More guns equals more gun deaths

And lax legislation and elected representatives who run their elections using money from the gun industry make sure there are PLENTY of guns to go around. People who are running for office who have pro NRA positions and/or take gun money should be drummed out of politics.

The rate of gun ownership in a state predicts the rate of gun deaths in that state.

This works across countries as well.

Once again. Politicians who have voted in favor of NRA policies need to go.

Photo above from TIME

More like this

For starters, I've put a bunch of videos including a must see by Jon Steward and another must see by Melissa Harris-Perry HERE. Following is a veritable carnival of topical and timely posts, stories, and sites: Warning shot: Gun violence lands US lowest life expectancy among rich nations…
A man who was not even known as a gun collector amassed an arsenal that all experts agree included illegal fully automatic weapons. He carried out an act of carnage, alone and using only those weapons, that exceeded in casualty count almost every military battle fought in recent decades by American…
As I'm sure you wish you hadn't heard, there was another school shooting in Connecticut on Friday, one that was hellishly awful even by the standards of such things. The Internet, of course, instantly exploded with the depressingly predictable standard response. And it's hard to put into words just…
Let me start with this. People talking about Sandy Hook need to stop saying that "20 children between the ages of 5 and 10 were killed." That is technically true but misses an enormously important point and indicates that you really haven't thought this through. All of the children who were killed…

One of the first things I read online this morning after last night's tragedy was that the stocks of gun and ammo manufacturers rose today on the news of the terrorist event. Ain't capitalism just wonderful /s

By Doug Alder (not verified) on 02 Oct 2017 #permalink

HRC says banning silencers is the solution. hahaha

By WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot (not verified) on 02 Oct 2017 #permalink

There is no way that the NRA can defend themselves on this, nor all the politicians and industry flacks that gain from the continued ability of Joe Public to own ever more powerful weapons. Such weapons were not on the horizon when the original Second Amendment was conceived clearly a rethink is necessary and fast.

Although don't expect much from Trumpas we can see in a BBC story for the POTUS has been coerced (sold his soul to the devil) in some way by the NRA into pulling back from his earlier positions;

"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun," he wrote in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve.

Maybe if there was a large tax on gun purchase commensurate with the power of the weapon, range, calibre and rate of fire, and of the persons ability to pay so that money was set aside to at least provide adequate support for the victims. The NRA membership, corporations especially should also pay an annual fee commensurate to turnover for the same purpose.

In an era of increasing inequality, unexpected job losses with a spiral of social decline and environmental pollution causing impaired brain function it is only to be expected that more such loan wolf episodes will occur. as the deprived vent their anger and frustration upon those they perceive as having it all.

I am not condoning such behaviour but the interesting aspect of investigating the causes of a person's seemingly incomprehensible actions back and back to their roots is something explored in a new BBC TV drama 'Rellik' I have as yet only watched the first episode and found it as confusing as many critics - not sure if I will persist.

"There is no way that the NRA can defend themselves on this"

well here in the UK they make a pretty good fist of it

on BBC's Radio 4 "Today" program there was an America spouting the same old same old tired NRA canards

which essentially boiled down to "Guns make people safer"

"and all the evidence says so" - so there!!!

There is always the old "God guy with an Apache helicopter" argument.

There were still scores of injured waiting in hospital emergency departments when Sarah Hucabee Sanders said "now is not the time to talk about gun control."

Perhaps it's just me, but I'd have thought that after innumerable mass killings stemming from the profligate over-ownership of guns in the USA, and after such unconscionable events such as Sandy Hook and Orlanda, now is exactly the time when this discussion should be had.

Unless of course one is welded to the notion of maintaining the ravages of a rampant weapons industry and one does not actually want to influence public opinion at a time where the citizenry might be receptive to sense. Then one would postpone "this discussion" to a time down the track when the horror of Las Vegas has faded from people's minds and they're once again willing to swallow the gun lobby coolaid.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Oct 2017 #permalink

@ BarnardJ

this is a classic tactic though - and all US pro gun commentators on UK media spout that nonsense when pushed

the "too soon" argument

we see the same with AGW fuelled climate events too

"too soon"

they can then get back to the "what problem?" argument ASAP

Don't you just love the priests and priestesses of the demented right wing giving us cues as to what particular religious ritual we are in and what the appropriate actions are supposed to be? Ah, glorious authoritarianism!

Violence against language, reason, truth, and humanity are the underpinnings of the current conservative cult. Sarah Sanders is the daughter of the author of "Guns, God, and Gravy" ( aka, violence, superstition, and gulttony), who is also a pal of far right NRA racist nitwit Ted Nugent. Of course she would say that this is not the time to talk about gun violence.

Trump's cultist base worships colorful flags and dangerous weapons, and they are currently at the helm, so no, now is definitely not the right time to talk about gun violence.

But as long as the ruling class insanely feels that they have a God given right to kill and maim and torture, now is the best time to work to vote this obscene Russian aided obscenity of a government out of power , and replace it with a real government. If we can do that, IMO, the country has a real chance to survive for a while longer.

This morning, NPR had a segment on this, with a well-spoken young woman explaining that background checks and waiting periods have profound and measurable effects on the per capita gun homicide rate, and that contrary to what many gun owners insist upon, other types of homicides do NOT see concurrent increases when gun deaths drop.

I like this page.

By Bruce Jensen (not verified) on 03 Oct 2017 #permalink

@ #11:

We also have scads of data, evidence, and facts refuting the claim by the right's favorite "statistician", Lott, that "more guns means less crime." His crap has been debunked so often that it is amazing anyone still mentions him in a positive light, but that happened locally (West Michigan) this morning.

Of course, I saw two interviews with former White House head Nazi (he of faked credentials) Sebastian Gorka on national news -- he was presented as a "terrorism expert", so we can't expect much rational discussion on this.

A) How are we counting "gun deaths"? Does it include the old lady that kills the thug in her bedroom? Who is opposed to such "gun deaths"?
(To #5 post, why couldn't a chopper have knocked this shooter out? Where was Schwarzenegger? )

B)You guys are clearly right, this shooter was a law-abiding citizen who epitomizes America. /s

C) What does the secular Darwinist humanist care if stardust destroys stardust?

"How are we counting “gun deaths”? Does it include the old lady that kills the thug in her bedroom? "

Possibly, but we know that self defense of the kind you mention is incredibly rare -- so rare it is barely a blip on data.

"How are we counting “gun deaths”? Does it include the old lady that kills the thug in her bedroom? Who is opposed to such “gun deaths”?"

As the WP reported in 2015, for every single gun death in self-protection, there are two deaths due to accidents with guns, 34 criminal gun homicides, and 78 gun suicides. Counting that old lady or not doesn't do anything to the gun death statistics.

"What does the secular Darwinist humanist care if stardust destroys stardust?"

you are clearly an idiot.

Such weapons were not on the horizon when the original Second Amendment was conceived clearly a rethink is necessary and fast.

No, Lionel A. The people were at liberty to posess the state of the art which is timeless.

with a spiral of social decline and environmental pollution causing impaired brain function

Higher Fluoride In Urine Linked to Lower IQ In Children…

Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico

A Different Study Shows That Flame-Retardant Chemicals Also Make You Stupid

Dryer Sheets Make You Dumber, As Well

More guns are useless as Caleb Keeter of Josh Abbott Band worked out for himself:

As you might expect from the lead guitarist from a band from Lubbock, Texas, whose songs include “Wasn’t That Drunk” and “Texas Women, Tennessee Whiskey,” Keeter was a dedicated supporter of the right to bear arms; according to him, members of the band’s road crew are licensed to carry concealed weapons, and they travel with legal firearms on their tour bus. But as he wrote in a note posted to social media on Monday, none of that made a difference when the Vegas shooter opened fire.

Their guns, Keeter said, were “useless” against a man firing into a crowd from a distant hotel room. “We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.”

Keeter went on and did something almost unheard of in the world of mainstream country: He endorsed gun control.

Enough is enough.

Writing my parents and the love of my life a goodbye last night and a living will because I felt like I wasn’t going to live through the night was enough for me to realize that this is completely and totally out of hand. These rounds were just powerful enough that my crew guys just standing in close proximity of a victim shot by this f—ing coward received shrapnel wounds.

We need gun control RIGHT. NOW. My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn’t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it. We are unbelievably fortunate to not be among the number of victims killed or seriously wounded by this maniac.

Hmmm Gilbert. Not sure why you listed those links. The first one (all I've had time to look up) shows that the data came from areas of Mexico that did not have fluoridated water, so there is no precise idea of where the fluoride came from, and the authors themselves say that the findings need to be taken cautiously unless/until they can be replicated. The primary difference between this and other studies that claimed to show a link between IQ and fluoride is source: this one is in an actual journal, the others have been no better than the trash you find in Oprah's articles, or screeds by anti-GMO folks: no serious attempts at conducting a valid survey and sub-sophomore level statistical analysis of results.

How do you spell idiots? NRA

Powerful and informative graphic here via The Guardian Australia :…

1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days: America's gun crisis – in one chart

The attack at a country music festival in Las Vegas that left at least 58 people dead is the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history – but there were six other mass shootings in America this past week alone. No other developed nation comes close to the rate of gun violence in America. Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every adult. Data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive reveals a shocking human toll: there is a mass shooting – defined as four or more people shot in one incident, not including the shooter – every nine out of 10 days on average.

I reckon this is well worth scrolling down through and reflecting on.

Time - no, long overdue - that things changed, the power of the NRA holding people's lives hostage was destroyed and rationality prevailed allowing reasonable gun controls in the USA in my view.

While I was doing a sabbatical at Colorado State University this summer my host there called the NRA the 'biggest terrorist organization in the United States'. I agree with him. I found out that, in Fort Collins, which is a relatively violence-free city, it was lawful to carry a concealed firearm into the university. Seriously. When I told colleagues here in the Netherlands where I work they were gobsmacked. I am sure that the gun lobby/NRA had something to do with this insanity. All it takes is one disgruntled student or staff member suffering some kind of pathology to break down and to pull out his gun and begin firing and their is carnage. The graph Greg produced showing gun related deaths per country above proves my point. The USA stands alone in terms of deaths by gunshot. I don't know how anyone, even in the gun lobby, can defend this. But they do.

The fact is that among nations I have never seen such a frightened people as Americans. They live in fear. This summer I was doing field work in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains with a grad student surveying roadside cow parsnip/insect pollinator interactions and this student adamently refused to sample plants adjacent to private property. When I asked him why, he said that we risk getting shot at by irate landowners. The thought had never occurred to me over here in Europe where I regularly sample related hogweed/insect interactions along roads all of the time. But he was genuinely concerned, even though in reality we would have been done our field collections on public lands.

What strikes me is how scared Americans are of all kinds of threats. The fear that Saddan Hussein actually possessed WMD made many Amercians cower in fear and give cart blanche to Bush to do whatever it took to negate the threat which was actually non-existent. The same goes for North Korea. This standoff could easily be defused politically and diplomatically, but instead the mainstream media exaggerates the threat, playing into ther hands of Trump and the military industrial complex to do 'whatever it takes' to protect the country. And at home, as the grad student at CSU demonstrated, their is a constant fear of being attacked, robbed, assaulted. So to counter the threat the gun lobby and NRA argue that existing gun laws are absurdly too tough because they prevent ordinary citizens from being able to protect themselves. And the upward spiral of gun-related deaths continues unabated.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Oct 2017 #permalink

No, Lionel A. The people were at liberty to posess the state of the art ...

And there is the problem.

And WRT brain function and pollution I was thinking of tings far more subtle than fluoride in water. Even there remember the old adage 'the dose makes the poison' and low levels have proved helpful in preventing tooth decay but I suspect you will come back citing studies to disprove that and we could then divert to arguing about that. I am not about to play that game.

You know, I hope, as well as I do about the numerous chemicals humans have produced not previously known to nature, some with mind altering properties which can cause other biological problems which have an effect on how a human functions.

But there are also numerous chemicals found in nature that can have deleterious effects.

#17 Your response does not constitute an argument


#17 Your response does not constitute an argument

What about the #15 and #16 that you ignored?

That would make you vermin, I think.

No ron, my comment at #17 is not an argument. It is a statement of fact based on your comment (quoted in #17).

Idiot, guys grew up on some weak playgrounds if this is the best name calling you've got.

Neither #27 nor #28 constitute an argument against the accusation that the secular Darwinist humanist has no objective basis upon which to be offended by bodies of evolved stardust destroying other bodies of evolved stardust.

Hamsters eat their young, human women have their children torn apart in utero (by the thousands DAILY), and no outrage. How are human concert goers different?

Implying that morality and a sense of decency can only come from religion is one of the hidey-holes for people who are insecure about the world.
There is nothing at all fact-based that says the only paths to morality, empathy, love, decency, etc., have their origin in any faith ron. Your sense of butt hurt simply represents a lack of understanding -- whether imposed by nature or your own will.

The center of the discussion here, however, is the fact that an almost endless amount of data and a huge number of studies put the lie to the canard that 'more guns means less crime' and the consequences of the denial that that notion is fiction of the highest level brings. Try to keep up.


59 real people were murdered. You can take your stupid word-games and shove them up your arse.

dean #30:

Personally, I would never argue that more guns means less crime.

I would argue that the number of guns is not relevant in America. Because the legal purchase of guns cannot be banned in America, absent changing the 2nd amendment.

More guns means more deaths by gun - I admit that.

More cars means more deaths by car - I admit that.

More knives means more deaths by knives - I admit that.

More lawn mowers means more lost fingers by idiots who pick them up to use them as hedge clippers - I admit that.

We are not going to ban cars, knives or lawn mowers - and there is not even a constitution amendment preventing that.

We are certainly not going to ban guns, semiautomatic or otherwise, because we actually have the 2nd amendment to prevent such laws.

So we need to figure out some other way to stop or lessen these types of crimes.

That is the reality of living in America.

And again rickA, you demonstrate that you don't have a clue.

#31 "real people" seems to be a word game when discounting abortion.

Continue with your righteous indignation, based on statistics, even if the numbers can be multiplied many times over for another national atrocity you choose to ignore.

Ron, if you don't understand the statistics just say so. You can get help.

If you think they are wrong or fake because you don't like what they say, you can't be helped.

Lionel A (#3): There is no way that the NRA can defend themselves on this, nor all the politicians and industry flacks that gain from the continued ability of Joe Public to own ever more powerful weapons.

You refer here to defending itself by presenting facts and by dealing in logical conclusions. It's true the NRA cannot win that way. But by sticking to false but persuasive talking points which appeal to the "low-information voter," it may well be able to. It has always worked in the past.

We have the facts and statistics on our side, but those facts and statistics don't lend themselves to bumper-sticker-style presentation. To beat the NRA we have to beat it at the rhetorical game.

By Christopher Winter (not verified) on 04 Oct 2017 #permalink

> in Fort Collins, which is a relatively violence-free city, it was lawful to carry a concealed firearm into the university.

How can it be violence free when it has all those guns? Didn't people there read the chart?

#37 just wondering if its lawful to carry around a big sword or knife, concealed or unconcealed in this uni. Cant bloody imagine someone taking a big sword to school, but cant imagine someone taking a gun to school either. Do they hunt animals in the playground at recess?

@29. ron :

Hamsters eat their young, human women have their children torn apart in utero (by the thousands DAILY), and no outrage. How are human concert goers different?

Easy. The word there is human i.e. the concert goers murdered here are actual living breathing human beings and individuals.

The hamsters are NOT human species~wise and what is being aborted by women (of all ages up to menopause FWIW) is NOT a "child" but instead a fetus or an embryo.

It also seems like you are going wa-aay off-topic here which is rude and unhelpful even trollish. (An observation not an insult btw.)

I'll bring it right to the point of the topic. Abortion advocates, with their faux outrage regarding the loss of life in LV,, stand on the "Constitutional Protection" of abortion as found by a few judges in Roe v Wade.

Even though the LV shooter legally acquired his weapons, he committed a heinous crime (and conspiracy). That individual can no longer be punished by civil government, but people advocate to separate law-abiding people from their property rights, despite the explicit enumeration of various laws in documents from centuries past.

It's entirely hypocritical to say that a baby is not a person, that wasn't the logic of Roe and all of science refutes that notion (embryology/biology). The logic of Roe is that a woman owns her own body and is autonomous over it. The 2nd Amendment says that a person has ownership of self and can defend self with certain means. Embracing Roe and dismissing 2A is proof of ignorance on both issues (which is consistent in a twisted way).

It is simply the most relevant juxtaposition and reason, logic, science etc fall on the pro-innocent side of each argument.

In public health world I am used wanting better studies of gun effects, but our government won't fund them, and it's hard to collect good data because of privacy issues. What we want people and billboards to be saying clearly is that you may think gun ownership makes you safer, but except for a few people, that is false. It may make you feel safer but it's a danger - people in the US do not seem to understand that.
Common observation 2 is that high profile mass killings are what get people talking allot, but they are actually a tiny part of the deaths.
We need epidemiologists all over this problem, cause we must do better, for real, not just sounds good.

" all of science refutes that notion (embryology/biology)"

Ron, don't make assertions about things you don't understand.

rork #43:

If you want to study gun safety and effects, you can - but you cannot use Federal money to do that. Personally, I would be in favor of allowing grants to study gun safety and effects - but that is just one voter. I think the ban on gun safety studies is silly - especially given some of what we do fund (the speed of ketchup flow for example).

I don't think the appeal to the rational mind arguments are going to work well. There are people who like guns, for a variety of reasons and there are people who do not like guns, for a variety of reasons. Those who like them do not believe they will accidentally shoot a family member or themselves, but do worry about a home invasion or whatever. So the fact that more guns is more unsafe is not going to stop them from buying guns.

There are already 300 millions guns in this country - which is one for every person in the country. So even if you could magically ban the manufacture and sale of guns going forward (which I do not think will ever happen), you will never stop guns from being widely available. You can 3D print a gun and manufacture one metal part with computer controlled machinery which can be rented by the hour, and make your own gun.

So the danger of mass murder using guns will always be with us and it is an intractable problem.

is it my name or my email?

Greg, if you are moderating this, tell me why I can't get my comments posted.

...human women have their children torn apart in utero (by the thousands DAILY)

As opposed to the inhuman women, you know those lizard people is it Ron.

How about the multiple thousand of flushed out failed zygotes every day that nobody even knew about? That must give you nightmares ron now that I have informed you of such.

So the danger of mass murder using guns will always be with us and it is an intractable problem.

The majority of mass shootings over recent years have been carried out with semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines. This paramilitary combination - with no civilian application - is particularly good for killing lots of people very quickly.

So it should be banned.

That's not a a ban on all guns or even most guns. So it's very hard to see how it could be 'unconstitutional'.

Quite why you refuse to see the obvious wisdom in banning paramilitary-type weapons as an urgent matter of public safety is mystifying.

BBD #48:

It is not the wisdom I question - it is whether the 2nd amendment will permit such a ban.

The Supreme Court upheld a ban on a type of gun in 1939 - the sawed off shotgun.

Here is a link:

If you read this, you will see that the logic was that the court said "Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Also the case states - "And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

If a weapon is ordinary military equipment, it is an arm, because it is in common use. Since sawed off shotguns were not ordinary military equipment (at the time), they were not in ordinary use, so they are not considered an arm.

Paramilitary-type weapons are ordinary military equipment, they are in common use, so they are considered "arms". At least according to the logic of Miller (i.e. the militia bring their own guns).

Anyway - whether it is wise to ban something doesn't mean the courts will find that such a ban will stand. I rather doubt that the courts would find semi-automatic weapons could be banned, at least under Miller and Heller.

That is why I point out that to ban these types of guns will require changing the 2nd amendment.

I hope that de-mystifies it for you.

I understand that restricting the sale of ammunition would be easier as there are fewer manufacturers. Would it be acceptable as regards the second amendment, which I gather was written by demi-gods?

I agree with Jeff that the level of paranoia emanating from the US is amazing. Certainly, there are things to be greatly concerned about, especially with the current administration, but the fear of The Other seems to be greatly exaggerated.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 05 Oct 2017 #permalink

Greg, zebr is really zebra. Is zebra banned for some reason? Really, this is ridiculous.

zebr #54:

I feel your pain.

Why not say what you want as zebr, until this gets fixed?

I would love to hear your thoughts on this issue.

Richard Simons #53:

Here is how that logic would work in court.

Say you banned all ammo. That would mean you could buy a gun but not buy ammo for it. That would probably be found to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, because it renders your arm useless.

Say you banned just armor piercing bullets. You could still buy other ammo - so that probably wouldn't render your gun useless - so it would probably not be found to infringe on your 2nd amendment right.

These are all just personal opinions of course.

Are armor piercing bullets in ordinary use (say in the military) - I don't know - so the courts could surprise me. But based on my reading of the caselaw, I think as long as you can buy ammo which is in ordinary use - you can ban specialty type stuff.

Same logic holds for silencers, bump stocks and so forth. Are they ordinary issue for the average soldier? I don't think so, so they can be banned. Again, I am not an expert on military issued equipment, so I could be wrong.

The big question is does the regulation render the gun useless. In Heller, the court found that the regulations at issue did render the gun worthless for the purpose of home protection. Because by the time you got the weapon, unlocked it, went to a different room, got the ammo out of its locked location and loaded the weapon - you could be dead. So every rule, regulation and law will be measured by how useless it renders a purpose of the gun (say to fight off a home invasion). Also, ala Miller, I think another factor is whether the weapon is in fairly widespread use at the time. That is why we are not limited today to muskets. If ray guns become common issue in the military, than ray guns will be an "arm" and we will have the right to keep and bear them (in my opinion).

The really scary thing about Miller is that automatic weapons are common issue in the military and I think grenades are also. Think about that and apply the Miller logic to those "arms". It could be worse.


Really, there are no more citizens' militias. We've been through this. The 2nd A is antiquated, irrelevant crap that needs deleting. What it isn't is a justification of any kind for the sale of paramilitary weapons to the general public, especially given the fact that they are the preferred choice of mass murderers.

Right-wing insanity and the greed of vested interest don't justify the sale of paramilitary arms to civilians.

Let's not forget that when the 2ndA was written, all longarms were pretty much the same - there wasn't a meaningful technical distinction between a 'military' muzzle-loading flintlock musket and a 'civilian' one.

Especially not in terms of lethality. This is at the heart of what I mean when I say that the 2nd A is an anachronism that needs to be got rid of for the greater good of US citizens.

It's such a shame that corporate greed and right wing insanity are preventing this from happening.

BBD #58:

I hate to disagree with you (just kidding) - but every male in the USA between the ages of 18 and 45 (going off memory here) is automatically in the unorganized militia. I bet zebra could give you the statute cite. There is the organized militia (the national guard) and the unorganized miltia (all the males of a certain age range - pretty sexist - maybe they changed that to every person of a certain age range).

In order to be enforced, a law has to be constitutional, or the courts will throw it out. If the 2nd amendment is antiquated and if it can be deleted than ok. But until then, any law has to pass muster according to the 2nd amendment.

The logic of the original amendment still stands. If America is invaded by a hostile force, and the government says everybody grab your guns and resist - the people are allowed to keep and bear arms just for such an instance. That is really what the 2nd amendment is all about.

Your disdain doesn't change that.

Only the Supreme Court can change that interpretation.

Only the Congress and 3/4 of the states can change the amendment.

It won't be easy - much like getting rid of free speech or the right against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant.

BBD #59 says "It’s such a shame that corporate greed and right wing insanity are preventing this from happening."

You say potato and I say patato.

I think it is Congress and the courts which are preventing this from happening - just as the founding fathers wanted.

but every male in the USA between the ages of 18 and 45 (going off memory here) is automatically in the unorganized militia

Close. This group, able bodied men 17 to 45 years of age, specifies the category of men who could be called to serve in the military in time of crisis. Unless they are pressed into service they are not (except in the minds of "wanna bes") a real military group. You'll find more information by looking for "reserve militia".

Greg, I don't see Chicago represented in the Mother Jones plot. Chicogo has very strict gun laws and maximal gun deaths.

{couldn't comment there, as requested, because I don't have an account?}


And, once again, it seems to require a login.

It should be easy to comment now.

Lionel, it's possible to comment now without WordPress.


By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Oct 2017 #permalink

Thanks Greg.

RickA #60 - while you are correct that all able-bodied males and females between 17 and 45 are part of the unorganized militia of the USA you are not giving the 2nd Amendment a full reading. The fact that someone is part of a militia does NOT per the 2nd Amendment give them the right to bear arms; the 2nd Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia." In my world 'unorganized' does not equal 'well-regulated.'

Nice try though :)

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

By Kevin ONeill (not verified) on 07 Oct 2017 #permalink

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not only a militia! I find it strange that there are only comments here that buy into the gun control = safety falsie. Only comments vilifying the NRA. This must be a government controlled site (like most). The 2nd amendment was written by patriots who knew the danger of a corrupt government and gave it's citizens the RIGHT to bear arms (that should be equal to that of the rouge gov't.) Most of these "mass shooting events" and supposed terrorist attacks are staged to promote loss of our freedoms ( the"patriot" act, gun control etc) Go ahead and believe the official mass media lies. Get all emotional and turn off your mind, be a good obedient sheep.The NWO needs a disarmed populace."To conquer a nation First disarm it's citizens" Adolf Hitler. I bet this comment won't be or stay posted. (P.S. I do not plan to commit suicide)

" Most of these “mass shooting events” and supposed terrorist attacks are staged to promote loss of our freedoms "

You are an idiot.

Is it too soon to credit the former First Lady of Arkansas with her state's stellar performance? With 60% of its citizens owning guns, it leads the lower 48,

Dean.....what an intelligent articulate "argument".
Like labeling some one a conspiracy theorist, truther (isn't it strange that truth has a negative connotation nowadays?) an idiot (is that the best you can do?) or any similar disparaging generalization is any sort of reasoning. ...Go ahead and believe the official cover stories fed to the sheep in the totally controlled mass media. Sorry about using 3 and 4 syllable words dean, maybe you can find a smart person to explain them to you. Have a nice day (ignorance is bliss?)

By John Keen (not verified) on 26 Oct 2017 #permalink