Home / Be The Change / Mass Shooting Myth — U.S. Homicide Rate Hits 51-year Low as Gun Ownership Increased 141%

Mass Shooting Myth — U.S. Homicide Rate Hits 51-year Low as Gun Ownership Increased 141%

In the wake of the Orlando nightclub massacre, politicians have attempted to use the tragedy as means of garnering public support for increased gun control measures. Four pieces of knee-jerk gun control legislation were defeated in Congress yesterday, but the debate surrounding gun rights continues unabated.

The new narrative is that “mass shootings,” defined by the FBI as 3 or more people killed in one incident, are at epidemic level and thus require society to increase restrictions on gun ownership as a means of saving lives and lowering the U.S. homicide rate.

However, this narrative flies in the face of reality as the homicide rate in the U.S. is actually at a 51-year low, according to FBI data. The homicide rate in the U.S. for 2014, the most recent year available, was 4.5 per 100,000. The 2014 total is part of a long downward trend and is the lowest homicide rate recorded since 1963 when the rate was 4.6 per 100,000. The last time the homicide rate in the U.S. was lower than it is now was in 1957 when the total homicide rate was 4.0 per 100,000.


Surprisingly, most Americans are completely unaware of this information, as the media and politicians in the U.S. consistently work to create a circus-like atmosphere surrounding firearms as a means of controlling the fear-based narrative of a public need for additional gun restrictions.

Contrary to what the public has been led to believe; as the homicide rate in the U.S. has fallen to a 51-year low, gun ownership has increased drastically.

READ MORE:  Report: FBI Visiting Gun Shops to Investigate “People Talking About Big Government”

According to a report by the Mises Institute:

Over a recent 20 year period, the number of new guns in the US that were either manufactured in the US or imported into the US increased 141 percent from 6.6 million new guns in 1994 to 16 million in 2013. That means a gross total of 132 million new guns were added into the US population over that time period.


However one wants to rationalize this information there is one overarching theme – increased access to firearms has not led to a more violent society in the U.S. – and according to the FBI’s data, has actually correlated with a markedly less violent society as indicated by the lowest homicide rate in the past 50 years.

Since the data is so convincingly clear, gun control advocates have now resorted to defining “mass shootings” as a special type of murder, and using the emotion of tragedies like Orlando, as an excuse for further regulate firearms in hopes that peoples’ knee-jerk reactions will overcome data and logic.

“Yes, homicide rates have been going down,” they admit, “but mass shootings are now an epidemic!”

This argument fails to acknowledge how absurd it is to attempt to imply that homicides are going up because of mass shootings when there are 49 percent fewer homicides compared to twenty years ago.

This leads us to an interesting question; if the actual goal is to decrease homicides in the U.S., then why would we attempt to abolish the conditions that have strongly correlated with decreasing homicide rates (increased gun ownership) in an attempt to rid a specific variety of homicide that accounts for a very small percentage of the overall homicides in the U.S.?

READ MORE:  Texas Cops Take Man's Camera, Admit to Trying to Delete the Footage of the Unlawful Arrest

Regardless of Obama’s claims that “no one wants to take your guns,” there is most certainly an elite-driven agenda that is attempting to slowly regulate guns out of the American public society. The push to further regulate guns isn’t simply about decreasing homicides, as the data clearly reveals an ongoing trend of decreasing homicide rates, which begs the question; if the motive isn’t to decrease homicides, then what is the actual intent of pushing for increased gun control measure?

“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson

  • Kevin Blackman

    Or It could be that the population in the US has had a 60% increase since 1963. You have to take into account all of the other variables in the equation. 3 people dead is still 3 people dead no matter what year you are talking about. Approximately 14,295 deaths in 2014 is still more than 8,705 deaths in 1963. Per capita rates are a nice way to hide the truth. “Surprisingly, most Americans are completely unaware of this information” 🙂

    • anna miller

      “Or It could be that the population in the US has had a 60% increase since 1963”
      How do you figure that? Is this the new Common Core math?
      – Per capita is Latin “for each person” or “per person”
      You simply cannot dismiss the huge difference of a US population in 1963 of 189 million people. with the current US population of 324 million people.
      Population of U.S. in 2016: 324,118,787 million people and 14,295 homicides.
      Population of U.S. in 1963: 189 million and 8,705 homicides. Clearly the homicide rate has dropped to those similar 1963 and if current trends continue will continue to drop.
      No let us allow the NWO globalists to strip protection rights away from law-abiding citizens, and only allow the militarized police force and thugs to carry guns. And if you think these false-flag staged “lone killer” shootings are real, then you need to lay off corporate news outlets.And in case you didn’t know corporate news is dying due
      to the loss of viewers. That’s another hopeful trend that can’t be denied.

      • LapuLapu

        handguns are a necessity for self defense. the problem arises with assault weapons. we want crazies to not be able to kill as many people as they can through legally bought guns. Surely there is some middle ground between gun nuts and gun grabbers.

        • anna miller

          And that “middle ground” is the weak spot in which the “gun grabbers” will gain their foothold. The globalists aim to strip protection away from law-abiding citizens, and they are quite devious, presenting themselves as
          good guys who want to protect the public. Do you see the government aiming to protect the public?
          People think so compartmentally. And also you base your entire premise on the assumption that these “lone killer” events are real. And not covert attempts to disarm the US populace in the first place.

          • john robel

            Anna, I am in love. You have a beautiful mind. MOLON LABE

          • anna miller

            These trolls are everywhere! At least they have learned to modify their tactics, before it was head-on barage of insults, such as: get out of your parent’s basement, or did you take your pills. They are so easy to spot, and so easy to disseminate. The truth trumps lies & BS every time.
            Thanks and peace to your brother!

        • john robel

          There are NO “assault weapons” in civilian hands. The term was manufactured by the Brady/Clintonista type gun grabbers. The federal gov.’s definition is “CAPABLE OF SELECTIVE FIRE”. AR’S are SEMI AUTO, NOT FULL AUTO, and most are of a CLOSED BOLT DESIGN and are PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF FULL AUTO CONVERSION. In some states with a very expensive license, citizens can own machine guns. And the last time I looked into it, the only crime ever committed by a type 3 licensee was by a COP. The founders knew full well about “assault weapons”. The Brown Bess musket was the “ASSAULT WEAPON” OF THE DAY. The 2nd doesn’t state “the right to keep and bear MUSKETS”, it specifically states ARMS. That INCLUDES CANNONS AND MACHINE GUNS. ALL GUN “CONTROL” LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL We define GUNCONTROL— 3 SHOTS, ONE HOLE.

          • Donna4565

            I profit about 6.000-8.000 dollars every month working online. For anyone looking to do basic computer-based work for 2h-5h daily from your home and get valuable paycheck for doing it… Try this job http://self70.com


          • KCK

            You’re Right John. The founders knew that technology was rising quickly in the arms department. People only think about muskets in those days. Well, the first machine gun was the Defense Gun, invented by James Puckle in England in 1718. It was a single barrel flintlock gun with multiple revolving chambers. It was operated by a hand crank. The intended use was repelling boarders on ships. The Puckle gun was not used very widely and failed commercially. But, it goes to show that they DID have things such as machine guns during the time the 2nd Amendment was written.

        • MrApple

          You realize that shotguns, knives, blunt objects, and fists & feet are used to kill people more than so-called “assault weapons”. Should those be banned too?

        • Steven Allred

          The actual problem arises with gun control advocates. If we want crazies not to be able to kill as many people as they can, that means isolating them from the general populous until such time that they are no longer a threat. That’s it. And no, there is no “middle ground” on civil rights. It’s gun owners — and only gun owners — that have been giving and giving and getting absolutely nothing in return. Nothing but burning hate, disgusting vitriol, death threats, felonious wishes of harm on them and theirs, and demonstrably false accusations of guilt for literally every single solitary crime committed using a gun.

          No, we’re absolutely done “compromising.”

          • KCK

            AMEN! I told this one gun grabbing woman who is terrified of guns: “Don’t worry. If I were around and you were in trouble, I’d keep my gun to myself so it wouldn’t scare you.” She got SO P.O.’d! She said that was a VERY mean thing to say! I told her she couldn’t have it both ways.

      • Tony Crimson Chin

        Who are these “globalists?” Just because alex jonesy says it, it must be the truth. He has taken kernels of truth and spun serious fiction that sucks people into that vortex of #controlledoppositon. Yes, Operation Northwoods was a real plan. No, the Orlando attack was not a false flag. Unless, by false flag, you mean the government went lax in letting in millions of immigrants that don’t share a love of the constitution. By calling every new tragedy a conspiracy, it raises the signal-to-noise ratio of everyone’s bullshit detector. (dis)infowars.com shouldn’t be above skepticism just because they throw out morsels from the feast of information being kept from the public at large.

        • anna miller

          Alex Jones is a shill. Yes he gives some good info, but bottom-line he is losing viewership due to his avoidance of major issues. And how do you know Swami, if Orlando was real? There are major factors in which you obviously have not discovered. search again.

          • Tony Crimson Chin

            Which major issues are you referring to? I never waste time going through his site. Back to my original premise, who are these faceless “globalists?” What do they all have in common?

          • anna miller

            Read the book, “The Controllers” by Ed Whitney. He takes you through the history since 1913, through each presidential adminstration and the move toward world government. The book is heavily sourced. It started with the Rothschild push to create their private bank in the United States like the one they created in England, through fraud by the way This bank is known as the Federal Reserve, est. in 1913,”lending” fiat money to the US gov. w/o the full payoff amount included mind you, thereby keeping the system of perpetual debt in place, and also charging interest on the debt. Then the globalist bankers got their wish, they began to create “round table” organizations such as the Councel of Foreign Relations (CFR) the Bilderburg group, the Trilateral Commission, and others, the CIA was greatly expanded, and so were the global connected banks such as the World Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and International Monetary Fund. These people have made public comments and have written books of their desire for world government, with them at the helm of course. The United Nations is a front for world government created and funded by Rothschilds/Rockefellers. The UN has what are known as “peace-keeping troops. The ONLY president that we had since 1913. to stand up to these psychopaths, was John F. Kennedy, and so they killed him. The so-called investigation nonsense that officially addressed JFK’s evil murder was known as the Warren Commission. It was stacked with CIA and members of the Counsel of Foreign Relations. JFK wanted to accomplish at least 4 major goals. And he had already signed the Executive Orders to do so. End the Federal Reserve, and go back to gov issued monies, bring home ALL military in Viet Nam within 2 years, JFK wanted to break up the CIA, which the a-hole Truman had greatly expanded, (I think Truman was an egotistical narcissist) although Truman later regretted giving the CIA such an enormous boost. Kennedy recognized the evil intent of the CIA and fired big-wig and major psychopath Allen Dulles (CFR), after the Bay of Pigs event. Kennedy also wanted to stop Israel from continuing their build-up of nuclear weapons.
            From the perspective of the psychopathic globalists, JFK had to go. And yes, it was the Zionist Jews who started all this shite.

      • Kevin Blackman

        It’s called dilution. There are multiple factors at play. You cannot assume that the number of murderers will increase linear to the population increase. You assume that the rate of homicides is only affected by the influx of guns in the last few decades, but you fail to recognize education, population increase, family values, technologies. Just as a legal gun owner can deter a criminal, so can a surveillance camera. Of course the ‘rate’ may be accurate but if you are going to talk about the factors relating to that rate you have to mention ALL of them.

        • independent thinker

          ” You cannot assume that the number of murderers will increase linear to the population increase.”
          But you obviously ASSume the number cannot increase in a linear manner. You also give NO alternative method of comparing murders in the past to murders today.

        • Steven Allred

          It’s actually called getting back into mathematical reality. You constantly mention “multiple factors at play”, but you never elaborate on any of the actual effects of any of them. Oh, and you can, in fact, assume a linear increase in total homicide numbers with a linear increase in population, too. More people = more murders, period, particularly as it relates to population density. It’s not that hard to understand. And no, surveillance cameras don’t deter criminals, either.

          • Kevin Blackman

            Population increase happens when people stop dying so quickly. You cannot assume that the longer you live the more likely it is that you will commit a murder. That is just stupid. In fact if you are going to say. “But if they have more kids”…. I’d like to refer you to the baby boomer generation. The average number of children per household has decreased since the 60’s and has been pretty constant for the past 30 years. Murder is not a predisposed genetic trait.

          • Steven Allred

            Nowhere did I make any of those irrelevant (non)arguments. At all. No one else did, either, for that matter.

            Also, no, criminals are not even deterred by cameras. All the camera does is record the crime for (hopefully) the future prosecution of the crime. That’s it.

        • anna miller

          ” You cannot assume that the number of murderers will increase linear to the population increase.”
          I made no assumption.
          “You assume that the rate of homicides is only affected by the influx of guns in the last few decades,”
          Again, I made no assumption.
          Apparently what you assume is that all people have or even want surveillance cameras. I view surveillance cameras as big brother.
          “Of course the ‘rate’ may be accurate.”
          That was the entire point of the article and the only intelligent part of your comment. All your other talking points are bullshite you picked up from the controllers who aim to stip our constitutional right for self-protection against tyranny and thugs.

          • Kevin Blackman

            The point I was trying to make is that you cannot take two statistics that are completely separate from each other and attempt to make come correlation. I don’t want guns to go away. I’m not some liberal hippy that wants to remove the 2nd amendment. Numbers and statistics is my job, literally. My argument is with the article and how it is written. The “You” in my previous statements was referring to the article, or You in fact if you believe the article.

          • anna miller

            “The point I was trying to make is that you cannot take two statistics that are completely separate from each other.”
            Again your argument is based on obvious flawed logic.
            In comparing the population numbers of 2016, with the population of 1963, one finds through computation of percentages, that we are now comparable to homicide rate ….of levels in 1963.
            And one other thing, according to the NYT, More than 60 percent of people in this country who die from guns, now die by suicide. A large percentage of the suicides are returning armed services veterans. Victims of ongoing illegal totally unecessary wars to serve the bankers and war machine profit margin. It is unfortunate and insane. But studies show that if a person is determined to kill themselves, they will find a way. The argument that due to thugs killing thugs, and innocent people, most likely unarmed innocent people, unfortunate suicides, and accidents caused by the stupidity of the unconscious, are viable cause for stripping the second amendment of the constitution is illogical. It is an argument based on pure emotion. That is why corporate media hypes up the emotional play to absurd levels. That is why many women are anti-gun. Those same women who look toward men for protection. Life is not perfect, there will always be misfortune in this world. The aware & alert understand that a treasonous government will stoop to false flags to push an agenda. The answer would be to throw off the central banks and place controls on the war machine. The answer is not to strip law-abiding citizens of their rights to protect themselves. That is what the One World Government desires, to create a global populace that is disarmed and at the mercy of the 1% and their militarized police whom currently rule.
            And by the way, I don’t think you make your living in numbers and statistics. Although perhaps you teach common core math, formulation by consensus.

          • Kevin Blackman

            My job title is Data Analyst. I have to look at all of the data to come to a conclusion. But, you still don’t get it, I’m not arguing the stats of either of these two separate pieces of data. Yes, the death rate is the same as it was back then. So what? That has NOTHING to do with gun purchases, which the article also doesn’t say if those were private gun purchases or of they were for law enforcement or security agencies.
            You know, the death rate of infants has decrease significantly since the 1960’s, Guns must be protecting our little babies too.

            I’m also against common core math BTW.

          • anna miller

            “Yes, the death rate is the same as it was back then. So what?”
            The entire point of the article was to demonstrate that homicide rates have significantly dropped. Therefore the gun grab hype is a

            social engineering ploy to induce fear based on false manipulations.

            “That has NOTHING to do with gun purchases, which the article also doesn’t say if those were private gun purchases or if they were for law enforcement or security agencies.”
            Do you want to know how many guns and armaments are stored in your county under your local police force?

            The following database has been made available by the Law Enforcement Support Office of the Defense Logistics Agency and
            shows armaments and equipment obtained by local law enforcement officials from the U.S. Military and Department of Homeland Security.

            Simply choose your State and your County and you’ll have complete
            access to see how well militarized your local and county police
            departments are.


        • westoast

          In a nutshell. (if there is room in there) if all guns were banned in 1963 you would be yelling from the rooftops that the murder rate has fallen because of it. Instead you are playing with numbers to try and fool people.
          If it weren’t for the gun-free zone murder capitals run by Democrats the murder rate would be even more impressively minute.

          • Lisa Millar

            Without my gun and as a female, what am I suppose to do? Learn how to swing a bat or carry a knife? How bout if I learn to make a molotov cocktail, start a quick fire, etc, etc. Having a guy is the best thing to have to even out the score.

          • RAGNAROK

            Exactly what my wife says.. of course having a man with a sidearm usually ups the survivability factor by a few points too.
            Good luck to you and yours.

          • GregBrady

            Don’t you mean having a “gun” not a “guy”? 😉

    • gerald Hughes

      We are tired of talking to you liberal dem bloodsucking parasite enabling, compost heaps.
      The 2nd Amendment was put into guarantee, the others
      Trifle with thm at you own considerable peril

    • Blogengeezer

      So… per capita, ‘Progressive’ Venezuela is safer than ever? Disarmed Venezuelans are safer than before Hugo Chavez utopian plans for wealth redistribution?

    • westoast

      Per capita is per capita.
      When per capita deaths drop that means as a whole society is safer. Does that make sense to you?
      It’s hiding nothing. Per capita less people are dying despite more guns.

      • Kevin Blackman

        “In 2013, 33,636 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States, accounting for 17.4% of all injury deaths in that year. The age-adjusted death rate from firearm injuries (all intents) did not change significantly in 2013 from 2012. The two major component causes of firearm injury deaths in 2013 were suicide (63.0%) and homicide (33.3%). The age-adjusted death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.3%, from 3.8 in 2012 to 3.6 in 2013. The rate for firearm suicide did not change significantly.
        ” – From the CDC website.

        These are real statistics, written as they should be. The per capita rate just means that the murders can’t kill fast enough to keep up with the population increase. That is not safer in my mind.

        • westoast

          Okay, so there are more guns, more households with guns, and less deaths per capita. That doesn’t mean that the murderers can’t keep up. It means that the good guys have way more guns than the bad guys.

          • Kevin Blackman

            Where in the article does it say that these “manufactured in the US or imported guns” are being sold to private citizens? Please quote the line. What percentage of these “manufactured in the US or imported guns” are being sold to Law enforcement agencies or private security firms?

          • westoast

            This article does not contain every fact regarding gun ownership. But it does include many facts that are inconvenient to the anti-gun argument.
            Gun ownership is rising. Maybe not as fast the population, but who would expect that to be the case?
            More Americans now own guns than ever before in our history, and gun murder rates are trending down despite the mass murders committed in gun-free zones and Democrat run cities with backward thinking anti-gun legislation being the rule.

          • Kevin Blackman

            “But it does include many facts that are inconvenient to the anti-gun argument.” AKA: The article is biased.

            One statistic I would like to see is how many private citizens have prevented a crime or death with a gun. I’ve seen one article from Huffington post but it too was biased because it correlated only the death of the criminal vs the deaths of the victims and that is not always the case. You can use a gun for protection and NOT kill someone.

            I’m not going to go into the school Gun-Free Zone debate as I firmly believe the original intent was to prevent CHILDREN from bringing guns to school, not responsible adult gun owners, because how many parents walk around patrolling their child’s school during the day? But I’d be all for teachers with a small concealed handgun.

          • westoast

            “But it does include many facts that are inconvenient to the anti-gun argument.” AKA: The article is biased.
            LMFAO!!! Do statistics that compare peoples fear of Sharks to fear of Guppies contain bias if it shows that more people are afraid of Sharks?
            No, it reflects the actual reasons for statistics. To get to the truth.

          • Steven Allred

            “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence”


            Key Findings:

            1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

            2. Defensive uses of guns are common: “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

            3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:

            “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

            4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results: “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

            5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime: “There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

            6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime: “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

            7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides: “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

  • Al Morris

    Total bs article, trying to prove correlation equal causation. There is a much stronger case that legalized abortion has contributed to the drop in crime and murder. 18 years after abortion was legalized, crime rates took a dive. The age an offender starts their serious criminal activity is usually 18. The correlation was proved on a state by state basis, that the states that legalized first also saw effect 18 years later. The states that legalized later saw the same exact effect 18 years after they legalized abortion. Unwanted children often times grow up to be gang members.
    Meanwhile, statistics also show states with easy to access gun laws have higher murder and shooting rates than states that have tighter restrictions on guns

  • MichaelLust

    Interesting to note the trends in the latest 10 year period. Gun sales began a steady rise in 2003. Homicides began a steady fall in 2006. Doesn’t prove causation, of course, but a decade of stats and trends are not just a snapshot, either.

    • independent thinker

      True it does not prove causation but it does disprove the anti’s position that more guns means more crime.

  • gerald Hughes

    Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Fidel Catro, Hugo Chavez, Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il Jong, Hirohito, Josef Tito and Josef Stalin all agreed with the liberal dem bloodsuckers,they need ed universal registration for the safety of the public
    They all got it.
    With in 3 years they all confiscated all weapons.
    With in a year after that, they had all passed laws that mad it illegal to say nasty things about the government. This group was responsible for the death of 22 million people, generally their own citizens.
    Australia, Canada, England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Greece, Germany, Spain , Portugal, Italy, all confiscated all weapons
    In an amazing coincidence, all of them almost immediately passed laws, that made it illegal to say nasty things about the government,..
    Liberal dem bloodsuckers sit down, shut up.
    Taking our weapons will be expensive and hard on your health.

    • anna miller

      The communists killed many more than 22 million. The official number of innocent Russians starved, tortured to death, died in gulags, or outright murdered is 20 million.
      Many scholars state as high as 40 million. In the Chinese communist revolution, the number killed is 60 million.

      • gerald Hughes

        22 million is enough, if that number does not impress the liberal dem bloodsucking scumbags, doubling or tripling it, won’t either
        Quit talkint to the liberal scum about this, we know what they want, we know that there is only one answer for the liberal scum

        • anna miller

          It is like Aldous Huxley, a representative of the Controllers said, the mind-controlled will fight for their own enslavement.

          • gerald Hughes

            We all know at this point, we can no longer coexist with the liberal compost heaps.
            We must physically, separate ourselves from them, or prepare to conduct the 2nd American Civil War.
            I would point out that when Imperial Rome had an ongoing situation with another city state called Carthage, they resolved the problem.
            They invaded, burned everything in Carthage to the ground, killed every man woman and child and animal, then they plowed the ground that it sat upon, sewing salt as they plowed

          • anna miller

            I think many of these people are just under cultural mind control. They have been brain-washed by a lying media, by hollywierd programming, and influenced by academia which in turn accepts instructions from the social engineers at Tavistock Institute, home of social engineering & cultural shaping. Our schools have been deliberately dumbed down, so people don’t know how to think logically. Our society has been shaped as if we were all trained seals or Pavlovian dogs. Most of our society is under the influence of professional social engineers whom look upon humanity, as animals in an experiment. Once more people become aware of these facts, then perhaps they might wake up. It’s really sad, but also very infuriating and disgusting. Most act like trained seals, parroting what they hear from their TV, or whatever BS they hear from other parrots.



  • mike

    obama just wants our guns so he can bring in his people and be king N. forever.

  • needful

    if they would straighten out the illegal problem the homicide rate would drop off even more.

  • Natural_Texan

    Australia adopted strict new gun restrictions 12 days after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Overturning decades, if not a century of law and practice on gun rights in Australia. The perpetrator bought his firearms from a gun dealer without holding the required firearms license.. he avoided existing gun regulations.. The perpetrator roamed the countryside killing indiscriminately ( we are told) for more than a day. This is a failure of policing more than a problem with arms. Even in the police state USA the Police are as much as 30 minutes away.. Who will protect your family from a nut-job like that ?

    Now here in America after a horrible and tragic killing by a berserk jilted homosexual or even an Islamic terrorist we have a full court press to take away legal ownership of many weapons from ordinary citizens. The Australian ‘miracle’ is being attempted here.. In another week will the millions of citizens holding firearms be made criminal if they do not surrender their weapons? The press of manipulated opinion suggests it’s possible. Cheers to those in Congress refusing to act in haste and fear.

    The cry is ‘Oh the humanity! let’s give up our guns’.. except of course for the police and the hundred federal and state armed agencies. They’ll need the guns and especially to come get ours. And Hillary’s ‘humanitarian’ forces will need lots of guns and cluster bombs to bring peace in several parts of the globe.

    Don’t be fooled.

    • AtheismRules

      Since implementing gun controls in Australia (which ONLY resulted in a reduction fo 20% of firearms – 80% were left with “proper and fit” owners), by every relevant metric, gun controls have been successful.
      – Gun homicides – down – around 60%
      – Gun suicides – down – around 60%
      – Police being shot – down by around 80%
      – Gun massacres
      etc etc etc
      And NO corresponding correlations in adverse social factors – and no “substitution” effects.

      So by the simple expedient of sensible gun controls (supported by 90% of Americans), without impacting peoples right to own arms, Australia has saved thousands and thousands of lives.

      Had the US done the same and achieved the same benefits as Australia – 40% corresponds to OVER TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND LIVES saved – but instead we have kept the rights of Congressmen to be owned by the gun lobby, and so that a bunch of rednecks can go round thinking that they are Rambo.

      • wri7913

        Somehow I doubt the numbers…

        Look at Chicago. Strict gun control but highest murder rate in the nation.

        I suspect the numbers were fudged. Similar to calling the Ft Hood shooting “workplace violence” instead of a terrorist act which is what it really is.

        I’ve heard that Australian violent crime and murder rates have gone up markedly since the gun ban.

        • AtheismRules

          Actually if you analyse Chicago it shows that gun control works !!

          In the two decades following gun controls in Chicago , gun homicide rates DECLINED by 6% compund per annum.

          After the ban was overturned by SCOTUS, the gun homicide rate INCREASED by 21% compound.

          Data is a bitch isnt it !!

          “I’ve heard that Australian violent crime and murder rates have gone up markedly since the gun ban.”
          You probably heard that from the NRA. Analysis of ABS data shows otherwise.

          • Steven Allred

            Actually, if you honestly analyze CHIRAQ, it shows that gun control doesn’t work. At all.

            In the two decades following gun control laws being passed in CHIRAQ, homicide rates fell much, much slower than the national average. Not anywhere near the 6% per year that you knowingly, erroneously claim.

            After the ban was rightly overturned by the SCOTUS, the homicide rates remained largely unchanged.

            Yes, data is a bitch, and it doesn’t now, never has, and will not for the foreseeable future agree with you. Ever.

            You’ve probably heard your AgitProp talking points from The Trace. Analysis of ABS and AIC data supports the NRA’s assertions, not yours.

      • Ron Roy

        But at the same time Australia was banning guns and experiencing a decline in gun homicides, America was more than doubling how many firearms it manufactured and seeing a nearly identical drop in gun homicides. That throws a bit of a wrench into the idea that Australia’s gun ban must be the reason for its decline in gun crime.http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/the-australian-gun-ban-conceit/

        • AtheismRules

          Even if the data is correct itr odesnt support your argument.
          1) We need to know ownership RATES – not manufacturing rates. Thanks to bans on registration etc you have shot yourself in the foot !! Please ask your representative to support gun registration so that you have data for your argument.

          2) Even if the data showed that – it is only correlation not causality. Did you know that there was a -0.9 correlation between yoghurt consumption and violent crime ? For every extra pound of yoghurt consumed, the violent crime rate fell by 36.7 per 100k people ! Was that causal too ? You need to demonstrate causality – which is what Austaralia did through state wide implementation of gun controls.

          Just imagine if America had gun controls as effective as in Australia !! Imagine reducing gun deaths by a further 40% !!

          Data is a bitch !!

          • Ron Roy

            Even if ownership rates had stayed the same, which they didn’t, the point was the murder rates DROPPED as fast as Australia’s.http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/ Oh and I was very disappointed at the way Australia’s men so easily gave in. I always pictured them as having bigger balls. They turned out to be wimps. MOLON LABE.

          • Steven Allred

            If the data sets are correct, and they are, they absolutely do support his statements.

            1.) No, we don’t need to know ownership rates. So, no, he didn’t shoot himself in the foot. Nor should we ever endorse registration, either.

            2.) The data absolutely does show that, too – it is not correlation, but causality. And, no, as I’ve answered you on posts below, Australia did not and cannot demonstrate causality between gun control laws and homicide rates. No other country can, either, period.

            We can already imagine if America had passed the same gun control laws, and it would have changed it for the better.

            Yes, data is a bitch. It doesn’t now, never has, and will not for the foreseeable future ever support gun control. At all.

      • Pat Taylor ╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐

        You may want to take a look at this source…


        Gun control is absolutely UNLAWFUL in AmeriKah regardless of the politicians misguided beliefs.


        • AtheismRules

          Pat – you might want to read Scalia in Heller. I recommend reading the WHOLE decision. Even the most right wing gun fanatic Scalia acknowledge that gun control was lawful.

          • Pat Taylor ╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐

            Even Scalia was saddled with enforcement of the un constitutional UCC however. Opinions changed drastically in all facets of this government especially after 1933 regarding the “peoples” rights vs the “governments” perceived powers..

            I just don’t subscribe to such contrary interpretation of our God given freedoms, no man holds authority over those rights, they are unalienable and very clear and simple to understand.

          • Steven Allred

            You might want to take your own advice and actually read the whole Heller decision yourself. It actually only proves that even Scalia can be wrong sometimes, because gun control outside Common Law prohibitions on assault against people and property are not lawful.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Wrong The courts decision defined certain regulations as proper such as restricting access to the mentally ill or felons. The court stated It is a Constitutional Guaranteed right of individuals to keep an Bare arms that right includes all firearms in common use . Common use includes semi Auto firearms . What the court did say was. Military weapons such as machine guns, cannons ,rockets ,RPGS Tanks maybe regulated by Congress. All other common use firearms are protected under the Right of the people to keep & barearms 2ND amendment, Gaureetee an shall not be infringed.

          • mrpoohead

            Obviously restrictions not very good. “Gaureetee” but does not prevent regulation per state.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Obviously you my friend are incapable of shifting off your Modus Operandi : One which is to solely read captions, sub titles , titles, glossary’s & introductions. As for delving deeper in an attempt to improve your understanding of what the content of the pages contain,from within their sentences an paragraphs. ( NOT YOU ) Leaving yourself clueless .Question ? Why do you Presume , assume or believe skimming pages provides you the details of a pages content. Dam you fail O so miserable.
            With But with few exception’s ! Both Congress An the states are Bound against the regulation of, Firearms of a Common USE. Common use which includes all Semi-auto Firearms. For either personal defense or for purposes of private USE. SO says the Courts decision. Those few exceptions where regulation is constitutional; Encompass the following and are limited to the following. #1. The Mentally ill. #2 The felon. #3. Actual Military weapons. A Physical appearance of a particular firearm, Does not equate to NON common use Firearms #4 Certain areas or locations. ( Period )

          • mrpoohead

            Actually that is you. The FBI report clearly stated it was not what you claimed with a “This is not……..” Further; it goes on to say that it does not include gang incidents or drug-related incidents. Who’s the cherry-picker – the stooopid spic!

      • Steven Allred

        Since implementing gun control in Australia, by ever relevant metric, gun control actually hasn’t been successful.

        – Gun homicides fell no faster than before.
        – Gun suicides fell no faster than before, and cannot even be attributed to gun control laws at all
        – Police being shot fell no faster than before, and was never a serious issue in the first place.
        – Several massacres have for a fact occurred after the ban, only the methods have changed.

        So, by the actually complicated and roughshod passage of nonsenical gun control laws (supported by nowhere near 90% of Americans), and having serious impact on people’s right to keep and bear arms, Australia didn’t save any lives at all.

        Had the U.S. done the same thing, it would have achieved even less than Australia – which was actually ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND ZERO LIVES SAVED – but instead we actually kept the rights of due process, to not incriminate ourselves, privacy, and to keep and bear arms, so that a bunch of pussies cannot go around thinking that their opponents are Rambo wanna-bes.

      • Peatro Giorgio

        But the actual homicide rate in Australia has not changed. That rate has maintained the very same level as prior to gun confiscation. The murders found other means by which to kill. Therefore gun control is an abject failure why because it disarms the law abiding.

        • mrpoohead

          …………….the homicide rate is a fifth of the US’s. New FBI figures put rate back at 5 per 100,000. And ten times that of Switzerland’s – try again. Doofus! Guns not banned in Australia, just regulated.

        • mrpoohead

          ……….and the number of mass shootings has been one in twenty years since. Obviously something to aspire too perhaps?

    • Ron Roy

      If liberals want to see gun crimes let them try and take our guns! MOLON LABE

      • Notaneer

        You know lots of “liberals” own guns too, as well as a lot of “conservatives” who do not. So all these “mass generalizations” are as dangerous as the perpetrators of these mass shootings.

    • freespirited101a

      Don’t you have enough people already shot and killed in Texas ? Or is that just something you Texans all agree is just your way of life – You know , somebodies always dying.

      • Natural_Texan

        Hey thanks for your reply.. no thanks for your stereotyping.

        Peace out.

        • freespirited101a

          I do apologize for my stereotyping. Definitely not how I usually am. I want more peace too and less death. Peace out to you also.

  • dennis cheever

    You will not see reports like this on the Washington Post or Huffington Post .That I can guarantee.

  • MolokaiAdvertiserNews

    Good results from enforcement of the Constitution FOR the united States of America. American Citizens who exercise their fundamental Constitutional Rights to keep and bear arms, are making good things happen in USA, e.g., murder rates are at all time low, except in the unlawful places known as GunFreeZones set up by politicians and unelected socialist bureaucrates who disrespect our Constitution FOR the USA!
    Vote TRUMP 2016 !!

  • Jef Anstey

    except that 4.5 murders per 100,000 is A LOT

    canada is has only 1.5 per 100,000
    france 1.1
    uk 1.1

    all very low, MUCH lower than USA

    • KCK

      Hmmm… by that way of thinking let’s go with Switzerland 0.71

    • Steven Allred

      Except that it’s actually not a lot, at all. Especially considering that the U.S. sits at #101 in the world and is still dropping, and this while more people are buying more guns and carrying more guns in more places and more frequently than ever before.

      So, don’t even bother with the irrelevant and dishonest comparisons to non-peer nations. That’s nothing more than a smoke screen to hide the fact that gun control doesn’t work.

      Not even in any of the countries you listed, for that matter.

  • Aaron Ingebrigtsen

    Logic fail. Comparing apples and oranges. Frequency of Mass Shootings != Homicide Rate. Homicide Rate does not even tell you how many of those homicides are gun related, let alone which ones were Mass Shootings. What if all homicides last year were Mass Shootings? Would that make an impact on the public psyche? I think so.

    • KCK

      “What if all homicides last year were Mass Shootings? Would that make an impact on the public psyche?”

      Only to those who tend to have knee jerk reactions. You see, it doesn’t matter how many laws, or even bans you have, if someone is hell bent on killing as many people as they can they will find a way to do it. Guns, no guns. Also, since when has banning anything ever kept it out of the hands of someone who really REALLY wants it? Take drugs for example. Or even alcohol when it was banned/illegal. Banning something never stops anything. Another example, 11 children (under 18) are killed a DAY due to texting. So, they made it illegal to text and drive. Has it stopped children from dying? No. Has it stopped people from texting and driving? Nope. Only those who obey the law will obey the law. Criminals by their very definition do not obey laws. If they did, there would be no murder. MURDER after all has been banned for eons and yet… people still do it.

      Laws were not intended to stop people from doing bad things. They were intended to be able to punish those who do bad things.

  • Lisa Millar

    According to statistic not put out by obama and congress, crime rates are down percentage wise compared to more guns being bot. They cannot accused gun owners for the mass shootings. The govt. is reponsible for the last 2 shootings as they are the one who let these fanatical muslims in and allowed them to buy guns. Other mass shootings were caused by shooter being on or was on “prescription’ drugs for depression & mental illness… They should go after Big Phama. The govt should improve the judicial system so criminals get harsh punishment and not put back on the street. Govts. fault on all counts.
    When you compare gun owners vs shootings, I think you would find the percentage a lot less than people dying in hospitals & prescription drugs. Same applies to percentage of car accidents vs cars; do you take our cars away then. You might as well say ‘do away with our govt.’ as they send our young men out to die in their stupid & irrelevant wars which doesn’t have anything to do with our freedom. Plus the other issues they should fess up to and some to their stupid laws that the majority of us don’t want.


    • tcullitn

      You’re an idiot.

  • Richard

    What Billy Clinton did with Monica was not the story. He raped and assaulted a number of women using the same scenario – almost biting off their lower lip as way of intimidating them. This is a method used by serial rapist to intimidate their victims. What Hillary did to cover this up was crime especially for an attorney..It is so pathetic, the President of United States was a rapist/sexual predator and a cocaine addict – and – now they will be in the WH again This country has really reached a unbelievable low.

  • Jake Spooz

    More mass shootings since Obama, than the last five prez combined.

  • Richard

    April 13, 2009
    It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
    Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
    · In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    · Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
    · Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

    Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
    · Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
    · During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    · Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
    · Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
    · At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
    · Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

    While this doesn’t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
    Source: Howard Nemerov, “Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban,” Free Republic, April 9, 2009.

  • AtheismRules

    An interesting post but suffers from the same epistemological flaw of most of the pro gun lobby advocate arguments – it conflates correlation with causality.

    So for example if I showed that ice cream sales had increased over the same period that homicides had dropped – would you be advocating for free ice cream ?

    If you actually factor in causality , as was done with Australian studies , you can show that gun controls REDUCE firearms deaths (a statement of the blindingly obvious – it is hard to shoot someone without using a gun – but confirmed by formal analysis).

    So the question really is, “how much MORE the firearms homicide rate WOULD HAVE FALLEN had gun controls been implemented “.

    Thanks for the interesting albeit pointless analysis.

    • Steven Allred

      As you may know, many Australians (and people from all around the world in general) think that your country (among others) is a role model that the U.S. should follow. However, two very important studies of your 1996 National Firearms Agreement completely disagree with this statement.


      A ten-year study, lead by Dr. Samara McPhedran and published in the British Journal of Criminology, found that the $500M AUD spent on the mass confiscation and destruction of previously-legal firearms had absolutely no effect whatsoever on homicide or suicide rates.


      Yet another five-year study, produced by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi from your University of Melbourne and published in the Melbourne Institute’s Working Paper series, confirmed Dr. McPhedran’s conclusions and no others.

      Dr. McPhedran even testified to this fact before a recent Australian Senate Inquiry, which had looked into – among other things – banning semi-automatic handguns. Needless to say , gun control advocates were rightly and completely humiliated.

      Before that same Senate Inquiry, Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Julian Slater had freely admitted that not only do they have no clue what exactly what kinds of contraband were getting through, but they only know about what they somehow by some miracle manage to intercept. As I’m sure you may be well aware, and even if you’re not you will be now, Australia’s porous borders and low population density – coupled with deeply corrupt postal and customs services – make it a veritable smuggler’s paradise.


      More analyses of U.S. domestic and Australian gun control laws have been done besides the brilliant work of Dr. McPhedran, and Wang-Sheng and Saudri, on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific. Their findings match those of the former researchers almost exactly.




      A Deputy Director from the Australian Institute of Criminology also testified before the Senate Inquiry, and explicitly stated that only 5 of the 48,000+ handguns in the Australian state of Victoria had been stolen. To complicate matters further, the AFP even admitted they had not even bothered to examine the AIC’s report on gun thefts at all.


      After the Port Arthur shooting, there were also the Quakers Hill and Childer’s Palace arson attacks, the Black Saturday Bushfires – which were deliberately lit in case you needed a reminder – the Cairns Stabbings, the Lockhart Shooting, and the Monash University Shooting. The 1996 NFA didn’t stop the massacres from happening, but only changed the methods in which they are carried out. Especially not when many thousands of guns handed over to the government for destruction in 1996 were then illegally resold to criminals – many of which have still never been recovered, and have very likely been used in crimes since. Some were indeed recovered though, in the private collections of police officers.



      Guns are taken from Melbourne’s own ‘Red Zone’ every two days – all from “prohibited” persons – and by the thousands every single year — and that’s just one metropolitan area in one city.


      Even police and military armories are broken into with mind-boggling regularity, to the tune of dozens of times – and that’s just in the state of Victoria and the port of Sydney.




      Isn’t it any wonder that only after the states of Victoria, Queensland, and Tasmania were excluded from all crime statistics reports by both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Criminology from 2010 onwards there begins an appreciable drop in Australia’s violent crime rates across the board?

      Indeed, wonders never cease. Especially when criminals receive hundreds of pistols at a time through the mail and several times every year, made especially easy by Australia’s institutionalized corruption of its Customs services – not to mention that of individual officials, as well.





      Even if criminals couldn’t receive their guns through the Sunday Post, they can just as easily make them or have them made-to-order. These aren’t those shoddy rusticles of zip-guns you’d expect to find in a jail cell, either, but finely machined MAC-11 sub-machine guns – complete with 32-round magazines and silencers.



      In conclusion, no, America would not benefit from Australia’s gun control laws. (Even Australia didn’t seem to benefit from them.) This is for a wide variety of reasons. Given the level of sophistication of the criminal enterprises that were created by Prohibition in the U.S., and now during the morbidly hilarious failure of the “War on (Some) Drugs” around the world, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn about a prohibition on guns – which is what you have by-and-large in Australia – is that equally large and sophisticated criminal enterprises will arise to fulfill the demand for guns. This can, as quite thoroughly demonstrated above if I do say so myself, can and will be accomplished in a number of ways: clandestine domestic manufacture, surreptitious importation from abroad, and widespread theft.

      Australia is plagued by the first and the second. America is plagued by the second and third.

      To give you an example of the futility of banning an item to which is attached very high demand, some 1.6 million pounds of marijuana was seized by the U.S. DEA in 2010 – and that’s only a very small percentage of what is believed to have made it across the border. It is reasonable to assume that the shear amount of arms, ammunition, and accoutrement that can occupy the same space as 800 tons of plant matter is quite sufficient to arm a significant portion of the U.S. criminal element.

      These dreadful shortcomings demonstrate a basic and willful failure of Prohibitionists to understand or even acknowledge the market forces governing anything for which there is significant demand. It is the primary reason why central economic planning has only proved an unmitigated disaster everywhere it’s been tried. More basically, they fail to realize or consciously ignore the fact that when people want something, someone will get it for them. The harsher the ban, the higher the profit motive. The higher the profit motive, the more risks criminals will be willing to take to satisfy their market. A market that WILL be satisfied and in full, regardless of whatever laws are passed and how strictly they are enforced. There are deeper reasons for this failure than simply flat-out flunking ECON 101. Those who trade in prohibited goods are, by definition, criminals who are engaged in a criminal enterprise without the benefits of redress the courts or any other avenue of dispute resolution or of police protection. When an enterprise can’t: take out a loan, open a bank account, establish credit, file a lawsuit, or have police respond to an alarm, it becomes necessarily more violent to protect its financial and territorial interests and to affect resolutions over contractual disputes. Essentially, prohibition of highly desirable goods can only function to increase overall violence and disregard for the law as a basic factor of prohibition. One must accept this as a basic premise and then try to reconcile the increased violence and criminality coupled with the inevitable encroachment on individual liberty with any perceived utility of the prohibition.

      As the world slowly comes to the realization that prohibition of drugs, with the focus now being primarily on marijuana and cannabis, has very little if any utility in the face of extremely high demand we begin to move away from banning it.

      Considering that those who smuggle, steal, and manufacture weapons and their customers will obviously still be armed, the level of violence in the wake of an Australian-style prohibition would be unprecedented. Once one factors in the unique culture surrounding guns and civil rights in the U.S., the increasingly ubiquitous support for the Second Amendment and the right it protects, and American’s historical resistance to tyranny, the violence may very well escalate into that of armed insurrection.



      Mass civil disobedience is already the order of the day, and police departments are already realizing the logistical absurdity of such an endeavor in actually enforcing registration or, Heaven forbid, a mass confiscation. In fact, many law enforcement officials have already announced their intentions to not enforce such laws at all.




      Also given that firearms are very durable items, with many examples lasting 500 years or more with proper care and maintenance, and that upwards of 363 million (as of 2013) are already thought to be present in the hands of up to 124 million Americans, it’s highly unlikely that any prohibition would succeed at all as confiscation must immediately follow – as it did in Australia – to realize any utility at all.


      All this having been said, advocacy for prohibition of firearms can only be seen as either ill informed (as in being simply unaware of the consequences) or malicious (aware of the inevitable and invariable failure of the prohibition and the increased criminality and violence and potential to destabilize society and government and possibly to result in violent revolution). It’s either one or the other. There is NO third option.

      Pick one.

      It’s only posts from gun-grabbing little mongrels like you that ever suffer from any epistemological flaws – all of which conflate correlation with causality.

      If you actually factor causality, as was done for Australia, the U.K., etc., can actually only show that gun control DOESN’T reduce deaths by gun shot (a statement that is blindingly obvious – it is not hard to get a gun no matter how many laws are on the books – but confirmed by formal analysis).

      So, no, the actual question us, “How much more the homicide rate would have fallen had gun control laws NOT been passed?”

      Thanks for your uninteresting and pointless analysis.

  • westoast
  • Pat Taylor ╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐

    the very saddest part of this article…. Mostly gun owners will see it and so it holds very little impact as we ourselves know the facts.

    The complicit liberal LSM refuses to illuminate positive or truthful light upon REAL weapon statistics in AmeriKah

  • AtheismRules

    I started to go through this article to list all the flaws of analysis and logical fallacies. There were so many that instead I decided to set it as an exercise for some of my students.

    I have pointed out a few in my posts below. If you cant find at least a dozen errors in this article – you need to hand in your guns and spend more time studying, less time shooting. I think that I am at about twenty errors in this “article” !! LOL

    That probably also answers the question “why dont you see this in the MSM” (not that they are the bastions of analytical journalism) !!

    • Steven Allred

      Then, you clearly didn’t actually read the article at all. Either that, or you’re simply unable to find any analytical flaws or logical fallacies.

      You haven’t pointed out any, either. If you found at least a dozen “errors” in this article, you need to actually take your own advice and hand in your internet-capable devices and spend more time studying yourself, and less time typing.

      That also answers the question of why you don’t see this information in the lamestream “news” media: they’re bastions of willful pig ignorance and subject-matter illiteracy regardless of the subjects they cover.

  • DreamGirlsDaily

    This Orlando event was a STAGED HOAX, a corporatocracy/media psy-op as are all of these alleged “massacres”. Once you understand or come to grips with that, then you can truly see the bigger picture, but posting red herring articles acting like these events are real, is highly counter-productive. WAKE UP!

  • davlin

    Actual gun ownership per capita has increased, people who already own guns buying more has.

  • Hugo Spinoso

    there is two problems against this argument, first mass murder can be commited in many other ways, wich seems to be the main excuse against guns, so what would you be prepared to ban?. second mass murder has also increased wherever weapons have been banned this is a historical constant.

  • disqus_75khJZ6RgX

    does anyone know the total gun related deaths, not just homicides?