Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: I know the only numbers the gun nuts care about is the gun company profit - but here are the real facts

Posted 5 years ago on Dec. 14, 2012, 9:50 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The Geography of Gun Deaths By Richard Florida

Jan 13 2011, 10:38 AM ET 278

Terrible tragedies like last week's mass shootings in Tucson cause us to search for deeper answers. Many were quick to blame America's divisive and vitriolic political culture for the violence; others portray the shooter as an unhinged, clinically deranged person with his own unfathomable agenda. Arizona has been ground zero for the battle over immigration. Were the state's political and economic travails a contributing factor? There has been some talk about guns, too. Might tighter gun control laws have made a difference? FirearmDEDIT.jpg

The map charts firearm deaths for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Note that these figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes. As of 2007, 10.2 out of every 100,000 people were killed by firearms across the United States, but that rate varies dramatically from state to state. In Hawaii, at the low end, it was 2.6 per 100,000; in New York and New Jersey it was 5.0 and 5.2 respectively. At the high end, 21.7 out of every 100,000 residents of the District of Columbia were killed by guns, 20.2 in Louisiana, 18.5 in Mississippi, and 17.8 in Alaska. Arizona ranked eighth nationally, with 15.1 deaths per 100,000.

With these data in hand, I decided to look at the factors associated with gun deaths at the state level. With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, we charted the statistical correlations between firearm deaths and a variety of psychological, economic, social, and political characteristics of states. As usual, I point out that correlation does not imply causation, but simply points to associations between variables.

Let's start by looking at factors that are sometimes assumed to be associated with gun violence but statistically are not.

It is commonly assumed that mental illness or stress levels trigger gun violence. But that's not borne out at the state level. We found no statistical association between gun deaths and mental illness or stress levels. We also found no association between gun violence and the proportion of neurotic personalities.

Images of drug-crazed gunmen are a commonplace: Guns and drug abuse are presumed to go together. But, again, that was not the case in our state-level analysis. We found no association between illegal drug use and death from gun violence at the state level.

Some might think gun violence would be higher in states with higher levels of unemployment and higher levels of inequality. But, again, we found no evidence of any such association with either of these variables.

So what are the factors that are associated with firearm deaths at the state level?

Poverty is one. The correlation between death by gun and poverty at the state level is .59.

An economy dominated by working class jobs is another. Having a high percentage of working class jobs is closely associated with firearm deaths (.55).

And, not surprisingly, firearm-related deaths are positively correlated with the rates of high school students that carry weapons on school property (.54).

What about politics? It's hard to quantify political rhetoric, but we can distinguish blue from red states. Taking the voting patterns from the 2008 presidential election, we found a striking pattern: Firearm-related deaths were positively associated with states that voted for McCain (.66) and negatively associated with states that voted for Obama (-.66). Though this association is likely to infuriate many people, the statistics are unmistakable. Partisan affiliations alone cannot explain them; most likely they stem from two broader, underlying factors - the economic and employment makeup of the states and their policies toward guns and gun ownership.

Firearm deaths were far less likely to occur in states with higher levels of college graduates (-.64) and more creative class jobs (-.52).

Gun deaths were also less likely in states with higher levels of economic development (with a correlation of -.32 to economic output) and higher levels of happiness and well-being (-.41).

And for all the terrifying talk about violence-prone immigrants, states with more immigrants have lower levels of gun-related deaths (the correlation between the two being -.34).


And what about gun control? As of July 29 of last year, Arizona became one of only three states that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Might tighter gun control laws make a difference? Our analysis suggests that they do.

The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state. It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place - assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements.

Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Living in a Red State makes you six times more likely to die from a gunshot than using illegal drugs, that really is amazing.

[-] 5 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

Ive heard that living in a red state also causes brain atrophy

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Colorblind? I see a lot of orange there.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

yeah and no blue at all, what's up with that? read much?

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Nah, I skipped the post; I've heard it all before. The pictures are interesting, ehh? They disregard MURDER though; what's up with that? Is it the Republicans committing the murders or the Democrats? Who's killing all those people? Did the Republicans do that? Maybe it was the Conservatives?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

yeah so the map is not a red state-blue state map, but if you look at the bar chart you will see that living in a state that voted for McCain, in other words a red state make you 6 times more likely to die from a gunshot than if you use illegal drugs which I find to be surprising, over half of the deaths are people killing them-self, I can see how that would tend to happen more in red states what with their "right to work" laws and low wages.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

I don't know if I would "state" it quite that way. Handguns certainly aid to facilitate suicide and it's not surprising that suicide rates are higher in poorer states. Nor is it really surprising that poorer ess urban states voted for McCain - poor people in rural areas don't vote. And handguns certainly aid in murder and gun crimes which occur at the highest rates in states with high urban populations. Was California a McCain state? Do they have drug laws? I ask because California's murder rate is three times that of NY, five times that of Arizona. If we examine the state by state data what we find is that murder and gun crimes - in all cases - appear highest by far in states with large black and hispanic urban populations.

That's reality... it's the reality that every American knows and lives.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

It's not a matter of how you would "state" it, it's a matter of math there was a .66 positive correlation between being killed with a gun and living in a state that voted for McCain and a .11 for users of illegal drugs, it's a matter of arithmetic. This info is in the blue bar graph. As far as your racist theory goes, AZ does not have a large African-American community. Funny it's safer to be an inner city black smokin' crack than living on a farm with a bunch of handguns.

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

What Arizona does have is a high hispanic population and these numbers hold up nationwide; those with the highest numbers are states with large black urban populations. What this is, is an attempt to shift blame, and those who are law abiding and own guns legally, for sporting and defense purposes, are getting really tired of this sick attempt to deflect blame.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

A lot of black folk live up in Alaska you figure? and here I thought there were black people in New York City who would of thought it was all white?

I figured it was a general bigotry that that supplied your "facts".

[-] -2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Nah, it's not bigotry; these are facts. There are exceptions - although I haven't really examined it, West Virginia for example is definitely a white majority state with high rates.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Looks to me like "right to work" has a lot more relationship to high gun deaths than having Hispanics or blacks as you seem to think.


[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

I would vehemently disagree with that.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

That would be consistent with your previous statements, your denial of reality is quite impressive.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

How about AK? Any thoughts there? and New York City a lot of urban blacks there yet few gun deaths, seems your theory need a lot of exceptions, that don't exactly make them facts not does it? I think your "facts" are really a bigots lies.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Murders have decreased in NY to roughly ten a week. But it still ranks an equivalent "high."

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Oh I see the problem now, you don't know how to read the graph, you see New York is yellow meaning a low number while Alaska is reddish orange meaning a high level of gun deaths, that explains why your logic was so backwards, hope that helps.

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

That particular graph is accidental shootings only; it does not include the intentional shootings via the criminal.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

It's all types of gun deaths, you have yet to explain AK or NW are you ready to admit you're really just a bigot? If you look here you can see where all gun deaths by the criminal are extra deaths we have because of our guns the numbers are here:


[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Doesn't say accidental. Why do you think that?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Taking guns to school is such a good idea it is hard to make it better but here is a significant improvement.

Take ALL of the guns to school. Let the government contract for the dumpsters, enough to hold all of the guns and let's turn all of them in. It will certainly make the schools safer. But, you say, that will cost the government a lot of money to pay for the use of all of those dumpsters.

I can hear you say, but the government could sell them for scrap and that would pay for the dumpsters. But I can do better than that. We ship the dumpsters full of guns to China, or Iran or Syria. Ship them to whereever they have a despotic government that we don't like, Texas for example, and give them to the people to protect themselves. We are already the world's largest arms exporter, so what is a few more?

We have 5% of the world's population, 50% of the guns, and 0% of the brains. Maybe this would change that to 5% of the population, 0% of the guns and 50% of the brains? And we would have safer schools. It's a start.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago


[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

To visitors, those who use the term "gun nutters" are outliers of the Occupy community. I believe (but cannot yet prove) that the majority OWS position is Builder's: "Disarming the public is part of the 1% agenda." http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-country-is-going-mad/#comment-894575

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

FYI- I speak for myself - I am not for disarming the public
I have not spoken directly to many OWSers about this, but
"disarming the public" can only be done with a constitutional amendmen t

In hundreds of OWS meetings, I have NEVER heard this discussed once.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

I'll bet the numbers on gun related homicides and other related violence is much lower than reality due in part to judicial plea bargaining. Many children every year die from stray bullets while sleeping in their beds and yet, they are not always statistically documented properly. We've had a few elementary school kids in my area who have accidentally shot their classmates or siblings with their daddy's gun and we've had numerous incidents where a child is accidentally killed by drive by shootings while waiting at the bus stop.
The number of mass shootings in the US during 2012 was 15 ( documented) and that's more than one per month. It's sadly obvious that Americans are complicit and very tolerant of this kind of behavior. We must address why this is or nothing will change. They can take away our guns but if our mindset is violent, we'll just find another weapon and a means to destroy others.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

"Americans are complicit and very tolerant of this kind of behavior."
I see this from a different direction.
This problem is not based on the nra, alec, the second amendment. It is based on the same thing as privattization of schools & prisons, why we waste billions on the military - CORPORATE PROFITS
the source of virtually all of America's "evils":
capitalism owns democracy

specifically- if the nra could not spend money on elections, the elected would do what t he majority of Americans want - not what the gun companies want

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Excellent numbers. I would add that there are between 10 - 12k gun homicides per year.

[-] -1 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

You forgot to add 12000 drunk driving deaths, with 1200 children inthat number. You also forgot to add that homicides are falling, violence is falling, the only thing rising is mass murders.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

you neglected to add a very recent increase on this site
in nra & alec trolls

[-] -1 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

I belong to the NRA and I want no citizen to be able to put more than 3 rounds in any weapon. Thats the hunting rule, if you are caught with 4 rounds on a hunt, lose your weapon and license.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

"the hunting rule"
in how many states is that the law? the nra supports this, of course

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

This thread is about gun violence. Specifically about the irresponsible gun owner who brought her mentally ill son to the shooting range and had her small arsenal accessible to the mentally ill shooter.

Your desperate distraction is a weak attempt to protect that irresponsible gun owner with unrelated albeit important and horrible data.

[-] -2 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

So should we ban alcohol too? I notice Bob Costas didnt rant about alcohol when the Dallas Cowboys player was killed by his alcoholic friend driver.

I have guns, i lock them in a safe, no one else has access. There is no way to outlaw irresponsibility, in both issues.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

We tried outlawing alcohol. Didn't work. We only empowered organized crime and had many many tommy gun gangwar deaths.

Alcohol abuse & driving is being addressed pretty well. We are still prevented from dealing effectively with irresponsible gun owners by ignorant peole who defend those irresponsible gun owners like you do with unrelated desperate distractions.

Almost half of all shooters get their guns from friends and family. We must punish irresponsible gun owners. It will help.

[-] -2 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

1200 children dying yearly by drunk driving is " being addressed pretty well?"

Weird approval of the slaughter of children.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

No approval at all. Just trying to dismiss your desperate distraction from the current issue of irresponsible gun owner, & the 20 slaughtered children, 6 brave women (teachers).

ban semi automatic guns. Denounce those defending irresponsible gunowners, While silent about gunvictims.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

But, I don't see where the majority of Americans are anti-violence. The government doesn't force us to buy guns or buy degrading violent music or behave like bullies toward one another. We have a severe epidemic of violence relating to the way we relate to one another. People kill each other over sporting events, people kill over promotions at work, kids and adults bully each other. I don't believe that people behave this way because our government supports any lobbyist. The government probably likes us at each others throats- after all, the dog eat dog mentality is what capitalism thrives on and it prevents revolutions. I tend to believe that people have been so caged and struggling for so long that they are lashing out with displaced anger and don't even have the insight to know why. Of course much of their anger arises from living under corporate oppression and so in that sense, I do agree with you.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

CNN POLL 1/14/2011 should the USA have gun restrictions? minor restrictions 36% major restrictions 34% make all guns illegal 14% no restrictions 14%

favor background checks yes 94%
no 6%

semi-automatic ban yes 61% no 37%.

clearly, the people want their representatives to do something about gun violence
our democracy is owned by capitalism - including the gun manufacturers

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

Of course Americans want something done about guns but that's because American's are trained to put quick fix bandaids on the immediate and obvious 'problem' when in reality, the problem is not guns...it's a violent mentality.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

re gardless of the cause, we need a solution
I'm not sure "violent society" is really the key
violent video games & violent movies a popular thruout the world
the difference in America is the 2nd + nra + alec
ALL of which is irrelevant as long as the gun companies can buy our democracy

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

But, if the gun companies were out of business, someone would make archery the new sport. Can people carry their bows and arrows around without a license? I used to be really good at archery but it never occurred to me whether I could be Robin Hood without a license.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

EXACTLY- that is why I do not propose taking away guns - any guns
and why I want to sever corporations from democracy

[-] 0 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

Most mass murderers are disaffected white males. Offhand, seems like every mass murderer is a nutcase young white male. Most common murderers are black males, and hispanics.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

I would believe that based on my own 'stereotyped' perception of cultures within our society. I'm not suggesting that ethnic groups can't plot more sophisticated crimes but they generally don't because their bone to pick is usually related to a more personal/local issue where as a white male might have a more political agenda.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 5 years ago

known exception, the beltway sniper.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Mother Jones

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America

There have been at least 62 in the last 30 years—and most of the killers got their guns legally.


IN DEPTH: The Five Components Of American Gun Violence If you think the problems with gun violence in America are simply because of the guns, you need to look again.


FACT CHECK: Stacks Of Gun Facts

Tired of running into ignorant people who don't know the real facts about gun violence in America? Find the answers here.


[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

WSmith - too important to leave as a link:

From Randi Rhodes:

Lie: Mass shootings don't really happen that often. It just seems like it because of the media.
Truth: The number of mass shootings has actually risen significantly over the last 30 years.

Since 1982, there have been 62 mass murders carried out with firearms, across America, where 'mass murder' is defined as a single person killing four or more people in a single incident (other than the killer).

Lie: The assault weapons ban in the U.S. did nothing. Truth: The assault weapons ban did, in fact, limit unexpected mass killings.

Using the more accurate standard used for "mass killings" used by Mark Follman at Mother Jones, and Princeton researcher Sam Wang - where crimes that involve armed robbery or gang violence are not counted - statistics show the assault weapons ban did make a significant difference. As Wang's research noted, "Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years [since 1980] occurred since the expiration [of the ban]."

Lie: "If there had been someone there [at a massacre site] who was packin', those people would still be alive!"
Truth: Armed civilians do not stop mass shooters.
As Mark Follman of Mother Jones notes, "...not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way."

Lie: More guns will actually make us all safer!
Truth: More guns actually mean more murders.

As the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found, where there are more guns - in America and in other, similar rich nations - both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Lie: Gun-loving Americans don't support gun control or gun safety laws.
Truth: In general, responsible gun owners support effective, smart gun safety laws.

According to a poll taken by noted GOP pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors against Illegal Guns, and published in Think Progress by Zach Beauchamp, "...gun-owning Americans, including National Rifle Association (NRA) members, overwhelmingly support a raft of common-sense measures typically described as 'gun control.'"

That includes 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners who support requiring criminal background checks on gun owners. 80 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 79 percent of NRA gun owners also support requiring criminal background checks on gun shop employees.

Lie: Obama is the worst President for gun-loving Americans, ever. Truth: 2012 has been a record setting year for gun sales.

As of August 1, 2012, there are nearly 130,000 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States - which means there are more stores selling guns than groceries in the U.S.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

I wish Randi was on TV - Rachel & Chris & Lawrence should have her on as a guest

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

those globalist idiots? why??????????????

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Current TV!!

Starbucks is HandWriting "Come Together" on all DC cups ---- I told U!!!

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Ya, that would quite the informative show.


Fuck it, lets put those hacks on with the Hannities and Limbaughs ands Becks and Rileys and get a full dose of hardcore, MSM BULLSHIT.

What self respecting radical would possibly listen any of the four you listed or the four I just did.

Com' on man!

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

I can tolerate liars
I can tolerate stupid
I cannot tolerate stupid liars
I dont bother responding to me - we are done

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

"I dont bother responding to me - we are done"

Ouch. The typo while calling others stupid is quite ironic, eh?

Im just saying that the worst thing anyone who wants to looked at as relevant would be to go on FOX or MSNBC. I mean, do really think they are there to give you the real story/scoop?

We have to wake up and stop falling for this if things are going to change. The nation is waking up. And the MSM is wrenching down.

Whose side are you on? We need to find our humanity again.


[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

the police h ave put tens of thousands of drug "criminals" in jail
they can do that with gun "criminals"

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Vermont and New Hampshire have traditionally had the lowest murder rates; we need to look at why (and then move there). DC has a murder rate twice that of Louisiana despite tough gun control; we need to look at why.

But we must also consider that the difference between a two in a one hundred thousand chance and a thirty in one hundred thousand chance (of being murdered) is so minimal it's virtually non existent.

50% of those murdered are black... what this statistic ignores is that in virtually all such compilations, Hispanics are considered white. So what proportion of those murdered is white?

In all, interracial murder is far less common - 93% of blacks are murdered by blacks; some 85% of whites are murdered by whites.

Will tougher gun controls make a significant difference? Well, no, not likely because most of these murders are committed with illegally obtained semi-auto pistols.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Now we know, after the "delayed" reactions from the NRA that they are a THOROUGHLY DERANGED organization and should be treated as so from now on.

Some are late to this realization. And that's OK!

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Lawrence O’Donnell Rewrites NRA’s ‘blood-drenched’ boss


[-] 0 points by mideast (506) 5 years ago

The real problem in America is not the Lapieres, the Huckabees, the Norquists, the Boehners, the Ryans, the Romneys
the real problem is the number of Americans that would rather believe, be dittoheads, be lemmings
rather than think and use reason
is worshiping the 1% a religion?

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Lack of comprehensive information and a preponderance of Right Wing propaganda is the answer to the first part of your reply.

Worshiping the 1% is a religion of the GOP having descended radically from a legitimate American Political party to a Cult.


[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

yo ben's dad here a coloration that I stumbled upon "right to work" increases you chance of gun death too it seems:


[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

I bet you would find a positive correlation with
home schooling
religious fanatics
lower standard of living
number of guns
"I may not be a millionaire but I may be one some day"
"I am going to heaven and you are not"

but these are the people who are stupid enough to vote for people who would implement right to work

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

I think you are right it is tied together, here's my new piece, nothing really new but I like it.


[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

You intentionally shift blame... you ignore our dystopia. The truth is this society no longer values anything anymore. We no longer humble ourselves before God or any other, we no longer value government or law, even the lives of children are no longer of value. Sure, it's nice to have more freedom, and it's nice to be selfish, but the statement here is very clear: this is what happens when we do not value the lives of children.


[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 5 years ago

Zzzzzz. Conneticut has one of the lowest rates of death by firearems, according to the last chart here. Fat lot of good it did for them.
Instead of rehashing the same old shit about gun control and moratoriums on guns, let us simply look at this shooter and his upbringing. In a country of over 300 million, there will always be that one, statistically speaking. Unfortunately, Norway is a classic case in point. This does not and should not be a national debate. It should be an investigation into that one family.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

dont restrict guns - just cure all mental illness
stop all anger
SNAP - problem solved
how can I get on the nra payroll or alec payroll
if I post more of this sh1t?

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 5 years ago

Not a member of NRA or ALEC. I just believe, for better or worse, in the individual rights. This was tragic. However, this country has the sickening tendency to pass laws by knee-jerk responses to events. I am saying that what needs to be investigated, first and formost, is the shooter and his upbringing.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

disgusting - our response to the confederate rebellion was a knee jerk -
free the slaves

[-] 1 points by highlander (-163) 5 years ago

And what does that have to do with one nutcase in conneticut who perhaps forgot their seroquel?

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago


"cause us to search for deeper answers"

More gun control and further Constitutional restrictions on Americans already decaying freedom and liberty,...real deeper. Yeah right,..."deeper answers" is that new code like "common sense"?

[-] -1 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

As of 2010, statistics report that of 16,277 murders, 10,568 were committed by males, 1,176 were by female, and 4,533 were committed in which the offenders sex was unknown. Likewise, 5,334 murders were committed by white/white Hispanic offenders, 5,943 were committed by black/black Hispanic offenders, 273 were committed by offenders of other races, and 4,727 murders were committed by offenders whose race is not known. [15]

Clearly race is an issue, neglected by the article above. Causation or coorelation? Who knows but that OP article isnt truhful.

[-] -1 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

This is a fairly biased article trying to blame conservatives somehow. thats inaccurate. The biggest factor is race. About 50% of gun murders are blacks killing blacks.

regardless all guns should only have magazines that carry 3 rounds, as in hunting.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Wow, you actually read it?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

That doesn't happen because of a "race factor".

That's some fucked up thinking.

[-] 0 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

Look at the states with low murder rates. Lily white. Why?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

That's another bullshit statement and it's not true.

You wanna know what happens with NO gun control?

Take a look at the middle east.

Take a look at Somalia,.

Take a look at the conservative hot bed....Mississippi.

You are very close to saying good bye, I'm sure.


[-] -2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

Where is the graph showing correlation between levels of violence in culture to gun violence. Violent movies, gangster rap sales, violent radio rock. This is a convincing argument for those who seek to use the death of children to go after the NRA but those guns were purchased legally. Fuck your mainstream opinion makers.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

We are a very violent culture and anyone who doesn't see that is too close to the forest to see the trees. People in other countries always talk about how violent we are.
We can't blame this latest incident on poor gun control. The son tried to purchase a gun/s and was denied which meant that the system worked! However, he went home and stole kindergarten teacher mom's guns.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

We are blinded by our comforts and far too complacent to accept our roll in this. People are too used to waiting for morality to be legislated then feel let down when that doesn't work. This has been the practice on both the left and right for some time now. We are simply too comfortable and too self absorbed. Even during the reporting of the tragedy, the media used this for advertisement revenue and partisan talking points. The reporting alone is a great example of what is wrong with us.

[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

Agreed. In the last 20 years it seems that the government caters to everyone's eccentric demand and coddles us with enabling ( or rather disabling) dysfunctional 'care' that victimizes everyone and leads to the victim mentality. The reporting of this event has angered me greatly - not because it's reported but because of the way it's so irresponsibly reported and dramatized and everyone seems so truly stupid and out of touch with reality. They all keep asking ' Why would he choose an elementary school of all places' as if somehow it would be better to choose anywhere else. I'm really hoping that these children don't die in vain and that something really wonderful and profoundly different will occur as a result of this tragedy.
Last night Piers Morgan really lost his cool with his guests. At least someone's frontal cortex is functioning.

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

He chose the school to send a very clear statement: "this is what happens when..." And since he killed his mother first... and so I think the message is very clear.

This is domestic terrorism and what the past has very clearly taught us of the terrorist is that eventually the methods advance themselves in an effort to garnish greater attention.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I watched the Aunt say he was mentally ill,& that he was brought to shooting range!!!

Whaaaaaat!!! Put her away!!!!

The father & adult brother? Put 'em away. They should have known and all of'em should've reported it.

If we hold them responsible and give them long jail terms we will see how fast reports start comin in of potential tragedies.

"It's the only way to be sure"

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

I think many, many, parents are guilty of sacrificing the emotional needs of children to their own selfish pursuits. In fact, I think we are guilty as a society of sacrificing the emotional needs of children to our pursuits.

We either prepare children to meet society or we must prepare society to meet them; somewhere along the line we've separated the object from the form, of "parent."

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Yeah. Deep.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

It was fairly clear to me why he killed his mother and HER students. However, I suspect that he was on medication as well.

I really hate the term terrorism as it's so over-used today after the 9-11 incident. I wouldn't call this guy a terrorist- his only agenda was to take out the people that hurt him. I suppose I think of terrorists as having a much larger well planned agenda that isn't based on a personal vendetta. You might think of serial killers as being terrorists too and although they 'terrorize' a specific area, they have no big agenda and are just satisfying some pathological obsession.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

That's not true - this is a statement; his intent was to compel horror, to incite terror, for the purpose of sending a message. Today terrorism is more often is used in reference to Islamic incidents but they are NOT the only culture to use such devices as weapons of war. And to some small degree, all social movements are "war."

Serial killers are only terrorists to the extent that some act to attract attention, incite fear. But that's the exception and not the rule.

I agree on the drugs... far too many relatively normal children go off to school only to realize, for whatever reason, they do not readily fit in. Schools recommend counseling and the counselor in an effort to grow a business creates a regular customer through the use of prescription drugs. These activities go unchecked because only the "doctor" is qualified to evaluate or access that need.

What drugs, if any , was this guy doing? And who was his counselor?

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

Yes, who was this kid's psychiatrist? It just burns me when this happens and no one addresses the issue of how these psychotropic medications lead to this type of violence and no one holds the psychiatrist or other doctor responsible.

As far as the kid goes...I don't know what his agenda was but I can speculate based on what I know today. His mother was apparently hard on him and as one person stated, ' a bit too demanding'. If this kid was socially challenged , I'm sure he often felt inadequate and abandoned and perhaps neglected by his mother at times ( and perhaps she was the one who filed for divorce which may have fueled resentment toward her since she sent the father away?) and given that she was a teacher and spent more time with her wonderful students, his goal may have been to completely remove those who have hurt him before he took his own life. There's no doubt that something broke the camel's back but it's likely that he's been battling deeply ingrained repressed anger and resentment for a long time and it just finally manifested in the worst possible way.

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Being different is not easy for children, it's social stigma, and above average intelligence definitely places one in the "different" category. And so do many of the other quirks of human nature.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

I love kids but I'm glad that I don't have any. I don't think I could be the parent that I would want to be in this cookie cutter culture.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Have a dozen; I think you are well prepared.

[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

Sounds lovely but, no thanks. I'm too old and tired and I don't have the patience to hide them in a cave from the rest of mankind.

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Old is a plus because it obviates the control issues. No one is ever too old to be a parent.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

And still you offer no compassion for the victims. I guess now your saying there should be no coverage.

Wouldn't want your gun corps to get bad press huh?

20 innocent little kids! And brave female teachers diving in front of machine gun fire.!!!

Get your priorities straight. Stop defending your gun corps profits!

[-] -1 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

99% of gun owers are fanatical about gun safety. The shootng range i belong to, is you step 1 foot out of the shooting zone with a closed magazine on your weapon, even if unloaded, you are suspended. Do it a second time and you forfeit membership. All of us keep our guns in expensive safes. Take a hunter safety course and you learn true gun safety. I was out shooting with a dear frend, and he jumped a small creek with a loaded weapon. For me, that ended the day. I wont tolerate unsafe gun usage.

[-] 3 points by ogoj2 (32) 5 years ago

99% of gun owners are drunk old white guys compensating for small dicks like Small Dick Cheney himself. They spend a few days a year totally acting out in the forest where their families can't see what fascist aholes they are.

They also compensate for the sad restrictions our society has placed on their traditions of lynching and wife abuse by maintaining the tradition of shooting as many beautiful animals as they can find between brewskis.

Just because a sick young man murders a school full of babies doesn't mean anyone should take your right to shoot your friends in the face by accident. Semper fi

[-] 1 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

And most murderers are blacks.

[-] -2 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

But its young white guys like you that committ mass murder. your post is really really sick. Hunters are very respinsible and if you knew anything about hunters, you might change your opinion.

The sick fucks are all your buddies and yourself jerking off to sick computer first person shooter games.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Aaaaaaaaah ha ha ha ha ha! That's too funny!. And even funnier is how republicans serve these little dick fascist assholes, and dems are afraid of them.

Great comment.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

How wonderful for YOU. Hardly evidence that 99% of gun owners are "fanatical about gun safety". What does the other 1% do? how many people/guns is that?

So you chose to defend gun owners instead of showing compassion for gun victims.

Kinda crass. 20 little children were slaughtered. The teachers (all women) threw themselves in front of machine gun fire.

All because of an irresponsible gun owner allowed her guns to be accessible to a mentally disturbed family member.

[-] -1 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

1200 children were killed by drunk drivers ladt year but a sick fuck like you, an alcoholic like you i guess cares more about 20 dead kids than 1200.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Your talkin gibberish. nonsense, just some weak attempt to distract from the reality that an irresponsible gun owner caused this tragedy.

You got so many distractions and dishonorable excuses for gun owners, but you offer no compassion for the gun victims.

Your another piece of shit gun corp shill, who put gun corp profits over people. You have no honor like the other user I spoke with today. Fuck you!

[-] -1 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

Wait a second. re read what you just wrote. i would never defend an irresponsible gun owner. I would report them to the authorities. But responsible gun owners are just that. Responsible.

Lets be hoest. The guns couldnt kill anyone by themselves. Yes i will defend honest, respinsible gun owners. 11000 people were killed by drunk drivers last year.Did vodka kill them? Should we ban alcohol?

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

20 little children were slaughtered. The teachers (all women) threw themselves in front of machine gun fire.

All because of an irresponsible gun owner allowed her guns to be accessible to a mentally disturbed family member.

And all you can do is defend gun owners.? I don't think the problem is responsible gun owners practicing gun safety. So it kinda goes without saying. I mean really, let's go without saying it.

[-] 0 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

No tears you sick drunk asshole for 1200!! kids killed by drunk drivers. You sick, cruel alky drunk murderer.

Care sbout 20, bloodlust in evil for the death of 1200!!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

What are you babbling about? Stop disrespecting these victims of irresponsible gun owners, and keep your ridiculous dishonest distraction to yourself.


[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

I'd be willing to bet the kindergarten teacher owned those guns for someone else.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

nevertheless, the image of an american kindergarten teacher target practicing with a semi auto gun is just so the epitome of what we have become.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

I think women should be included in the shooting sports. What such gender divisions in families do is foment jealousy and create schism, as all gunning families can surely tell you. There's nothing wrong with kindergarten teachers shooting; there's nothing wrong with female ministers shooting. And many do.

The problem is that most are unwilling to accept the fact that this is a sick society and we are responsible.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

I shoot, I own a gun but I have absolutely no desire to kill anything and I hope I never have to. I also don't boast about owning a gun. I don't find it fashionable to be out in the woods shooting moose or deer or anything else and I don't have an ego that responds to owning a weapon. Unfortunately, I have to keep a gun for protection right now and one day when I can leave this god forsaken hell hole that I live in, I will gladly get rid of it.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

But the reality is that you kill everyday. Whether omnivore or vegetarian you are using the tools of society to fuel your vehicle and that involves the taking of life. It's a moral dilemma that today's grocer has shielded us from; the direction of war has long been in the same direction: the purpose of pushbutton war is not merely efficiency, it is an intent to emotionally isolate.

Hunting is something everyone should experience, even if one chooses to hunt with a camera. It's not just about communing with nature, but experiencing first hand how nature communes.

Hunters are created, not born. And in the first lesson we address the moral dilemma - it's a pass or fail test. And for reasons I'd rather not explain, virtually all pass.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

I just noticed that you're in Wales? Do you need a housemate? I love Wales but I've only been to Cardiff and Bridgend (sp?). They have such beautiful landscapes and they do a lot to preserve them. Lovely!!

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

It's challenging to make the most ethical choices in our industrial life and country but it's not all that difficult if a person makes an effort. Drive less, ride a bike, use your legs, work close to home, stay off the grass. Even if we can't avoid being completely unethical, we can certainly make a choice that has less impact than another one. The key is to keep one's life simple so that you have enough time to walk some place or plant a garden and care for it or perhaps farm on a larger scale, or have time to plan and prepare your own meals from your own garden, etc...
Most folks would not enjoy how I live but I love it ( other than where I live at the moment). I also have time to take my goods to a farmer's market and sell them to pay for my canning supplies and seeds for next year.

I can find all sorts of meaningful ways to experience nature without hunting. I love canoeing and kayaking and I built my own canoe years ago up in Maine. But how many folks would want to spend a week doing that when they could be on a cruise or sunbathing in the Bahamas? hahahah

The problem with hunting is that it's become a mentality and it's not necessary for survival. I have no desire to hunt anything for sport or for communing with nature. Even if I'm picking berries, it's not as if I'm hunting them with a desire to destroy and consume and you won't find any pictures of me posing with my eggplant ;D I don't hunt the veggies in my garden but I do save their seed ( don't tell anyone I do that though) and replant the following year.
Live with intention and awareness and reverence for all life about you at all times and then you can make the most ethical choices.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

I don't know, I know people who regularly decapitate the wholly indefensible, like lettuce, and cauliflower, etc. I've even observed some literally rip such things from their habitat - potatoes for example; they cut off their root, boil it, mash it, whip it, and eat it! I swear - I've seen them do this.

Poor little defenseless creatures... snuffed out in the prime of life, a cruel and untimely death... and then we ate the children, too.

Who is to judge the value of life one over another?

In many ways, I find the vegan to be a highly prejudicial individual. And the non-hunter moralist is but a hypocrite. But I'm cool with all that.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

Some people don't value living things enough to take time to understand the gifts they provide to us and then treat them with respect. This is why I hate industrialized farming as it has no spirit in it's practices.
I studied at the Findhorn Garden. Are you familiar? It's not for us to decide which life is more worthy of living but we must respect all life and value it's purpose.
God provided all we need to survive but that doesn't give us the right to abuse and mistreat. We were supposed to be the stewards of this earth and it's living creatures but that doesn't mean to use them in a careless selfish way for entertainment. To let the cabbage grow beyond it's harvest date is actually cruel in that you have diminished or destroyed it's purpose and therefore allowed it to struggle in the heat of the spring.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

I've known far too many to utter similar sentiments while tossing the coffee cup out the window. I'd rather be labeled cruel than labeled a hypocrite. But I do try to temper the cruelty.

I'm not big on industrialized megacorp farming, either; who could be? The same has happened to our fishing industry. And I'll check out Findhorn, thanks.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

People buy big agrifarm food stuffs all the time without a care in the world. If they would consume more seasonal foods and from local farms they would be healthier - physically and spiritually.

Findhorn has changed a lot since I was there. It's become quite a popular retreat sort of place now. It was rugged and rough when I was there. I'm not into the 'little fairies' like some of them are but I do believe that plants need to be treated kindly and nurtured just like any living creature and when we do that, they respond well and provide for us.

I argued once with PETA about their philosophy that it's ok to kill plants because they dont' have a central nervous system. It seemed rather short sighted to me given that plants are just as important as animals. If we destroy all the plants, then none of us will survive, right?

You may enjoy reading Dr. Albert Schweitzer's essays- specifically, his Reverence for Life. His essays shed light on how to strike a healthy balance in being human. in the industrialized world. I don't think he was vegetarian either even though I am.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

PETA euthanizes tens of thousands ever year; I see them as somewhat hypocritical and profit motivated organization. And I think on the philosophical level my argument is valid but you should probably not take it literally; it's merely a reaction to the moralists. I don't believe that the anti-omnivore has a valid moral argument.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

There are some good folks at PETA and there are some truly dysfunctional codependent nutjobs there. Unfortunately, it's the nuts that tarnish PETAs ethics. A few years ago two employees euthanized a lot of animals and dumped them in a dumpster. It was horrible and illustrates how dysfunctional enabling leads to irresponsible behavior. I'm sure they all have good intentions but perhaps too immature to set realistic goals in rescuing animals. I have no issue with euthanasia and it can be the most humane choice for many animals and people too. No-kill shelters are all over the place but even they are bit too unrealistic at times and keep animals alive in such a horrific state that it's absolutely cruel.

I would say that the anti-omnivore's moral argument may or may not have a valid argument depending on their reasoning. Not all vegetarians choose to be so for the same reasons and I take issue with a lot of vegetarians regarding personal and environmental health. I love animals and oppose factory farms but that was not my original intention for abandoning meat. My moral beliefs for not eating meat have developed over the years and extend to all aspects of my lifestyle. I don't squeal when I have dinner with a meat eater but I do wish that people would make more of an effort to make informed choices as consumers. Living with a conscience makes a huge difference for everyone.

I tend to view hypocrites as people who are motivated to do things for immediate gratification and therefore, lack conviction. Sometimes it's simply because they compartmentalize and fail to develop a clear understanding of their purpose. This is probably why we have so many failed policies in our country. But, someone who lives with intention and purpose will strive to make the best choice for everyone in all they do and are aware of when they falter and make an effort to rectify their shortcomings with even better choices next time.