Another Mass Shooting, Another Grab For Guns: 6 Gun Facts

By Tony Cartalucci

Nothing is more deplorable than hijacking human tragedy to push an unrelated political agenda. A mass murderer taking the lives of some 60 people in Las Vegas this week has nothing to do with the majority of lawful firearms owners in the United States who aren’t and have no intention of ever killing another human being.

Yet the knee-jerk reaction of many emotionally-driven people in the face of an overwhelming tragedy is to shift public debate back to gun control and even banning guns altogether.

Emotional and irrational responses in the face of overwhelming circumstances is part of human nature and require patience.

Yet another part of being human is then appealing to our ability to reason. To reason we must have facts.

Upon examining the following 6 facts, we will see that access to firearms has no significant relationship to violence – and that violence is driven by another entire set of factors that must be addressed if we honestly want a more peaceful and prosperous world.

1. According to the FBI, more people die of barehanded assaults in the US per year than all rifle violence (“assault rifles” included) combined. In fact, homicide via personal weapons like hands and feet is more than double homicides carried out with rifles.

Most gun homicides are carried out by handguns in some of America’s most destitute communities where national and local governments have failed to keep up with infrastructure, providing education, or economic opportunities. Cities like Detroit who have had their industry shipped overseas and their infrastructure left to – in some cases literally – rot.

2. According to the Small Arms Survey conducted by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland, the United States has the most guns per capita of any other nation on Earth at 112 guns per 100 people. Second place goes to Serbia at 58.21 guns per 100 people.

Based on this and assumptions that access to firearms equates directly to more violence, we would expect to find the United States and Serbia at the top of list regarding both homicides, and gun related homicides, yet this is not the case at all.

3. Highest homicide rate on Earth goes to El Salvador with 108.64 murders per 100,000 people. The United States comes in at number 94 with a murder rate of 4.88 per 100,000 people.

4. El Salvador’s gun homicides are at around 26.49 per 100,000 people while the US comes in with 3.60 gun homicides per 100,000 people. Honduras comes in first place with 66.64 gun homicides per 100,000 people.

Nations topping the list of gun homicides together with total homicides reveal little relationship between the number of guns per capita and actual violence. In fact, despite the immense amount of firearms in the United States, the United States has a relatively low homicide and gun-related homicide rate. This is why gun ban advocates often attempt to cite “gun related deaths” which includes accidents and suicide instead of citing gun-related homicides – even when advocating gun bans after high-profile mass shootings and murders.

5. Gun ban advocates often claim the United States cannot be compared with “failed states” and instead should be compared with “advanced states” like Denmark, Sweden, etc. This is called “cherry picking” and is a logical fallacy, not rational or honest debate.

Neither El Salvador nor Honduras are “failed states” according to the Fragile States Index.

And neither Denmark nor Sweden have a “Detroit” like the US does. During a debate, all data must be considered, not conveniently and conditionally picked through so the numbers add up in one’s favor.

6. Despite the UK and Japan both being “gun free” – according the the United Nations (summarized on Wikipedia here) – the UK has a higher total number of murders (594) than Japan (395) despite having half of Japan’s population (UK: 65.64 million, Japan: 127 million).

For those tempted to claim that the UK isn’t actually gun free, realize that – according to USA Today – only about 50-60 murders a year in the UK are attributed to firearms, and if negated, still leaves the UK with higher total murders, and a still much higher murder rate than Japan.

Concluding Thoughts 

All 6  facts tell us that violence is driven by socioeconomic factors, not access to firearms. If firearms drove violence, the United States would be by far the most violent nation on Earth, followed by Serbia – they are not. The UK and Japan would have roughly the same rate of homicides – they do not.

If you truly care about a more peaceful world, address the root causes of violence – which is clearly, obviously not access to weapons. Those who intentionally stir hysteria and prey on the emotions of well-meaning people to push issues like gun control have ulterior motives – and coincidentally allow all of the actual factors that drive violence – socioeconomic disparity and destitution – to continue or even expand.

If you are truly against violence, you must truly commit yourself to understand what really causes it, and not indulge in emotional campaigns pursuing irrational measures that not only will not stop violence, but will invite great amounts of the very exploitation and injustice that drives violence.

Banning guns did not stop terrorists in Europe from obtaining completely illegal AK-47s used in Paris, France killing over 130 people, nor did banning guns stop a terrorist from using a truck in Nice, France to take the lives of over 80 people. Gun bans did not stop the alleged hijackers of the planes used on September 11, 2001 to kill nearly 3,000 people. They used box cutters.

Those who are determined to carry out premeditated mass murder like that which unfolded in Las Vegas, will do so no matter what implements they have at their disposal. Figuring out what factors actual cause an individual or organization to contemplate and carry out mass murder is the only way to stop or reduce future acts of violence.

Examining the heavily medicated, violent, and intentionally divided population of America and the socioeconomic doldrums they inhabit would be a good place to start.

Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer Report, Alternative Thai News Network and LocalOrg.

Image Credit: Pixabay

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

124 Comments on "Another Mass Shooting, Another Grab For Guns: 6 Gun Facts"

  1. The Las Vegas shooter was a wealthy real estate developer.

    • Uh – you may want to check that again …. he told his neighbors that he “made his living gambling” …

      • Prior to his gambling career he was a developer, worth over $2M at the time of his death. That would negate the premise of the article and the theory of guns and poverty.

        • “Those who intentionally stir hysteria and prey on the emotions of well-meaning people to push issues like gun control have ulterior motives”
          Unlike the NRA and the all powerful, “well-meaning” gun lobby, who thrive off of the false notion that the liberals want to abolish the 2nd amendment and who continue to assert extraordinary influence over US lawmakers.

          • Liberals claim the 2nd Amendment only applies to organized militias not private citizens ergo they can take guns away from us. There are many audio/video recordings of Democrats saying that

          • You are right except for the therefore; the liberal position, which was legal precedent for over 200 years (until Heller) is that private gun ownership, unrelated to the 2nd Amendment, which posits a “wel]-regulated militia” and which
            Article 1, Section 8 puts under total control of Congress, is a privilege and therefore subject to rational regulation like the privilege of driving a car.

            The claim that common sense regulations (such as universal background checks and limiting stockpiling ammunition) is gun confiscation is a naked lie. Requiring you to show you are not a criminal in order to buy a gun is hardly “gun grabbing.”

            Such lies are criminal in nature since they block efforts to enact rational laws that 85% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members support.

            There is no ergo that follows from a strict reading of the Constitution. Cars are a privilege and yet they are not being confiscated. Privileges are allowed if not abused.

            Stop spreading this criminal lie!

          • emmanuelozon | October 3, 2017 at 9:05 pm |

            Says …the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

            Doesn’t say anything about criminals not being able to keep and bear arms.

          • So you approve of criminals, terrorists, and the violently insane having a right to own firearms? What the Constitutions says is that Congress has the power to call forth, organize, arm, and discipline the militia to enforce the laws and put down invasions and insurrections.

            The Constitution affirms that the mandate of the government is to “promote….and provide for the general welfare.” Do you think keeping guns out of the hands of violent people is NOT in the public interest?


          • Who determines who a terrorist is? That same government? Well, then, that can be ANYONE that doesn’t tote the party line. Your logical is lacking.

          • Indeed, where does it say in the Constitution that a criminal, after time is served, loses his/her rights as a citizen?

            Oh, it doesn’t.

          • Those laws are left to the states, per the Constitution.

          • Perhaps. However, no state or government agency (including federal) can have powers and “rights” that we the citizens cannot have. That just makes common sense. If cops have the right to defend themselves from armed criminals, well, cops are part of “We the People” and as such “We the People” also have the right to defend ourselves, with deadly force if necessary. Any argument against that is moot, unless one thinks we, as living beings, do NOT have the right to defend ourselves.

          • “, no state or government agency (including federal) can have powers and “rights” that we the citizens cannot have.” Huh? The Federal government has the right to draft you and force you to bear arms, to lock you up for criminal activity, to start and end wars.

            The concept of the social contract, as it evolved from Hobbes to Lock to modern days is that we give up our “natural liberty (say to murder you if I wish) all together and invest the state with the powers we have surrendered. I may not execute you (by right) but states can.

            The right to self-defense is inherent….existed long before there was ‘government.”
            Even animals have this innate right. However, if the state find you guilty of a serioius crime, it has the right to take away your rights.

            Your premise is false, Mike. The state has many power we as individuals do not have, and that is a result of the social contract. You may say I signed no such contract, but it is not a formal contract but an understanding arrived at through logic and socialization. If you feel abused by the contract, you can become a criminal or rebel or hermit. The social contract is the general agreement people have about the limits of their own powers and a solution to how to maintain order, thru government.

            That governments often fail or abuse this power is self-evident; that is why the theory of democracy, to vest ultimate sovereignty in the collective (the People) and hold government accountable, an evolution away from the social contract of Hobbes ho was justifying absolute power.

            So our powers are limited, and so are the state’s but not in the same way but rather through, in theory, an exchange.

            Of course many states such as the US abuse their power and are not really democracies, nor are leaders held accountable. That is why we must complete the American REvolution and create a democratic and accountable social contract.

          • Every gun I own required a background check, sounds universal to me, my concealed carry permit went even further with fingerprint submission. Online dealers do not ship direct to a buyer, it is shipped to a local dealer who does the background. Every dealer at a gun show does a background check.

          • Many states do not require background checks in private sales, which take place at gun show and thru onine hook up where no background checks or records are required.

            This is the loophole that 92% of gun owners agree should be closed. Dealers must do background checks but not private sellers, who since there are no records could be anyone, including bulk sellers selling to anyone. You can educate yourself on this huge gap in background checks at

          • I’m actually very happy that here in Alabama I don’t even need to go to a store, but I can actually buy a firearm from the trunk of someone’s car, garage sale, or even LEGALLY in a dark alley.

          • And so are the jihadists and violent criminals.

          • Let’s make a deal then. When the SHTF, I promise not to use my guns to defend you, and you can wait on the cops.

          • So you are ok with violent criminals, the violently insane, buying guns with no hassles?

            BTW, since 9/11, there have been over 400, 000 gun deaths, the majority in the home.
            The shit has hit the fan….and most of it is family and friends. I dont’ need to be defended… family has no guns. Given your thinking violent people should be allowed to obtain guns, I much prefer the police to you. So the deal is: I stay safe without guns while you risk a gun death by owning a gun.

          • Gary Moeller | October 4, 2017 at 10:58 pm |

            Your premise is total crap. Every time a liberal uses an emotional plea for gun law changes, they use the words “common sense regulations” and “rational laws”. Their logic is totally out in left field each and every time! BTW, the Second Amendment is in the Bill of RIGHTS, not in the Bill of Privileges. Therefore, don’t try to equate the RIGHT to be armed to the PRIVILEGE of having a drivers license.

          • I am not a liberal and common sense is not emotiona but an appeal to reason. The right to bear arms is conditioned on the need for a pool of draftees organized, armed, and disciplined by Congress: Article 1, Section 8. Read it.

            Your crude language exposes your lack of knowledge,Gary. The 2nd Amendment begins with the need for a “well REGULATED militia, and Article 1/Section 8 defines the militia as totally under the control of Congress.

          • It’s the Right to bear arms, not the privilege. Read it again.

          • I can read.Can you? The reason for this right is the need for a militia, called forth, organized, armed, and controlled by Congress, in the absence of a standing army.

            Do you think we do not have a standing army? Once the need for a militia exists no longer the 2nd Amendment became obsolete. And can you real ‘well regulated?”

            When a right becomes no longer necessary, it devolves to a privilege.
            If you think we do not have a standing army, which was the reason for the militia, then I suggest you do a little research. A right based on a reason that no longer exists is moot.

            You may have the right to a CHIP as a needy child, but when that reason no longer exists (as when your family makes too much income or you become a adult) that right no longer exists. The qualification for the right to bear arms is the lack of a standing army which then requires a militia. When that qualification no longer exists, the right no longer exists.

            I know you disagree but this is based on a strict reading of the Constitution and the well documented reason for the 2nd Amendment.

          • What part of inalienable don’t you understand? It means it cannot be taken, surrendered or otherwise lost or stolen. Inalienable rights. Then again, there’s no convincing some people, especially a statist such as yourself. Peace.

          • The 2nd Amendment and the Constitution do not mention “unalienable rights.” This word was used in the Declaration of Independence,not the Bill of Rights. While there are inherent rights, gun ownership is not one of them for the simple reason that guns were not invented until a thousand years ago. Gun rights are a custom, granted based on the need for a militia, in the absence of a standing army. As soon as we have a standing army, this granted right will be obsolete.

          • That was the legal precedent until Heller, which overturned 200 years of understanding by one vote and can be reversed by one vote. This claim never involved confiscating guns but empowering government to regulate them. IF regulation led to taking guns away, there would be no guns. 85% of gun owners support universal background checks, as do 74% of NRA members: are they all liberals that want to take your guns away?

          • Gary Moeller | October 4, 2017 at 10:55 pm |

            That 85% of gun owners support universal background checks is fake news. Go to a gun show and take a survey. Not via telephone in a liberal area.

          • A survey at a gun show is not scientific polling.

            Here is a poll from a top rated polling firm (538 analyzes hundreds of polls for accuracy and bias and this firm gets an A-, with a slight Republican bias. (

            “Ninety-two percent of voters, including 92 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of Republicans, support background checks prior to all gun sales, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University.” (

            Two polls found that NRA members support universal background checks (which the NRA opposes) by 74%, including a poll by Repubican pollster Frank Luntz.

            True story.

          • That’s not scientific polling, because that’s as phony as the “97% of scientists polled believe in man-made global warming” when in fact that 97% is cherry picked — and there’s NO POLL that can stand-in for representing and entire population.

            Disingenuous at BEST.

          • Top rated (based on record of accuracy) polling firms consistently find overwhelming support for ubc. It’s as scientific as it gets. The Climate change study is also very competent: “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming …(is real and caused by human activity).

            It is not cherry picking to ask the views of actual climate scientists with actual peer-reviewed research. You are repeating lles by people without this qualification who are promoted by those with a profit interest in blocking pollution regulations (ie the polluters themselves) and the gun industry, which profits from people being told that the peer-reviewed research is phony.

            Polls do not pretend to be perfect but you can judge them by their record of accuracy.
            Thoise that are accurate do a great job of using scientific sampling. You just want a cheap way to refute the evidence…!

          • People only want to look at the militia wording in the 2nd amendment, not the wording about the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

          • Do you want to ban certain guns? Yes you do. They talk about banning semi auto rifles all the time. It’s wrong, it won’t stop violence at all, and people have a right to oppose it.

          • We will never stop all violence, but the evidence of the other 34 high incomes nations and the states with rational gun laws show that it can be reduced. You have a right to oppose universal background checks but with 92% of gunowners supporting it, your voice should not block the will of the vast majority.

            Do we want to ban certain weapons? Yes. Machine guns were banned 80 years ago, and there should be limits on the amount of ammo. A person with thousands of rounds of ammo and 43 guns is not thinking of self-defense or hunting but mass murder.

          • Fuck the other 34 high income nations. If they were to get physically invaded their populations would be completely decimated because the citizens couldn’t fight back.

          • Oh, the NRA are worthless, too. However, the only way someone is going to get my firearms, no matter WHAT laws they pass now, is via raid in the middle of the night…and lead might start flying from my end, too.

        • So if a rich man kills, that negates the evidence that correlates violence with poverty by peer-reviewed research and going back to
          Aristotle’s observation that “Poverty is the parent of crime’????

          Worldwide, and throughout history, poverty has bred violent crime. In the US, violence is a result of poverty and easy access to guns. One rich guy on a murder spree does not negate dozens of peer-reviewed studies and a history of violence being correlated with poverty.

          That is like saying, My uncle smoked and died at 97; that proves that tobacco is not a health hazard.

          • Violence is caused by poverty and social dysfunction. Not access to guns. That’s why the US has the greatest access to guns, but no where near the greatest amount of violence. That’s also why even between US states some have more guns, and less violence.

            You attempt to make an association between access to guns and violence by throwing these statistics out and leaving only the ones that suit you. That’s dishonest and you know it, but you repeat it anyway.

        • There is no “theory of guns and poverty.” There is empirical evidence showing that violence is much higher in poor neighborhoods than rich. It’s not that the rich don’t sometimes murder, but that the rate is much higher among the poor. Aristotle observed: poverty is the parent of crime.

          The rich tend to commit financial crimes, promote wars by which they profit.

      • So who was the guy, Bull Shitterton?

    • So says his brother. This wealthy man lived in a $370,000 house. I am on Social Security and my house is worth $550,000.

  2. Seems to be more than a guy shooting from the 32nd floor a block or so away. Several witnesses were confirming there were multiple shooters.
    BTW: if you include the lobby that would be floor 33 which is the highest achievement in masonry.

  3. The people at the consent were told that they were all going to die, 45 minutes before the shooting started

  4. There would be no firearms debate in America (and a lot less incidents like what occurred in Las Vegas) had the constitutional framers (like their 17th-century Christian Colonial forbears) established government and society upon the Bible’s moral law and principles, including Psalm 149:6-9 and 1 Timothy 5:8.

    America was sold down the river when the 18th-century Founding Fathers replaced Biblical responsibilities with Enlightenment rights, and nothing demonstrated it better than the Second Amendment.

    Think about it: The Amendment WITH the wording “shall not be infringed” is the MOST infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity is likely to see the Second Amendment whittled away entirely or repealed altogether. This is inherent nature and danger of optional Enlightenment rights versus non-optional Biblical responsibilities, such as the following:

    “Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword [or today’s equivalent in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye Yah.” (Psalm 149:6-9)

    “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [including spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

    For more, listen to “The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight,” delivered at the Springfield, Missouri Firearms and Freedom Symposium. Click on my name, then our website, and scroll about half way down our home page to our Featured Messages.

    At this same location, you will also find a radio interview Larry Pratt (Executive Director of Gun Owners of America) conducted with me on this same subject. I think you’ll find Mr. Pratt’s remarks especially interesting.

    If you prefer to read, see our blog article “The Second Amendment is Doomed.”

  5. This is a misguided and dishonest article:
    1. “1. According to the FBI, more people die of barehanded assaults in the US per year than all rifle violence (“assault rifles” included) combined. In fact, homicide via personal weapons like hands and feet is more than double homicides carried out with rifles.”

    According to the FBI, over 2/3 of all murders are done by gun with over 90% with handguns. However, almost all mass murders use assault rifles. We can deal with both issues with rational gun laws such as universal background checks for all guns and allowing assault weapons only at gun ranges, etc. 85% of gun owners support universal background checks.

    in 41 states, anyone can buy any quantify of assault rifles and ammo from anyone under “private sales” with no records, background checks, or ways to know if the sale is legal or indeed by a private seller.

    There is no rational need for assault weapons and if they were limited, this would reduce if not eliminate the carnage of mass murders.

    2. Here is the apples and oranges fallacy. Since all studies show that violence, including gun violence, is highly correlated with poverty, it is a fallacy to compare high income nations with poor nations.
    “the United States has the most guns per capita of any other nation on Earth at 112 guns per 100 people. Second place goes to Serbia at 58.21 guns per 100 people.

    Based on this and assumptions that access to firearms equates directly to more violence, we would expect to find the United States and Serbia at the top of list regarding both homicides, and gun related homicides, yet this is not the case at all. Highest homicide rate on Earth goes to El Salvador with 108.64 murders per 100,000 people. The United States comes in at number 94 with a murder rate of 4.88 per 100,000 people.”

    The correct and logical comparison is of the US with other high income nations, not abjectly poor nations, torn by civil wars: among the 35 highest income nations, the US has a gun murder rate 85% to 99.9% higher, with an average over 90% higher than the other 34. All the other nations have universal and restrictive gun laws.

    3. here is a 3d fallacy, statistics used out of context, compounded by false data:
    “Despite the UK and Japan both being “gun free” – according the the United Nations (summarized on Wikipedia here) – the UK has a higher total number of murders (594) than Japan (395) despite having half of Japan’s population (UK: 65.64 million, Japan: 127 million).”

    In addition, Japan has, according to an estimate 700,,000 civilian guns, licit and illicit.

    In 2012, Japan had 1020 murders. The average for the past ten years is about 600 a year. (Butchart, Alexander, Christopher Mikton and Etienne Krug.2014.‘Country Profile: Japan.’ Global Status Report on Violence Prevention 2014.Geneva:World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),10 December. (Q9610))

    The UK has many more guns, about 2.4 million, licit and illicit. In 2012, it had 653 homicides (as the number continues to decline).

    So the UK, with half the population, has 3 times more guns and about the same number of homicides. What I see is that both have 99% lower gun murder rates than the US (which is the real comparison that matters) and that the nation with the fewer guns has the lower murder rate.

    I will conclude since I have demonstrated 3 fallacies that Tony has used to make an argument refuted by all peer-reviewed studies which show that among high income nations, the nations with the fewest guns have 99% lower gun murder rates than the nation with the most, that states with the most guns (with a few exceptions) have higher gun murder rates than states with the least guns, and that homes with guns have 270% more gun deaths than homes without.

    This is the reality that Tony tries to hide with his fallacies. Now is the time to enact the rational gun laws that 90% of the public, 85% of gun owners, and 74% of NRA members support: universal background checks with no loopholes. Look it up.

    • Thank you, Dale, for calling out this article for what it is. There is no true “debate” about guns, since to have a debate you kind of need two valid points of view supported by at least a smattering of facts. That has never been and never will be the case re: guns. I was going to rip the article apart piece by piece myself, but you beat me to it .

      • I get it. Guns scare you. But you are an adult and instead of demanding the scary thing go bye-bye, you are supposed to overcome your irrational fears, uphold your responsibility as a free grown adult, and educate and experience yourself regarding weapons.

        Hold one. Shoot one. Take a training course. Look at what the US is doing around the world and to its own people and think how much worse it would be if they didn’t have to worry about 300 million guns floating around.

        Adults have the right to self-defense and to check and balance their government. If you have a realistic solution to checking a gov that runs roughshod over the rule of law and human life that is better than us assuming more responsibility on a local and individual level, we’re all ears.

        • With 400,000 gun deaths since 9/11 and over 350 mass shooting year, you would have to be braindead not to fear gun violence, given the lack of laws to keep the out of the hands of criminals and violent individuals. The solution to a rational fear is to enact laws, like ALL other advanced nations, that are proven to reduce gun violence.

          Homes with guns have nearly 3 times more gun deaths than homes without, so if you want a safe home, get rid of your gun.

          When guns pose more a threat to your family’s security than a safeguard they are not a part of the right of self-defense but the very thing we must be protected from.

          • More bogus cherry picked statistics. You say 400k since 9/11 hoping no one is smart enough to put that in perspective of the 300 million guns and the 300 million Americans those guns are floating around among.

            Mexico has totally banned guns and the violence is out the roof. You cut that stat out and compare the US to Europe even though the US literally shares a border with Mexico!

            How dishonest.

          • Right on; I hadn’t seen Dale Ruff trolling about lately, I was almost missing his commentary…oh, wait, I wasn’t missing it at all!

          • You’re cherry picking, because most gun owners, with their guns in their houses, don’t actually have accidents or cause violence with their guns. Once again, it’s a very small percentage, you might want to check your facts. I’ve never had an accident with any of my firearms, because I’ve taken the time to learn gun safety…and I don’t even keep mine in a safe, since that would defeat the purpose of having a firearm for self defense. My children know how to safely handle and shoot guns, too, and I hope one day their children will.


    • Right on!

    • Dale you are in the wrong place to preach gun grabbing using tired and absurd parroted talking points you heard on TV or read on the Internet.

      Hardly anyone is killed by rifled compared to handguns yet you want to ban them? Why? Why ban the one type of gun least responsible for violence in the US? Because of statistically irrelevant mass shootings? Why? Because you are emotional and irrational and easily manipulated.

      Compare the US to “high income countries” ? Why? Because if not, you are forced to admit poverty, drugs, and other factors drive violence, not the availability of guns, so you just cut out all statistics that inconveniently prove that. Even in the US between different states there are those with more guns and less death than others. A good example is South Dakota vs. Nevada which has twice the guns, and less violence. Explain that one Dale.

      The UK may have more guns than Japan, but even if you subtract ALL the gun related homicides in the UK, they still have a larger total number of murders than a nation with twice their population. Again, Dale, you are just lying at this point.

      If you think you can compare the US with 300 million people on the other side of the ocean, bordering Mexico, and with the wealth disparity, drugs, and gang violence it has with northwestern Europe, you are either dim or dishonest.

      So in reality you have demonstrated no fallacies. In fact, you try to reimpose fallacies obviously poked through by the article by simply repeating them.

      • M, universal background checks which is he #1 law needed is supoprted by 85% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members. It’s not about gun grabbing; that is the NRA lie to the paranoid and ignorant. It’s about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, domestic abusers, and the violent disturbed. Calling that gun grabbing is like protesting taking guns from terrorists.

        As for comparison the entire body of peer-reviewed literature correlates violent crimie to poverty, a fact that Aristotle observed 2000 years ago. We compare high income nations because they are similar, apples to apples. To compare to poor nations is the apples to oranges fallacy.

        Europe is much like the US: prosperous, advanced, and with a system of ‘liberal democracy.” But we can compare Canada which is so much like the US you can’t tell a Canadian from a US citizen. Canada has strict gun laws and 85% lower gun murder rates. Detroit has over 300 gun murders a year and a few miles over the bridge in Windsor, Canada, they have 1 or 2.

        All scholars recognize the important of comparing only nations that share socio-economic parity. The US, among all 35 high income nations, is the only one with a gun murder (and over all murder rate) like the 3d world nations.

        The fallacies of comparing apples to oranges is well-recognize not only in peer-reviewed studies of crime, literacy, violence, etc but in all field of study. I have demonstrated fallacies and you are in denial. Sad.

        • You admit crime is driven by poverty, drugs, and gangs, then specifically compare the US to nations that suffer less of all three, again, because you are dim or dishonest.

          “All scholars,” “peer reviewed…” these are weasel words and fall under the elementary logical fallacy, “appeal to authority.” Again, you admit what actually drives violence, poverty and disorder, then try to link it to access to guns anyway.

          A six year old can see how dishonest that is. So who do you think you’re kidding?

          European countries you are citing don’t share a border with Mexico, or have the same drug and gang problem as the US, don’t have cities like Flint where entire populations lack access to clean water.

          You say “apples to apples” but it’s clear you’re just throwing out stats that contradict your emotional hysteria over guns.

          • No,I said violent crime is driven b poverty. 54% of murders in the US are family and friends and only 6% gangs. The affluent use drugs as much as the poor.

            Many nations have more poverty than the US, such as the UK, Belgium, Spain, et al but gun murder rates 90-99% lower, due to lack of easy access to guns by criminals and violent people due to strict and rational gun laws.

            you can do your own comparisons of poverty levels and gun murder rates at these two sites and draw your own conclusions. I am just reporting the facts; you can fact check if you want……my facts are public access and are ot cherrypicked. Take a look:



            Many high income nations have higher poverty rates but 90-99% lower gun murder rates. Take a look and fact check my claims.

          • A guy looking on CBS and the CIA website for perspective on gun control isn’t dishonest. He’s delusional. And yes, when you throw out stats because they refute what you’re saying, that is the very definition of cherry picking.

          • What evidence do you have this information is fake. The CIA collects vast amounts of information that is not biased by its other dark side of covert operations. You can finid the same evidence at other sites, but you are determined to reject any data that doesnot confirm your cherished illusions.

            When the CIA reported that Saddam had no active WMD program, did you dismiss their investigation because they were the CIA. Do you dismiss information CBS collects from primary sources without checking out the primary sources because you have been told anything you don’t want to hear is fake news?

            Wake up!

          • If the UK has more poverty than the US (it doesn’t) why are you comparing the US to the UK? And won’t you compare the US to Honduras or Brazil or Mexico?

            I know, because you are dishonest and just hammering snips of reality into a shape that pleases your Rosey version of reality.

          • I taught special ed for many years and so I understand that things to the learning impaired must be repeated at least 3 times. A valid and logical comparison of apples to apples means comparing high income nations. Honduras is a 3d world nation with a history of civil wars and by no means is a valid comparison. The valid comparisons are other high income nations, and then we can see whether poverty alone explains the lethal violence or whether easy access to guns escalates the violence (fist fights, etc) to murder with guns. The evidence is that the higher US rate of lethal violence is a result of poverty combined with easy access to guns. The UK has a bit more poverty but very few guns so while they have violence, it is rarely lethal, with a 99% lower gun murder rate.

            i will ignore your insults, which mask your lack of understanding, but do you get it now.

            Poverty breeds violence, but easy access to guns makes that violence lethal.

            I am a very honest individual; i have no reason t lie, and my view of reality is hardly rosy as i contemplate a nation which has just escalated 8 wars and has had 400,000 gun deaths since 9/11. I am distressed that the solutions, as proven by the other 34 high income nations, is obvious and indisputable, but the gun industry, through the NRA, has been able to block the kind of rational gun laws that work so well in all the other advanced nations.

            Your insults are a substitute for a rational response. i will gift you a rational response to the facts i have learned and shared: Thank you for educating me.

          • So in addition to repeating garbage statistics you cut data out of because it contradicts your conclusion, you’re going to mock me by round about calling me retarded

            Your argument stands for itself and goes far in explaining why Americans haven’t and won’t surrender their arms to dishonest people like you.

          • What is your evidence that the statistics I cite are garbage? Assertions made without evidence are garbage,my friiend.

            To have to repeat something over and over is evidence that you are either brainwashed or have a learning disability, which can be caused by other things than retardation.

            All my statistics are from reliable sources such as the FBI Table of Homicides the official crime data you can fact check at nationmaster/homicides; wikipedia/homicides,or, all of which collect and publish official crime stats fromall the nations. a

            Calling this garbage is indicitive of either brainwashing (where you reject as fake any information which does not confirm your bias) or inability to absorb information that has not been repeated over and over

            I am a very honest person. I study and share what I have learned. I urge you to do likewise.

          • I might not agree with everything you have to say, true, but I do agree about being honest, studying, and sharing info.

        • Wow, so you really think Detroit’s only problem is guns and that is why they have murders? And compare it to a city in Canada? Does Windsor have gangs who just challenge each other to chess matches because they have no access to guns? Or is there *a little more* to it than that?

          That just proves how out of touch with reality you are. It’s also why no one will ever listen to people like you and are doomed if they ever do.

          • What part of poverty fuels violence don’t you understand. Detroit is poverty stricken and awash in guns, a recipe for lethal violence. Windsor, just across the river, is not a poor city and guns are strictly regulated so it has 99% fewer gun murders.

            Violent gangs arise in impoverished neighborhoods. They become lethal when they have easy access to guns. A wealthier city like Windsor has few gang problems and of course, criminals have a hard time getting guns. Most criminals with guns in Canada get them in the US.

            i am totally in touch with reality based on facts, evidence, and the historical record. i challenge you to find any claims i have made and refute them with reliable or peer-reviewed information. 92% of gun owners, according to the A rate Quinnipiac poll support my position on universal background checks, as do 74% of NRA members, according to 2 polls, one by Republican pollster Frank Luntz. I stand with 9 of 10 gun owners, my friend.

          • Detroit and Windsor have two totally different situations and you make convenient false associations because you don’t care about the truth, just in being right.

            There are places with MORE find than Detroit and less violence. Explain that.

            I can. Access to guns has nothing to do with violence.

          • That’s exactly what I said. Detroit is poor and violent and has easy access to guns creating lethal violence, whereas Windsor is not poor and guns are strictly regulated virtually eliminating gun violence. I do care about being right, don’t you Being right means your idea are based on the truth.

            You wrote: “There are places with MORE find than Detroit and less violence. ” Can you explain what that means?

            i didn’t say access to guns caused violence, which is fueled by poverty; I said access to guns makes that violence lethal.

            But you have have not been reading clearly and now have descended into incoherence, so i will wish you well and move on.

          • Once again, citing poll numbers is dishonest and NOT fact based.

        • Peer review is utter CRAP; it is CONSENSUS based and not fact-based, just like pretty much all of modern science (particularly “climate change,” but I digress). Also, citing poll numbers (85%, 74%) is also dishonest, or disingenuous at best, as that only samples a very, very tiny slice of the population and isn’t nearly representative of FACT…like ALL polls.

    • There is no such thing as an assault weapon, because ALL weapons are for assault or worse. Assault weapon is a made up term for a rifle that can use various attachments and fire semi- or full-automatic.

  6. Surely the issue is the access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons. I find it impossible to believe that the general ownership of high velocity weaponry was the intention of the constitution. When a man can spray bullets from the upper floors of a building on to a crowd it totally destroys the argument that the victims, had they been armed, could have protected themselves.

    • The intention of the constitution was to give the people the means to defend themselves, especially against a tyrannical government. automatic weapons were not invented then, but if the American people aren’t allowed to have thm, then chips and military should not either, as they cannot have rights we the people do not have. Study a little more, pal.

      • The American people have already lost the democracy in their Republic. The fact that each American individual has three guns in their homes has not prevented that loss. Nor will it prevent the loss of freedom and liberty which is coming down the pike. Guns are good for hunting and nothing else.

        • 2/3 of American households do not have guns. 50% of our 300 million are owned by 3%, and the other 50% by 1/3.

          Guns are best known for killing: since 9/11 400,000 Americans have died by gun, 150,000 by murder, over half of which are by family or friends.

          We never had democracy, as the Constitution overturned our founding principles of equality and consent (the foundation of democracy) as expressed in the D of I.

          The first 10 Presidents were slave owners, a minority who gained power through the devices they put into the Constitution: the Senate electoral scheme and the Electoral College as a firewall against the will of the People. We have yet to create a democratic Republic based on our founding values, and so our task is to complete the American Revolution and make real the principles on which our independence was justified.

          • You forget to mention that these murders, the majority of them, actually take place in very local regions, typically LARGE CITIES that have UNCONSTITUTIONAL “gun control” laws, whereby the people in these areas cannot defend themselves and have to rely on the police to help…and remember, when seconds count and your life is on the line, the police are only minutes away.

          • The highest rates of gun murders are in the Southern cities, such as New Orleans, with the weakest guns law. St. Louis is also at the top and has weak gun laws.

            Cities like New York and San Diego, with strict gun laws, have the least gun violence

            Overall, according to peer-reviewed studies, the states with the weakest laws and most guns have the most gun violence.

            No disrespect, but you are ignorant of the facts.
            The ban against handguns in Chicago was repealed, and gun murders have spiked. People in New York or Los Angeles can buy guns. Your information is wrong, Mike

            And remember, over half of gun murders and 3/4 of all gun deaths take place in the home among family and friends. In Japan and the UK, where no one has guns,you don’t need the police to protect you from gunsiingers, and the gun murder rate is 99% lower and the overall murder rate is 80% lower.

            Educate yourself; your sources have been brainwashing you.

          • Perhaps, but obviously your sources have been brainwashing you, too, because you keep citing “peer-reviewed” garbage, collegiate (left-leaning) sources, and other communistic drivel.

          • Everything but peer-reviewed is garbage. The truth is neither left nor right but based on objective facts. If the truth and the most reliable research is communist, all honest men are communists.

        • It would be much worse. But if you think leaving warmongers and imperialists with all the guns is going to make things better, preach on.

          • My comment includes them also. The US military, after all, is composed of ordinary Americans of all religions, nationalities and politics.

        • If that were true, then tell that to the military forces that use guns for non-hunting purposes, or police who use them for non-hunting purposes. Yes, you might be correct in that there’s no preventing the collapse coming this way, but at least we Americans can defend ourselves, unlike the Brits and Aussies and…


      • That is the myth.
        The reality is that the
        Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, gave Congress control of the militia with the power to call forth, organize, arm, and control for the stated purposes of enforcing the law and putting down invasions and insurrections. There is no text or intention to justify insurrections against the state. Indeed, if you rise up armed, you Congress has the authority to force you to bear amrs against yourself.

        Those who argued the defense against tyrannical government were not at the Convention, and Jefferson, who held that view saw his proposals shot down at his own Virginia Legislature and refuted in the Constitution.

        The NRA promotes this lie to gullible gun owners who have never read the Constitution to find that it is designed to transfer power over the militia (whose former primary goal was to confiscate guns and punish slaves who owned them on slave patrols) in order that it could DEFEND the government.

        Do you really think you have the right to a nuclear arsenal because the military has one?

        Such madness disqualifies you from gun ownership.

      • Fair enough. Tactical nuclear weapons all round then.

    • Of course, this is only if you believe the narrative on this made up, false flag event.

  7. So the Leftists thinks Trump is evil yet they want us to turn in our guns? WHAT??

  8. I don’t think this about gun control. That is the cover story to distract.
    This is about further lockdown and economic development for the tech industry.
    Watch the back scatter machines go up all over.
    Do a search and find the you tube video “4Chan User Warned About Vegas Attack On Sept 11” and before its news article “4chan Las Vegas Shooter Prophecy and Shooter a Crisis Actor at Sandy Hook? (Video)”

    • rchan is a far right site known for hoaxes and fabrications. rchan recently spread a false suspect in the Vegas shooting…..”The incorrect shooter’s name, which Ars Technica will not repost to reduce any further robo-aggregated hits, began appearing on 4chan’s “pol” board, which is infamous for pushing intentionally inflammatory content. The name appeared on the board when its members began looking through people connected to names that had been mentioned by Las Vegas investigators. One of those people—a sibling of a person of interest who was later cleared by Vegas police of wrongdoing—had social-media attachments to left-leaning subjects such as and MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show. Both 4chan and right-wing misinformation sites like Gateway Pundit began spreading the false name as a suspect while calling the person a “far-left loon.”

      4chan uses anonymous posts with a history of fraud. It’s comments are all made by the cyber equivalent of masked KKK rabble rousers. If a masked man yells something in your ear, do you then spread his message?

      • No. But when dale ruff yells something in my ear, I go to zzzzzzzz

        Time will tell whether this leads to more gun control laws or just more gun sales and backscatter machine sales…

        Post here in a few years and give me the “official” sales figures

        • I do not yell; I report facts. When someone cites facts, you cover your ears and pretend you are sleeping. Funny.

    • Did you get that from your friends Perry Schizo and Noyd Phrenia?

      • I have no idea who they are.
        I don’t follow or know much about “4chan” and whether dale is right about them
        I do research energy policy and other items and can say we are under a technocratic takeover. They are building, piece by piece, our electronic fence.
        My only point of the post was to say – it might not be just about trying to get gun control laws passed – but get more surveillance equipment sold to the public.

        • “4chan is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images anonymously.”

          So it’s all anonymous. You can say anything behind a cyber mask. What could go wrong?

          “4chan users have been instrumental in pranks such as hijacking Internet destinations to cause images of Rick Astley to appear in place of their content, coordinating attacks against other websites and Internet users, and posting threats of violence in order to elicit individual and public reactions. The Guardian once summarized the 4chan community as “lunatic, juvenile … brilliant, ridiculous and alarming”.[10]” wikipedia

          :”Media sources have characterized /pol/ as predominantly racist and sexist, with many of its posts taking an explicitly neo-Nazi bent.[78][79][80][81] The Southern Poverty Law Center regards /pol/’s rhetorical style as widely emulated by white supremacist websites such as The Daily Stormer; the Stormer’s editor, Andrew Anglin, concurred.[79]
          /pol/ was where screenshots of Trayvon Martin’s hacked social media accounts were initially posted.[82][83] The board’s users have started antifeminist, transphobic, and anti-Arab Twitter campaigns.[80][84][85]
          Many /pol/ users favored Donald Trump during his 2016 United States presidential campaign. Both Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr., appeared to acknowledge the support by tweeting /pol/-associated memes. Upon his successful election, a /pol/ moderator embedded a pro-Trump video at the top of all of the board’s pages.[86][87][88][89]” Wiki

          I became aware of 4chan when an editor posted an article citing 4chan where an anonymous poster claimed he was a doctor at the ER when Seth Rih was brought in and the staff was instructed to let him die. This was said by an unknown person…and the editor, of a supposedly progressive website (which has since banned me for exposing such frauds) used it as a “reality check” on those claiming that there is no evidence that Rich was allowed to die by the evil Clinton gang. The chief editor, a regular asshole, then wrote a comment “I am calling out your bullshit’: and he compared this unknown anonymous poster on a website known for fraud and hoaxes to the Watergate informer. I pointed out that Bernstein and Woodward met with the Watergate informer, a known person who was the #1 in the FBI. Shortly after, I was banned.

          • The Southern Poverty Law Center is run by the Zio-assholes, and their ideas and policies are not based on REALITY. Anyone who listens to them is a MORON. After all, the SPLC says that “jugaloes,” or those that listen to Insane Clown Posse are also terrorists.

  9. The Second amendment is not disrespected simply because military assault rifles are kept out of the hands of criminals and mental patients. That is what is necessary not whole sale banning.

    • There is no need for assault type weapons. Restrict them to shooting ranges so those who get their rocks off pretending they are in combat can have their fun.

      • There is no need? How about keeping a psychopathic government somewhat in check that exploits people at home, tortures and mass murders people by the 1000s overseas?

        Again, these rifles kill fewer people than knives or even bare hands (read the article) so you want to severely restrict the one type of weapon responsible for the least number of violence because of statistically obscure shootings like in Las Vegas???

        What if he used a truck like in France??? Probably even more dead.

        So you plan to punish honest people with an irrelevant and ineffective law. Because?

        • So we need assault weapons to stop psychopathic government? When did guns overthrow a totalitarian government? The 10 Eastern European nations that overthrew rigid dictatorships in 1989 did it with non-violent protests, strikes, etc. The Soviet Union collapsed not through armed rebellion but a bloodless coup. Bloody dictator Marcos in the Phillippines was ousted through non-violent People power, etc.

          The psychopaths pray you will take up arms so they have the perfect justification to slaughter you. What is psychopathic as well as all these criminal wars is opposing a healthcare system that will not give recognize the right to medical treatment and the opposition to laws which the evidence of the other 34 developed nations proves reduce gun violence by 85-99.9%.

          There are many ways to kill but in the US, more than 2/3 of all murders are by gun and almost all mass murders are with assault weapons. Only a psychopath would ignore the evidence of the other high income nations and block rational gun laws, such as universal background checks which 85% of gun owners support.

          There are also psychopathic corporations (the sole goal of profit is itself psychopathic) like the weapons makers who promote wars to make money, and who exploit spectacular acts of violence to frighten people into buying more guns.

          I oppose psychopaths of all types, and that is why I urge laws which keep guns out of the hand of psychopaths and limits on guns and ammo that would reduce mass murders. I oppose the gun makers and gun lobby which lies to prevent common sense gun laws, and i oppose the mlitary/industrial complex which profits from wars.

          Join us!

          • If you think those countries were overthrown by peaceful protests when the US government admits it backed regime change and spent billions including on covert violence, it reveals how uninformed you are regarding the most basic facts and explains why you harbor irrational fears and propose irrational measures to address them.

            To be clear, having arms serves as one of many checks and is mainly a deterrence not a means of overthrowing a government.

            You constantly parroting the point of comparing the US to Europe regarding violence proves you are either dim or dishonest because there is no comparing the US with its 300 million population, its drug and gang problem, its border with Mexico to Northwest Europe.

            You omit the rest of the world because it proves violence has nothing to do with access to weapons and is entirely driven by poverty and social disorder.

            Even in the US there are states that have more guns and less death. You throw out stats that contradict your conclusion because that’s what hysterical and dishonest people do.

          • You don’t know what you are talking about. The US had nothing to do with the toppling of the Eastern European regimes in 1989. Of the ten, only one had any violence in Romania. The rest were taken down by mass protests and strikes and Gorbechev’s decision not to send in Soviet troops to put down the protests.

            The US has spent billions on regime change in Ukraine and elsewhere but that has nothing to do with the non-violent revolutions in Eastern Europe, or the Phillipines.

            The Ukraine regime change the US funded was in fact violent and it did not liberate the people from an oppressive regime but put them under a fascist dictatorship.

            There are a few states with more guns and low gun murder rates but if you look at all the states, the ten states with the most guns have 40% higher gun murder rates than the 10 states with the least. Cherry picking exceptions and claiming they are the norm is a logical fallacy.

            ” Across states, more guns = more homicide

            Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997).

            After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

            Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92:1988-1993.

            4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

            Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

            Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.”

            This is peer-reviewed research by the world’ top scholars at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

            The few exceptions do not refute the overall picture.

            The same correlation hold for nations and households.


            you can find websites claiming these studies are flawed but none is peer–reviewed and so they have no critical weight.

            In comparing nations, due to the fact that violence is correlated with violence, the only logical comparisons, apple to apple, are to compare high income nations, and the US has over 90% higher gun murder rates.

            Many of these peer nations have poverty rates as high as the US, but their fewer guns and strict gun laws have reduced gun murder by 85-99.9%.

            For instance,the UK, with very few guns has a gun murder rate 99% lower than the US but it has just as much poverty. “How many people are in poverty in the UK?
            Almost a third of the UK population fell below the official poverty line at some point between 2010 and 2013, figures show. Around 19.3 million people – 33% – were in poverty at least once”

            There is violence focused in the poor neighborhoods but it is not gun violence and therefore it is much less lethal, as the overall murder rate in the UK is 80% lower than the US.

            The US poverty rate is about 15% : “. More than 45 million people, or 14.5 percent of all Americans, lived below the poverty line last year, the Census Bureau reported on Tuesday.”

            Belgium has a ;poverty rate higher than the us (15.1) but the gun murder rate is 0.3 compared to 3.6 in the US (90% lower); Spain has a poverty rate of 21%, but a gun murder rate of only 0.1, or nearly 99% lower than the US.

            The difference then is clearly not poverty but access to guns.

            Compare the data at these two links and you will see I am not cherrypicking but the correlations are consistent:


            Poverty breeds violence but easy access to guns breeds lethal violence.

          • US openly admits and the documentation to prove it exists regarding US regime change in Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia etc. Also the Arab Spring.

            There are MANY states that have more guns and less violence. This proves that despite the trend you cite, there are obviously factors behind it other than mere numbers of guns. Obviously.

            You keep repeating”peer reviewed” as if that automatically means it is true. Monsanto does that and they have Benn proven to falsify and buy off researchers.

            The fact that you can’t really explain why there are many states with more guns and less violence beyond the obvious socioeconomic factors is proof that the conclusions of these papers you are copying and pasting from are either flawed or intentionally misleading.

          • Once again, relying on peer-reviewed papers is CRAP, and at best becomes second-hand knowledge.

          • Gary Moeller | October 4, 2017 at 11:04 pm |

            You need to check your facts with the FBI database.

          • “In 2011, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 54.3 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members.”

            Total “gangland” and “youth gang” murders in 2011 were 715 out of 11,961, or about 6%.

            i find the facts and then report them.

          • Don’t most petty gangs all know each other? What is the criteria of gangland and youth gang vs drug dealers and small groups of local criminals that are essentially gangs?

            I know what the difference is… one definition let’s you twist reality, the other further proves that poverty, gangs, and drugs drive violence, not guns.

            Go figure.

          • That’s what I keep saying, but the dude is as old as water, and far less flexible. LOL

          • I oppose psychopaths, also, but screw the other “wealthy” nations; they aren’t us, and we do not need to be them. Like individuals within, the nation itself needs to be individual amongst the other nations — otherwise we might as well just be England, or France, or Iran, ro whatever.

            I do not agree with, like, or condone many (or ANY) of the policies our government has been pushing for decades now, and every day we’re becoming more and more NOT the USofA. You might be correct, too, in that the PTB, the ones that actually control our government, cannot wait for us to use these guns against them and unleash unholy Hell in return on us, but even if these guns AREN’T used against an over-reaching government, the fact that I can defend myself from a home invasion or a mugger is ALL the justification any person could need to be armed. If my large dogs don’t deter someone, a 12-gauge with solid slug sure as shit will!


      • I doubt you can tell me what the difference is between an assault rifle and an AR-15. Another dumb-ass liberal.

      • Once again, and this is for Archie, too, there is NO SUCH THING as an assault weapon — ALL weapons are for assault. Assault Weapon/assault rifle is a made up term to keep people scared. The weapon is a RIFLE, plain and simple.

  10. Having looked at photos from the scene of the Vegas shooting I failed to see any pools of blood on the hard surfaces or blood stained grass. Hmmm?

    That said Cartalucci and his ‘Land Destroyer ‘ web sight is one of the best for geo-political analysis and in informing the public what the powers behind the scenes are getting up to in all their subterfuge. Along with the Corbett Report one could consider themselves fairly well informed.

  11. unfortunately, possibly, but it is not all peasant apes; it is the thousands of professional isra3li sock puppets.

  12. box cutters! pretty queer article. throwing curveballs to activist post readers again.

  13. Hey, Dale. how about some of these facts?


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.