by Monday close of business I can have first class airfare paid for to the country of your choice.
Consider this, read Thomas Jefferson’s federalists papers, it is abundantly clear, even to someone who has spent to much time at the Brady water coolers that the framers intended the 2nd amendment to apply to the individual as well as the whole.
By: Joe Prawdzik on July 20, 2009
at 3:58 am
HR 2159 a consipracy??? Check your facts. That can be found in the Library of Congress.
I am truly sorry to hear of your loss. When did this happen?
I am a slave to another belief. I believe there are evil people in the world and that only when an outraged, good, responsible, empowered person stands in the face of that evil will it be addressed and hopefully eliminated. I believe in giving every one the tools they need to defeat the evil by any and all means necessary.
By: David on July 20, 2009
at 3:59 am
Dear Mr. Prawdzik,
I probably have come across a history class or two in my college years at Cornell or my graduate student days at Harvard. But that really isn’t the point.
If you read this blog piece carefully and with some thought you will notice my thesis is based on the deliberate grammar used in the Second Amendment as well as the history of the amendment’s debate in the Senate. Clearly I have some concept of history.
I certainly am thankful that our nation’s military has fought and shed blood so you and I have the blessings of freedom. That is why I believe a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State should always be part of our nation.
By: Randy Allgaier on July 20, 2009
at 4:21 am
Dear David,
Thank you for your condolences. The incident happened nearly 20 years ago.
What I meant by the conspiracy comment was that it often seems that there are some people who seem to always assume that government is out to take away rights. I just don’t believe that.
I admit I haven’t read the bill, but I can easily find it on Thomas.gov. I have been spending most of my time recently consumed with work on healthcare reform. My expertise is public health policy. But I promise to look at sometime soon.
I will leave you with one thought. Terrorists can be home grown- please remember Oklahoma City.
By: Randy Allgaier on July 20, 2009
at 4:26 am
However, there is no clear definition of terrorist, terrorist act, or terrorism. The governemnt has used the word to define any class of people they deem innappropriate. (see the homeland security report that Napolitano was forced to apologize for but never retracted) Back to the power comment from earlier. Gun control is about power and control not about safety or public interest.
If your argument about the amendment is correct then you must apply the term “people” to all the amendments equally. If you do that, you will be living in a very different land than we know now.
Limited government in our day to day lives and especially in our wallets is the only path to increasing freedom and expanding opportunity to everyone. Everytime the gov’t expands their power or appoints another Czar we move closer to a repeat of Russia’s history and the example they provide cost millions of lives.
By: David on July 20, 2009
at 4:41 am
Obviously those advocating unrestrictted gun possossion have small penis’ to match their small IQ’s. Get real, people. You don’t need a gun. Guns are for waek minded sissies.
By: Don Johnson on October 12, 2009
at 8:17 pm