As we end 2017, this country has suffered another year with too much gun violence and deaths. Mass shootings in Nevada and Texas made the headlines, but they were far from the only incidents. The nation averaged about one mass shooting (a shooting with 4 or more victims) for every day of the year.
The U.S. has an average of 93 people killed with a gun every day -- and for every death there are two people injured. About 12,000 homicides by gun occur every year (25 times the average of other high income countries) -- and the number of accidents/suicides is even higher. It is simply ridiculous to claim the U.S. doesn't have a serious problem of gun violence.
This is no secret. These numbers are available to anyone, and Congress is aware of them. The question is -- why has Congress not acted to address the issue? They have done nothing, and the public is not happy about that. In the chart above, we can see that by a 42 point margin (25% to 67%) the public thinks Congress has not done enough, and should do more to curb gun violence.
Americans want stricter gun laws by a 23 point margin (59% to 36%). And 95% of all Americans want it to be required that anyone trying to purchase a gun must have a background check. It has been suggested that politicians are afraid to pass stricter gun laws, because they think they might be punished by the voters for doing so. That's ridiculous, especially when it comes to background checks, where over 90% of every group wants that to happen.
The truth is that we have too many politicians that have been bought off by the NRA and gun manufacturers -- and they are willing to watch thousands of people die unnecessarily each year to keep the gun money flowing into their campaigns. That is inexcusable, and so is the inaction of the U.S. Congress.
These charts were made using numbers in a recent Quinnipiac University Poll -- done between December 13th and 18th of a random national sample of 1,230 voters, with a 3.3 point margin of error.
ReplyDelete80% of homicides are drug related. Felons already cannot legally own guns. Chicago has the harshest gun laws and they are not effective, are they? Criminals, by definition, do not abide by laws. Law abiding people do. You want to disarm law abiding people. You want the criminal to have the advantage.
Gun ownership in this country is the highest yet we are 28th in gun related deaths. That means gun owners in the USA commit fewer gun crimes than many other countries. Gun ownership is increasing while violent crime is decreasing. Could those stats be related in any way?
You are knowingly misleading people = propaganda. Suicide is terrible, but it does not infringe on the rights of people. Also, the USA does not have an abnormal suicide rate. Also, suicide rates do not change when guns are removed. But you knew that. Just didn’t mention it I guess.
The NRA money thing has been debunked over and over. They are not “buying off” politicians with the small amount they give. I am not a member and I dislike the NRA personally btw. Interestingly, NRA members do not commit mass shootings. You didn’t mention that Concealed Carry holders are the most law abiding people out there.
You want to disarm law abiding people! You want criminals to have the advantage!
You want to trust your safety to the police? They show up AFTER crimes are committed.
You want to make the people of our country less safe, you are a monster!
You don't believe in the Constitution of the United States of America.
The second amendment is clear. The second amendment protects us from the Government!
Will you post my reply? Somehow I doubt it.
Bullshit. No one is talking about disarming law-abiding people -- and you know it. Law-abiding people would NOT be affected by stricter background checks.
DeleteAnd if you want any more comments published, then have the decency (and courage) to to not be anonymous.
DeleteCourage? What? I posted under my account (auralumin) as per your posting rules. I am not afraid. You ARE talking about disarming people. Gun laws are anti second amendment, anti constitution. The second amendment is clear. Background checks are already needed to buy a gun. Why not be honest about your intentions? Why did you bring the NRA into your argument? You do realize that the NRA is not a second amendment protector? What gun laws do you suggest will work? Why do you want to disarm the public? You think the people who commit 80% of homicides (drug related BTW) care about your gun laws? Nope, only law abiding people follow the law. You want to either make law abiding people criminals or you want to disarm law abiding people. Gun laws do not work, look at Chicago. Be honest about what you want, you want the public disarmed. Again, Background checks are already needed to buy a gun. What are your intentions in posting this article?
DeleteIt's not me being dishonest. About 40% of the guns bought each year are bought without any background check. And gun laws are NOT a violation of the Second Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court (which has consistently held that reasonable restrictions are allowed). Better background checks and reasonable restrictions would NOT disarm any law-abiding citizens.
DeleteThanks for at least using a pseudonym this time.
DeleteHi Ted, Auralumin again. My name is Matthew BTW. You are welcome. That statistic is two decades old telephone poll of less than 300 people. Even Joe Biden admits that stat is incorrect. Besides criminals don't give a fig about gun laws. Murder is already illegal. Possessing a firearm as a felon is already illegal. Background checks are already required. The tool should not be the bad guy here. Focus on the bad guys. Will you please explain what is reasonable in your opinion? Thanks for talking to me, while we obviously disagree I appreciate your willingness to talk.
DeleteAre you referring to the 2009 case where the SC Upholds Reasonable Restrictions on Guns for Domestic Abusers? I'll give you that one. It strips guns from people convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse.
DeleteCheck out Columbia v. Heller. It found that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Caetano v. Massachusetts "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare"
Please tell me of the "consistently" parts that I missed. Gun laws ARE a violation of the Second Amendment. What kind of mental gymnastics are required to not understand the Second Amendment?
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.
Pretty clear right?
Thanks, Matthew