Why not treat firearms just as we treat cars? To own one, you must:
- Be licensed after passing written and proficiency tests.
- Carry liability insurance.
- Have your weapon pass a periodic safety check.
- Be sober to operate (alcohol or drugs).
- Show your papers to law enforcement officer.
- Pay an annual registration fee.
- Abide by restrictions (no assault guns/oversize magazines, etc.).
- Abide by safety regs (trigger locks/safes/transportation, etc.)
And, why not create an agency similar to National Highway Transportation Safety Administration that’s charged with improving gun safety?
Grenville B. Whitman
Rock Hall
Pete Bestmom says
Why, you ask ? Simple. In a word “unconstitutional”. That’s why.
…….”Shall Not Be Infringed” … What part of that is it you just not getting? Seems clear enough.
Ed Plaisance says
Nothing suggested here would be unconstitutional if you read the the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia et al. v Heller, which overturned the D.C. virtual ban on handguns in 2008. The decision bears careful reading.
See in particular pages 54-55 where the majority state: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. “
Ed Plaisance says
I forgot to include the link to the Supreme Court decision. Here it is
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Pete Bestmom says
Why? Because it would be unconstitutional, that’s why.
Keith Thompson says
Besides the constitutional issues that have been cited, there is an obvious fallacy to your argument. You say to own a car you must…
■Be licensed after passing written and proficiency tests.
■Carry liability insurance.
■Be sober to operate (alcohol or drugs).
■Show your papers to law enforcement officer.
■Pay an annual registration fee.
■Abide by restrictions
■Abide by safety regs
Actually, you need not do any of the above to own a vehicle. You only need the above to operate a vehicle on publicly owned and maintained streets and highways. One can certainly own an unregistered and uninsured vehicle for use on your private property (much as my grandfather has an old truck that he uses to haul stuff on his property). Much the same reasoning can exist for guns in that some regulations may well be necessary to use or carry a gun in public places; but I’d argue that such restrictions are often unnecessary and more importantly, unconstitutional, for gun ownership for protection of your own or for hunting on private property.
Gren Whitman says
Quite right, Keith!
I should have written “own AND OPERATE” a firearm.
Mea culpa, and thanks for helping me strengthen my argument!
BTW, Second Amendment groupies conveniently overlook “well-regulated militia.”
Keith Thompson says
Gren, it’s hard for me to strengthen your argument when the original one is based on a fallacy.
I’m not a Second Amendment groupie…I’m a Constitutional groupie. I give the Second Amendment as much importance as I do the First and the other amendments. In my reading of the constition the right to keep and bear arms, was granted to the people and not to the militia. A well-regulated militia is simply cited as a reason for that right, not as a condition.
Gren Whitman says
@Keith
The right to own and use a firearm is not an inherent right, and unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution is amendable. Given present circumstances and for, say, compelling public health reasons, it would be prudent to recast the Second Amendment so that it reads: “Citizens shall be permitted to keep and bear well-regulated firearms for hunting and recreation.”
I have no problem with hunting rifles and shotguns; they’re designed for purposes other than killing people at short range (handguns) or as many and as fast as possible (military).
brian OBrian says
Well, since the Declaration of Independence was just a letter written to a king and not the law of the land, you don’t have much of a point.
The right to own and use a firearm IS a god given right. That’s why it’s in the bill of rights. If you want to change it, offer an amendment to the constitution… because these laws violate the constitution as currently written.
DC Blasberg says
So what about self defense? Since when is firearms ownership and operation strictly about hunting and recreation?
OC Obrian says
Gren, please read the heller decision.
The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. It has nothing to do with service in a militia.
DC Blasberg says
I refer you to Heller with regards to the “well regulated militia” in that the SCOTUS determined that an individual does not have to be a member of a militia to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Joel Brandes says
Wow, How great would that be for insurance companies? Another government agency intruding on our lives, just what we need. Oh Boy, What a fabulous way for the government to take whatever money we might have left. Only the rich could have guns. YUK.
RD Sweetman says
Owning a Car is no different than owning a refrigerator. You can still own a car without having it tagged and titled. Hence it is neither a Right or Privilege but a choice.
“Driving” a Car is a Privilege, not a Right, Issued by a Sovereign (i.e. State) Government.
“Owning” a Firearm is a Right, not a Privilege, Bestowed by the U.S. Constitution.
Huge differences.
Keith Thompson says
You said it better than I did.
Mary Wood says
What solutions do these men offer to stop this epidemic of death by firearms ?
I felt Grenville Whitman’s suggestions sensible.
RD Sweetman says
Mary Wood –
I’m not certain your statement of an “Epidemic of death by Firearms” is correct. This is an emotionally charged issue which is being fueled by those who know exactly how to tweak the emotions in order to manipulate support for Gun Control. They literally have marketing experts who rely upon putting an image in your mind to focus your support for more control. More Kids have been killed by Gunfire in Chicago last year than there were in Newtown Ct. Yet it was the Newtown incident which has triggered the flood of calls for more Gun Control. There was no call for intervention until the Sandy Hook school incident. Why is that? Are not the children in Chicago just as important as the ones in Newtown? You see a disproportionate amount of media coverage about homicides in major metropolitan areas with grieving citizens and outraged politicians demanding more gun control. Yet, just last month there has been over 100 individual events where homeowners and citizens across the USA have successfully defended their property and loved ones with firearms. That’s over 3 a day. But do you see major media coverage of that? Why not?
The very term “Epidemic” is misleading as Total Deaths by Firearms in the United States have been declining since the Last FBI statistics have shown up to 2011. in 2011 the FBI Homicide Data Records show 8,583 people total people were killed by all types of Firearms. Epidemic in a simple definition literally indicates “Growing and Spreading”…The latest FBI statistics show it is not an epidemic.
On average we have between 35 and 40 Thousand people killed in Auto Accidents every year here in the USA.
Death by Medical malpractice, Negligence and medical accidents are listed as the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA according to a 2000 JAMA study.
Any death, no matter what causes it is a tragedy. But the Hype, mis-information and lack of validity used by those who advocate Gun Control reeks more to me of people control then gun control. It places an unfair burden on responsible gun owners, i.e. we have to prove ourselves innocent because we’ve already been declared Guilty. There is no Epidemic…
Vera Holt says
Mary is right on. I attended the rally today in Annapolis to support the MD bill which addresses gun violence. The crowd included both men and women. There was an alternate rally down the street sponsored by the NRA. It seemed to be all men.
Michael Hildebrand says
@ Vera Holt, The rally in Annapolis which you spoke of was not sponsored by the NRA. It is sad that people like yourself make these statements with out finding the truth. These people showed up to voice their opposition because they know the bill its unconstitutional! As for the amount of women at the “rally”, had you taken the time to go inside the buildings, you would have found that the women were busy testifying AGAINST the bill. Did you not watch the public testimony? I am also sure that busing in children to have them back drop your cause and having them run down the street for the media to film was not created for dramatics. IF you had sat in on the committee meeting you would have heard the Governor and the Police Chief testify to the legislators erogenous statements, which by the way, the Governor and his posse could not back up. Thankfully, Representatives on the committee actually did real research and found the truth.
So let’s get to the truth. You and Martin would have us all believe that these so-called “assault rifles” were a major killer here in Maryland. Truth: from 2004 thru 2011, only 31 people in Maryland have been killed by a rifle. The statistics do not make a determination as to what kind of rifle is used because assault rifles were bans many years ago. To put these numbers in context, in the same time period, 178 people were killed in Maryland by the use of hands, fists and feet. Truth is you are 5.74 times likely to be killed by someone using their body parts than by a rifle of any kind! These numbers are provided by the FBI.
More facts that came out in the testimony was that there have been NO prosecutions of anyone for a “straw purchase” in the last ten years. If these types of purchases are such a big part of the problem, why aren’t they being prosecuted and who’s fault is that? I’ll tell you, the same AG that says we need more gun control. If you aren’t going to prosecute, what good is a law? Maybe if you did your job?!?!?!
The Governor also used national statistics to define what is happening in Maryland. Truth, that is a completely misleading statement. You can only base a state law on a state statistics. Thanks to the committee member that pointed that out.
The Police Commissioner stated in his testimony that he thought that the language in the bill for the amount of training a person would need in order to get a concealed carry permit in the state was “excellent”. Truth, Maryland refuses to issue a concealed carry permit to its citizens because of language in the law forcing a citizen to prove his innocence and a need, which by the way, was found unconstitutional in the court of law. Maryland continues to enforce this law, there by breaking the law. Does this mean citizens get to pick and choose which laws they will and won’t follow with no accountability?
Truth: 1307 people showed up to oppose this legislation compared to 32 that were for it. This was on the record at the State House. The last person to testify against the bill spoke at 4am Saturday morning, 16 hours after the testimony began. There were so many there to speak out against the bill that the Fire Marshall, again, had to close down the buildings. These numbers are consistent though out the days according to record, which dispute the claim that 85% of Marylanders support this bill.
In order to solve an issue, there needs to be a solution which can be supported by facts. Passing legislation that does nothing to solve a problem is a complete waste of time and money. In order to start the process, anything that misleads, misrepresents or is a complete lie needs to be eliminated. That is another fact!
Keith Thompson says
Mary, the problem is the idea that well-meaning legislation automatically prevents tragic events. It doesn’t, meaning that lawmakers keep passing laws in the belief that they’ve accomplished something until the next tragedy happens which leads to another ineffective law getting passed. Gun violence is a tragedy which merits legitimate concern, but we should never get lulled into a false security that there are easy answers to solving the problem.
Stephan Sonn says
The insurance suggestion interests me. I can see that as a talking point.
never thought about that kind of liability until I heard of
a thief that sued the homeowner for damages over a fall. during a robbery
Zimmerman may do an OJ and get sued anyway in civil court.
d laMotte says
Thank you, Mr. Whitman. And let us round up assault rifles and donate them to Basic School, Quantico.
RD Sweetman says
I’ll ask again…What is an Assault Rifle? What are it’s properties which define it differently from a regular rifle?
https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/248/rugermini14.jpg/
Gren Whitman says
An assault rifle is like porn — you know it when you see it.
All kidding aside, it’s easy to craft legislation that specifies firearms that are too lethal for anything other than warfare.
It was done before, but that legislation expired; too bad.
D LaMotte says
Let us ask top military and police that question. I think you do know what “assault weapons” means. Unless you are in the military or
a member of a police dept. you, or anyone else, has no right to own such a weapon. Your treatise, below, aside, the second amendment
is being used as a defense for those who feel the need to legitimize their testosterone-fulled needs.
As I said earlier, if one wants to own this weapon, then man-up and join the Marines. After that, you may wish you had never
had to use one…after seeing the effects.
DC Blasberg says
The US Government doesn’t refer to them as “assault weapons” but what they actually are, personal defense weapons.
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0
Bob Ingersoll says
The second amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Simple, and not simple. The true intent of the amendment, from reading the Federalist Papers, was to keep citizens armed so they could participate as citizen soldiers in a well regulated militia, instead of having the new country maintain a much feared standing army. Antonin Scalia, the conservative bulwark of the “original constitution”, knowingly neglected the whole amendment, and concentrated on the second half, breaking precedent in what conservatives call legislating from the bench. So be it. The Supreme Court has ruled, and until they change their mind, that is the way it is. BUT, you can’t forget the first three words, A well regulated… and that in itself is as important as “shall not be infringed”. You can not have it both ways, and still abide by the “original intent”. Guns were meant to be owned so that the owners could be a part of that well regulated Militia. It seems that even Scalia concedes that some regulation is both legal and proper (see Heller). SO, what is an effective though not infringing regulation. We see people comparing car ownership and usage to gun ownership and usage, but the analogy is partly flawed, since ownership and usage on the road is not the same….but TRANSFER of a vehicle is regulated by title, if you wish that transfer to be legal for your later usage. So, why not guns? I believe every gun manufactured in the U.S., or imported for sale in the U.S. should have a W.I.N., or weapon identification number, registered on a national database. When the first owner buys the gun, it is registered in his name. When he sells it, registration ownership must be transferred through the national database. Result: no straw buyers, no trade show exemptions no “lax state” pass bys. If you are caught with an unregistered gun, or one registered to another person without their written permission, or with a gun that has had the W.I.N. mechanically or chemically removed… then a compulsory jail sentence. Your gun stolen? Report it to the data base, where it will be nationally listed as stolen. Too much paper work? Seems to work for cars, and there are millions of cars on the road, and we all do it as required. If the NRA is against registration, so be it…they long ago ceased to represent any meaningful or logical position. I speak as a long time, multiple gun owner, hunter, and parent passing down a long tradition of sane gun ownership and usage to my grandchildren. I would have all my guns engraved with a W.I.N. in a heartbeat, and gladly go through the paper work of registering every one. What we have now is insanity, and buying more Mac 10’s. or Uzi’s to keep us “safe” is a fallacy that only the NRA can love. It is time to change our course as a country, and as a society that we all want to survive in.
Carla Massoni says
Nothing will change. Same old arguments. People will die.
Gren Whitman says
Carla, because of the Newtown atrocity, the door is presently wide open for action to curtail firearms that shouldn’t be in the hands of civilians.
Let’s hope we can take advantage of it.
Fletcher R. Hall says
You can tell who the liberals are in the above exchanges.
The concept expoused here does not and never will apply to hunters who only shot for sport and do not engage in mass murder of human beings. And, what about tighter mental health laws. Guess the libersl would oppose these also.
Fletcher R. Hall
Chestertown
RD Sweetman says
Mr. Hall –
I have nothing against Liberals. I have a very liberal friend who has views on other issues which we do not agree on. On the Issue of needing New Gun Legislation, our views are the same. It’s the lack of Objectivity from the other side that makes no sense to me. Allowing someone else or the government to determine what my needs are and should be. The Outcry or Outrage in wanting new laws passed and saying nothing about not enforcing the ones we have on the books now. Classifying a weapon an assault weapon simply because it’s looks evil or mean, or has a cosmetic change in appearance. And yes, you are correct about the Mental Health Issues. They want to create a whole slew of new laws covering all legal gun owners, but nothing has been looked at how to deal with the Mental Health Aspect, or the Bad guys who aren’t going to obey any new laws, let alone the old ones we have on the books…
Last Week or so, the Md. Senate held it’s public hearings on new Gun legislation. For every person who showed up for it, four showed up against it. The Senate Voted for it. Yesterday in the Md. House they held the same hearings on their version of the Bill. For everyone for the New Laws, there was 7 to 8 against it. Our so called “Leaders’ have held town halls in Prince Georges, Montgomery, Howard and Baltimore County’s and City. They have held NONE, Zero, Zip, Nada town hall meetings or discussions in the Western, Southern or Eastern regions of the state. I say lets put this whole thing to rest and place it on the Ballot and let the Citizens decide.
Carla Massoni says
Proud to be a liberal. Proud to support gun control initiatives. Proud to support broad based mental health initiatives. I would venture to say there are more areas of agreement on the mental health and strict enforcement of gun laws than you might imagine.
RD Sweetman says
Mr Ingersoll:
I respect your view and the argument you’ve provided. I don’t agree with some of the things you mention, but I respect your views.
According to how I understand the Federalist papers, (and I could be wrong, but it is how I see things…) The true meaning of ALL the amendments was centered on the individual citizen and their rights, not a group. From what I’ve read, been told, and researched the intent was to have the Citizenry armed, to limit and if needed, to prohibit the government from forming a large standing federal Army. In Federalist Papers 28 and 29 Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government, and also that an armed citizenry (Note the word “Citizenry”, not Militia…) was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. In Federalist Papers 46 James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. So what Happens if this ever actually has to occur? Will we as individuals have to petition the Government that we want to form a militia and obtain permission from it in order to stop it from being tyrannical? As I see it, the original intent is to allow the citizenry to have Arms for Self Defense, no matter if it pertains to a Militia or not. The God given instinct or desire and need for self preservation and protect was even around before the Constitution was written.
In District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Majority ruled that (a) – The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. and (b) – The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense. The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court’s opinion that the “people” to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same “people” who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: “‘The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.’ United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings…Hence, as I understand it, there still is the details of including the Term “Militias within the framework, however the 2nd Amendment specifically guarantees the individual the right to own firearms… (Within Reason, as has been outlined in previous cases…)
I understand your views on registration and maybe even agree if it can be guaranteed as to not infringe on any other right of privacy or constitutional guarantee that we now have. But I don’t see how that’s possible. Consider the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Bi-partisan Congressional hearings of 1982 which determined that 75% of all ATF prosecutions were “Constitutionally Improper”, and then Congress then restructured and renamed the law to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. There are already laws on the books which aren’t being enforced which deal with registration issues. The Obama Administration not only wants enter all the information into a National Crime Data base, but he also wants to have it included in the National Security Agency’s database. Why? What is the Purpose of it not only being recorded in the FBI’s Registry, but also in the NSA’s databases? NSA is a Foreign intelligence and threat agency…
I’m not a member of the NRA, however from what I’ve read, they aren’t against sensible limitations placed on those who have mental health and/or criminal background issues. But they aren’t the only ones. There is a host of other Gun and Firearms owner advocacy groups that are against a national registration system. And insituting a National Registry system is just another means for the government to stick there hands that much further in the pockets of legal gun owners. If you’re for a full National Registry then would I be wrong in believing it would be OK for the Government to enter your residence without notice or warning to search your home looking for illegal or suspected weapons? Or maybe enter you house, confiscate all your computers and search them for child pornography or emails connecting your with terrorists?
We already have had one group of citizens who were forcibly moved from their homes and relieved of all their personal property by our own Government back in the 40’s. We had an armed revolt by the citizenry in a Tennessee County back in the 40’s when the Local Government turned on it’s own residents, and the State wouldn’t do anything. We’ve had Korean Immigrant Business owners use semi automatic AR-15 rifles and pistols protect their families and businesses during the LA Riots. Same hold true for those people who defended themselves against looters and thugs when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.
I disagree with limiting the type of weapon a person can own today within the proscribed limits already in place. You can’t buy a rocket or grenade launcher, you can’t buy a fully automatic rifle or machine gun. You can buy a semi-automatic rifle or pistol which only fires one bullet for each trigger pull. that would be equal in my eyes as if you have a 4 cylinder Honda Civic telling me I’m not allowed to buy or own a 550 HP V8 Porsche.
The Insanity you speak of are the people, not the weapons. Weapons are nothing but the tool, the choice.. Timothy Mcvey didn’t have any guns and he killed scores and blew up a building. Charles Whitman killed almost 16, injured 32 with a Remington 700 model bolt action rifle with a 3 round internal magazine back in 1966 at the University of Texas. There was no AR-15 used at Sandy Hook in Newtown Ct according to Law enforcement and the Coroner.
I understand your anger and outrage. I even understand your desire to try and fix what you feel the problem(s) are. In closing I’ll say what I’ve said previously in other posts. I own firearms. they are legally owned, registered and properly secured. I have done nothing wrong. Fulfilled all the Laws which I am today required to own them. I am fully aware of what they can do, and what they “Can” be used for.
I was not in Newtown Ct. I did not steal weapons from a family member and kill them with it. I did not steal the family car, go to an elementary School and shoot it and a bunch of kids up. Why are people telling myself and others like me that we are the bad guys, that we need to conform to and obey newly made laws when the Bad guys aren’t obeying the ones already on the books?…
I’ll compromise… You allow me to retain the freedoms I already have, and I’ll make up some “Gun Free Zone” signs and personally post them in your front yards.
Bob Ingersoll says
Mr. Sweetman:
You mistake my stance as being a result of anger and outrage; nothing could be farther from true. I am too old and familiar with history and politics to be angry and outraged at something I am powerless as an individual to change. I am merely proposing a possible compromise to an unhappy situation. Do I think that even if we had a national WIN system of registration that it would end gun violence? No chance, because we can’t really change bad behavior, as we have had very little luck at changing criminal behavior in the past. There are too many guns already out there to try to stop criminals from having them, and preventing those seeking ” immortality by body count” from using them. But that is no reason to just give up, and instead arm every citizen with a Colt revolver to carry while awaiting to be accosted. In the old west, the sheriff was far away, and life depended on immediate self defense. Not so now. Historically, statistically, and realistically, we are much safer as individuals, even though there are some cities or distressed areas where that may not be true, even on a per capita basis. But, all things being equal, I would much rather be living in 2013 than 1813.
Part of our difference in viewpoint has to do with our basic faith in government, or lack there of. I see government as my friend and protector. History proves me to be correct, at least in the U.S. as compared to many places in the world I have visited or lived in. I have less of a fear that the government will come and do me harm than you seem to have, and more of a belief that it will protect me from many bad things happening to me, my family, and my property. I pay for that privilege as a citizen, both in paying taxes, and ceding some liberty to the whole, and most times it seems to work. If our country falls apart to the point where I need my gun to protect me from the government, something very bad has gone wrong, and none of the ten amendments to the Constitution will keep those with bigger guns from taking my life or property, at least for very long. And I don’t foresee the government coming to get me with the army during a general suspension of law or take over by a President gone rogue. I believe in the separation of powers more than I do in my own ability to protect my family with my puny arsenal if all law is gone. I don’t believe the military that I served in would turn on the people they work to protect, even if that rogue President ordered it so. I believe most of our risk is from afar, not from Washington. I do not believe I am naive in this, our history has proved otherwise. It is always possible that the government could turn on us, it is not likely to be successful. Civil war redux would be more likely, and I don’t see that as likely either. I don’t believe the government is out to confiscate our guns, just bring a little rationality to the status quo.
Stephan Sonn says
Excellent.
Stephan Sonn says
What is so great about this particular forum is that at length dialogue is par and rants are not in you face. Words and concepts like objective, rational, just, fair, comprehensive and balanced still have meaning and expression in this environment. It would be very hard to raise a panic here compared to other venues or vehicles. Hard line agendas and emotionally charged rants just do not work at this forum. In these times anyone who contributes to rational expression is a hero.
Paula Ruckelshaus says
Gren, Mary, Bill and Carla, I’m with you. And, you’ll likely be happy to know that, according to a recent Goucher poll, a majority of Marylanders are also in favor of stricter gun control measures. I am sick and tired of all the lame, logically unsupportable arguments in favor of every U.S. resident’s supposed undeniable constitutional right to own and use any type of firearm with impunity. The fact is that we no longer live in a world where gun mechanics precluded individuals ability to commit mass murder; where loading and firing a gun took training, time and thought; and where citizen-organized militias were the order of the day. The killing capability of current day firearms, societal conditions and the fact that we have an organized national military are good reasons in and of themselves to adopt stricter gun controls, not to mention long overdue amendments to the Second Amendment to reflect current day reality.
Of all the weapons available to most citizens, guns offer the easiest, quickest and least physically engaged means of killing or maiming another living being or ones self. So, it’s no wonder that firearm fatalities far outnumber deaths caused by any other deadly weapon or means. Statistics on firearm-related deaths and injuries confirm that for every lawabiding, careful, trained gun owner in this country there are hundreds- if not thousands – of others who are not of the same ilk. Over 100,000 people are shot each year in the U.S. Of that total, over 30,000 don’t survive the experience. Tens of thousands of others, like Congresswoman Giffords, never fully recover from their gunshot wounds. Most shooting victims are innocent men, women and children who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and individuals – mostly young people – who commit suicide, typically with a firearm owned by their parents or other relative.
In 2010, total auto-related deaths versus gun-related deaths in the U.S. numbered 33,014 auto-related fatalities vs. 31,672 gun-related fatalities. Clearly, arguments that deaths from firearms in this country are insignificant in comparison to other causes are specious. In fact, the Joyce Foundation reported that, last year, gun-related deaths outnumbered auto-related deaths in 12 of 50 states. And, statisticians who track this subject predict that annual gun-related deaths will outnumber auto-related deaths nationwide by 2014. Anyone who says that gun violence is not a serious societal issue that warrants stricter gun control has their head squarely planted in the sand.
As for those who argue for freewheeling, unrestricted gun ownership rights in the interests of ” self defense”, it’s a sobering statistical fact that individuals who maintain guns in their homes are more than 4 times more likely to be killed with their own or another firearm in any attempt to thwart an intruder than an unarmed householder. Thus, Mr. Sweetman’s “100 homeowners who successfully used guns to defend themselves against intruders actually translate into over 400 homeowners who were shot to death in the effort. Personally, I don’t find those odds compelling for any action other than adoption of stricter gun controls throughout the U.S.
Gren Whitman says
@ Ms. Ruckelshaus:
Thanks for your comments. … but … it’s not difficult to best R.D. Sweetman in a debate!
Old R.D. thinks arguing that “owning a car is no different than owning a refrigerator” is somehow relevant, and convincing.
Michael Hildebrand says
Oh Paula, your information is soooo incorrect. I am in favor of strict gun control, i.e. holding it with both hands and hitting the target. Polls are only as good as how the questions are asked. Susquehanna Polling conducted a poll of Marylander’s to determine feelings on 2nd Amendment issues. Below are the documents of the poll.
Highlights
83% of Maryland residents support the right to defend yourself with firearms.
By a 50-39 margin, Maryland residents oppose limiting firearm selection to hunting guns.
By a margin of 62% to 20%, (Better than 3:1) Marylander’s believe stronger mental health laws will stop mass shootings, not bans on semi automatic rifles.
88% support stronger sentences for gun offenders.
If you want the details, you can look it up on the web.
As for your statement that “homeowners are 4 times likely to be killed with their own or another firearm in any attempt to thwart an intruder than an unarmed householder”, this is a statistic that is repeated by those who don’t know what they are talking about or refuse to actually look at those numbers. These numbers came from a study, that, in order to further their opinion, had to include suicides to get to that number. This is where the mental health issue comes into play that NOBODY wants to address. Democrats proved this just last week when they voted down the amendment to fund the reopening of the mental health center in Chestertown.
I appreciate the fact that in the US, the Bill of Rights gives everyone the personal right to bar arms. This is a right that each individual can exercise based on there personal belief. I respect that some people do not want to exercise that right, and that is fine. The problem is the fact that people seem to think their personal opinion should be law, and it is not. The US Constitution does protect the right to bar arms and that right shall no be infringed. Infringed can be found in the dictionary.
It seems today that the one thing people do not want to use to base decisions on is facts. This was VERY relevant in Annapolis during the hearings on gun control. O’Malley and his sheep sat in front of lawmakers and spouted off statistics and information that was VERY easily proven false by a quick search through Google. Facts are facts, gun control has not, will not, and will never work going forward. But, if people still feel that it works, I am sure there is plenty of real estate in South Chicago that anyone can move into.
LtCol Stephen A. Bonning USAF Ret says
As a healthcare professional, I deal with evidence-based medicine. Not old wives tales, not what I THINK will work–only what the data shows works. With all this emotional banter about ‘mass killings’ and ‘mass shootings’, has any of these people actually looked at the data, readily available from the FBI, DOJ, CDC and multiple unbiased academic sources, regarding how many ‘mass shootings’ actually occur annually in the U.S.? How many deaths are caused by them and other gun uses as opposed to alcohol, motor vehicles accidents, deaths, by beatings, drownings, medical errors and contributory negligence? Of course there’s the issue of Defensive Gun Uses (DFU’s), that is, the approximately 160,000 times per year that the presence of a gun, sometimes without firing a shot, prevents a crime or a death, that most people like to ignore.
It’s easy to find this information. It’s very revealing and anyone who has the courage to explore this information may be surprised in what they find. The argument for gun bans, gun registration is a feel-good distraction meant to look like SOMEBODY is doing SOMETHING. If anyone cares to look at the data and evidence, but I suspect it’s too emotional an issue for most.
fred brown says
some people collect coins,others baseball cards.I collect guns.they are a great investment and much more fun than stamps.my home is worth thousands less,my 401k is pitifull,health insurance is bankrupting me,mva fees,tolls everything in this state has gotten out of hand and now some elected officials want to make a large part of my collection worthless and illegal.every one of my firearms were purchased legally with back ground checks and waiting periods.the term assault weapon is overused to me.I do in fact own two fully automatic firearms.they are perfectly legal in maryland but you must first submit your paper work with photo and finger prints to your sherrif for his aproval.then it is sent to the atf for fbi approval.My wife had our children faster than i aquired either of these firearms.Now to the people that say what in the world would anyone need something like this I have to remind you of the beginning when I was talking about an investment.I beleive that I can also say with pretty good confidece that all the people wanting gun control don’t own one.It is my beleif that any elected official that does not own or maybe has never even fired a gun should not be in charge of my destiny.Oh and how about that new gas tax!