I Have a Message for Gun Nuts Using the Paris Attack to Push Their Ridiculous Nonsense

gunviolenceBefore most of the world knew many of the details surrounding the horrific attack in Paris, bottom-feeding gun nuts were swarming social media and the Internet, seemingly mocking France for their anti-gun laws. Many suggested that if people had guns, this would have never happened.

That is complete bullshit.

These were suicide attackers. Do these people really believe that guns are going to deter people who already expect to die? Do they think that terrorists are sitting back thinking to themselves, “You know what, we’d hit the U.S. more often – but their citizens have guns and that scares us.”

If you do, you’re an idiot – and you’re clearly too stupid to own a gun.

But let’s look at some numbers, shall we?

Based on numbers from The Washington Post in 2012, the U.S. averaged 3.2 gun-related homicides per 100k people  – the overwhelming leader in the modern world. How many did France average? A grand total of .06 gun-related homicides per 100k people.

In fact, the United States averages more gun-related deaths in just one week than France will for the entire year… including this attack.

It would take a terrorist attack of the magnitude they just experienced to happen practically every week to even come close to the rate of ordinary gun violence we experience in the United States every single year.

This absurd argument emanating from gun fanatics is pathetic. These people are literally suggesting that France should open itself up to seeing thousands more people die every year from gun violence in their country based upon this ridiculous mythological belief that guns would deter future terrorist attacks. It’s pointless to even try to reason with someone who believes that because the level of stupidity on which they’re operating is clearly unreasonable.

On a side note, could you imagine if Islamic radicals were slaughtering 8-10k Americans every year within our own borders? Yet that’s what we see in this country every year from ordinary, every day gun violence. The gun violence with which the NRA and most right-wing conservatives seem to have absolutely no problem.

Then again, when it comes to groups like the NRA, they actually love gun violence. It’s great for business.

But this goes to show you the deplorable, idiotic nature of many gun fanatics. In a time of sorrow and sadness, when the world was coming together to stand with France in a time of incredible grief, some of these gun nuts’ first thoughts were, Oh, if I had a gun I’d have killed that summa b!tch – for sure!

Words cannot express how sick and tired I am of dealing with these gun-loving jackasses. These paranoid clowns talk tough but would probably piss themselves if they were ever faced with a violent attack like what just happened in Paris. They’re an absolute embarrassment to this country and I apologize to any French citizen who might have had to deal with their idiocy following this heartbreaking tragedy.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Tom

    The only idiot is this author who obviously doesn’t know his history or the facts about gun control, and only loves to call people who disagree with him idiots. French citizens carrying weapons may not have prevented the suicide attack but could possibly have neutralized it sooner resulting in far fewer deaths. Also no mention of the fact that the vast majority of the 3.2 gun deaths per 100k people in the US are in cities with the strictest gun control laws such as Chicago and do not distinguish between accidents, criminal shootings, suicides, and justified shootings. This author’s arguments are completely hollow and ignorant. Of course terrorists (suicidal or not) are going to choose the softest (most likely unarmed) target rich environment they can to get the highest body count possible. An unarmed citizenry is preferential to an armed one and therefore an armed one is a deterrent so as long as the alternative is available.

    • thorncrest

      Key word…”possibly” because the guy with the handgun is going to take out 6 fully auto AK 47’s lol…..if he doesn’t shoot himself in his undersized balls (hence the need for concealed carry) when taking it out of his holster. And Tommy won’t even owe up to his identification, probably ‘carrys,’ probably has NO balls. Or he’d put his name out there.

      • Tom

        You cast a lot of aspersions for a guy named Thorncrest. You make a lot of assumptions too. You are a typical spineless liberal who cannot argue logically with facts and so has to resort to ridicule. Remember the two US military men who thwarted an attack in Belgium by a guy with an AK-47? Fortunately there was only one guy. They were unarmed and reacted very quickly. Had they been armed with just handguns they could have neutralized him more quickly and been able to deal with more than one attacker if necessary. Being armed does only give people a “possible” chance of neutralizing an attack from multiple attackers but being unarmed gives them almost no chance.

      • Rob

        Fact is most non veteran CCL holders aren’t highly trained shooters. I know several, and Im a much better shot, and I have a cooler head. Police have a hard enough time in these situations, add gun toting vigalantes and you have a recipe for collateral damage. Urban terrorists do everything they can to blend in, meaning the “good guys with guns” are indistinguishable from the bad guys to the police, who’s JOB it is to respond. No matter the intentions, civilians with guns make the job of the police much more complicated.

      • Browncoat

        “They just kept shooting… ”
        “The only time they stopped was to reload…”
        “This went on for 10-15 minutes…”

        Those are quotes I’m getting from the news. Apparently, the “police” weren’t a factor.

        ‘When seconds count, the police are only minutes away’.

      • The Pissed Off Bleeding Heart

        Tommy, Tommy, Tommy…dude, I really do have to thank you for the comic relief. You try to argue in favor of concealed carry, then proceed to state what is probably the single strongest argument against it. Had those brave military men been armed, they WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO USE THEIR WEAPONS IN A CROWDED TRAIN, you insufferable twit. Just what the fuck do you think happens to a high powered round after it hits soft tissue? Do you really think it considers the fact that that soft tissue isn’t enough to slow it down, and that, AFTER it stops the bad guy, it’s going to continue on its merry little way, without giving a fuck what’s on the other side of that soft tissue? NO, YOU DON’T. Mostly because you lack the brain power.

        Maybe YOU will remember the student at Umpqua, who WAS carrying, but didn’t use his weapon because of too many bystanders. You mindless pricks all love to envision yourselves standing your ground at the OK Corral, but REFUSE to take into consideration what happens when there are dozens, or hundreds, of innocent bystanders in a crowded venue.

        Ah, and one other teensy, weensy little point. When law enforcement arrives on the scene where you have made your magnificent Rambo stand, and the bullets are flying, and innocent bodies are being mowed down by BOTH sides…just HOW THE FUCK are those cops supposed to know who the good guy is? Your white hat?

        But, then, I’m arguing with a brain dead, tiny dick compensating, gun humper. What the hell am I thinking?

      • Browncoat

        You’re right. Just let the terrorist with an AK board the train…
        Depending on the circumstances, I’d risk a shot on a crowded train against a terrorist. Now, regarding your imbecilic comments.

        1. The vast majority of handguns are not “high power”. Most of the common calibers such as .380, 9mm, .40 and .45 have issues penetrating denim jackets, let alone over penetration into adjacent people. Best choices are subsonic loads capped with high-tech bullets which provide maximum expansion with minimal penetration.
        2. The newer 5.7 caliber has the best chance of doing what you describe but it’s a terrible choice for a defensive round, very expensive and represents less than 1% of the handguns available to us (in the States).
        3. Shut up. You don’t know WTF you’re talking about. Even a firearms layperson such as myself can see that. You must acquire your knowledge from the cinema.

      • The Pissed Off Bleeding Heart

        Thanks so much for your worthless fucking drivel. Like the average person knows any of that shit other than those of you who fetishize your tiny dick enhancers. All the average person knows, if they’re concerned about “self defense”, is “stopping power”.

        Oh, and here’s a thought…let’s test your denim theory. I’ll grab a 9mm, you don your denim jacket, and let’s play. Ignorant twat.

      • Tom

        Your childish insults and ignorant scenarios are not even worth replying to. Its good enough that I was able to get you to show yourself for the classy, mature, thoughtful, compassionate, bleeding heart liberal you claim to be. The fact that you wish to be good little unarmed compliant victim is your right and your business but that doesn’t mean the rest of us should be forced to.

      • Browncoat

        Why do you assume it would only be “one guy with a handgun”? It might be me and all my friends.

      • noah vail

        now that’s what scares me…

    • Connie Goodwin

      .❝my neighbor’s mom is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportWap/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

    • Just Saying

      But the reason that ISIS targeted France was purely political, because of France’s implication in the fighting in Syria. The terrorists mentioned it when they pulled on the crowd. So I don’t think it was just a matter of choosing an unarmed target, ie. civilians without guns. Plus there HAVE been instances of terrorism in the USA, right? Twin Towers and Boston… So I don’t think it’s true that terrorists choose their targets according to whether or not the civilians have guns. I don’t believe that this plays any part in their choice of target countries.

    • Jacob Weiser

      The author of this blog seems to be just a fanatic liberal who just doesn’t even think that if it would’ve be a person or persons with guns, or even armed security guards, more lives would be saved, its unbelievable how stupid the left wing is especially when it comes to gun laws, they just don’t respect our 2nd amendment.

  • Gregg Park

    The author and the rest of the far left lunatics participating in this circle jerk are a truly sad example of what’s happening in the United States. No reasonable argument. No common sense. No nothing really. Just the standard lies and name calling. Most Americans give no more fucks about what you have to say than the parade of idiots at Mizzou. Get a hankie or something and wipe that nasty foam from the corner of your mouths too. It’s unbecoming.

    • The Pissed Off Bleeding Heart

      And yet you completely fail to give any example of what you feel to be “a truly sad example of what’s happening in the Untied States.” How are the author’s positions unreasonable? What is your idea of common sense, seeing as you feel that that is lacking? Where are the lies? You cite zero facts, for someone who claims that other’s arguments are lacking, then refer to alleged “lies”. The author, unlike you, gives several links to FACTS. And just to demonstrate how vapid you are, you state that, “Most Americans give no more fucks about what you have to say…”. Odd, considering…http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150603123948.htm. But, then, those are facts, and I know how averse you gun humpers are to facts. Look, no one gives a shit if you people want to play with your tiny dick enhancers. What we give a shit about is that we be protected from brain dead Neanderthals like yourself, who have to compensate for your complete lack of testosterone, and inability to get laid. We’d also like it if you NRA fucks would at least allow the government to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/05/04/nra-opposes-bill-banning-terror-watch-list-suspects-from-buying-guns.html). Oh, and that’s from FOX, by the way. And, yes, the NRA is still doing everything they can to make it easy for terrorists to get the guns they need to kill you and your family.

      We also think that it’d be just spiffy if we could require people to get considerable training before being allowed to handle something that KILLS LITTLE KIDS AT A RATE OF OVER TWO A WEEK. But, then, being able to jerk off with your assault weapon is far more important than that.

      Get a hankie or something and…….shove it down your throat. Your resulting suffocation will improve the gene pool.,

      • Browncoat

        Explain the murder rate in Chicago

      • The Pissed Off Bleeding Heart

        That tired NRA crap? Again? Can you say “false equivalence”? Using the rate of gun violence in Chicago (or NYC, or Newark, or anyplace else) is pure bullshit. That’s the same as saying “Well, traffic laws don’t do any good. People are just going to ignore them, so we shouldn’t have any.”, then point to some state that has higher than average traffic fatalities to prove your point. If more guns equaled more safety, this would be the safest fucking country on the planet. News flash…IT’S NOT. It’s one of the worst!

        You want to go play with your metal tiny penis enhancer, knock yourself out. I’m not saying you don’t have the right…you do. But don’t tell me that your right to compensate trumps my right to be safe. If you honestly believe that, fuck off.

      • Browncoat

        “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
        ― Malcolm X

      • Browncoat

        Where, in the United States Constitution, is there any mention of your right “to be safe”? It’s not there. So you get to “fuck off”.

      • The Pissed Off Bleeding Heart

        “Where, in the United States Constitution, is there any mention of your right “to be safe”? It’s not there. So you get to “fuck off”.”

        What would be refreshing, although I realize that I’m dealing with brain dead cretins, is if you assholes actually had some clue what you’re talking about. Where does it mention my right “to be safe”? Oh, golly gee whiz, I dunno…how about the fucking Preamble…”We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

        Now, i rather imagine that you have difficulty with words of more than three letters, so I’ll explain it to you…”domestic tranquility” refers to peace and safety for one’s person, and the persons of those he/she loves. “Promote the general welfare” refers to the common good of the community, and, last I checked, most people who don’t have shit for brains would point out that one of the biggest common goods is safety. “The blessings of Liberty”; about the biggest blessing of liberty that I can think of is safety. Ergo, asshole, my safety is mentioned at least three times just in the Preamble. But, then, you would have had to have read the fucking Constitution to have been aware of that. But then I do realize that just reading it, for someone of your intellectual powers would be far too little, for the simple reason that you’d have to also be able to UNDERSTAND IT. The fact that you were unaware seems to be a rather scathing indictment of your ignorance. No, the fucking off is all yours.

      • Bang Stick

        You know there are many other countries with far tougher gun laws…..maybe you’d feel safer in one of those. Pick one. Move there.

        We the American People are not going to give up our Rights because You are ‘uncomfortable’ with that!

      • Wesson Smith

        “That’s the same as saying “Well, traffic laws don’t do any good. People are just going to ignore them, so we shouldn’t have any.””

        Ah the old why have laws argument.

        Let me make this clear for you. Laws provide the state LEGAL recourse to punish ACTS that society deems unacceptable.

        The problem with you anti-guns is that you think the ACT of owning or carrying a firearm is somehow dangerous to society. It’s not. The ACT of using a firearm in an inappropriate way is.

        We have plenty of laws that make it illegal to use your firearm in a manner that harms innocent people or endangers others. However you anti-guns IGNORE this. You simply think that citizens shouldn’t be trusted to possess firearms because they have the potential to do evil.

        That logic however can be applied to ANY of our constitutional guarantees. You may one day say something to threaten the lives of innocent people so let’s get rid of the 1st Amendment.

        You may someday decide to lock up, against their will, some innocent person in your basement. So let’s get rid of the 4th Amendment.

        Both of the examples above have laws against those ACTS. We don’t get rid of our rights because someone might abuse that right. We punish those INDIVIDUALS instead.

      • bezoris

        That’s a great point (last graph). But isn’t that something of a misinterpretation?

        The Right to Bear Arms amendment, a standing militia, was designed to create a standing army at a time when we had none. We do now, via draft and enlistment… There’s no current need for civilian militias.

        And yet they proliferate, primarily as demagogues, against the systems they were initially designed to protect.

      • Wesson Smith

        “There’s no current need for civilian militias.” That’s the problem right there. It’s already too late if you NEED a civilian militia if the state becomes tyrannical.

      • bezoris

        ‘Need’ referred to a constitutional directive, prior to a standing army.

        There is no ‘need’ now because we have the latter. Your reference to current tyranny is specious (as is your declaration that civilian militias are necessary).

        Again, we enjoy democratic freedoms, from tyranny, etc, for precisely the reasons you seem to object. The power of Democracy resides, precisely, in it’s ability to absorb, progress, and project the demographics it reflects.

        It may be that you or I wind up on the losing end of that equation, get short shrift, or are retconned to the basements of history. At least we did our part.

      • Wesson Smith

        Not sure I understand your position on individual rights to bear arms. What is your opinion on citizens individually owning firearms?

      • Just Saying

        Chicago has a higher murder rate than other cities in the US, but not because it has stricter gun control laws.

        Toronto, Tokyo, London, Amsterdam, Sydney, and even Mexico city all have even stricter gun control laws, but their murder rates are still LOWER than Chicago’s :

        Tokyo : 0.5 murders per 100.000people

        Toronto : 1.7

        London : 1.4

        Amsterdam : 1;8

        Paris : 4.4

        Mexico City : 8.0

        Chicago : 19.4

        Check out crime rates : http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Deadliest-Global-City-163874546.html

        So less guns does not mean more murders. A city’s murder rate will not go up just because the civilians do not have access to guns, I don’t think these 2 factors are even related.

      • Browncoat

        Not anymore than more guns will mean the murder rate will go up. Compare the crime rates of cities with a high percentage of LEGAL gun ownership to cities such as Chicago.
        I would bet real money that the vast majority of these shootings are by individuals that should not legally own a firearm. As such, the means by which they obtained said firearm was also illegal. There were laws but that didn’t do shit because they choose not to obey them.

      • Just Saying

        Ok. Interesting point of view.

  • JeanieB

    I am not a gun nut, nor do I belong or agree with much the NRA says. However I do own guns, I took the time to be trained how to safely use them,and more importantly when to use it. I strongly support 2nd ammendment rights, however I do think that we need standardized background checks, close the loopholes at gun shows etc and lastly ban AK47 type guns. They are not used for hunting or home protection they are only for shooting large grps of people as in a war situation.

    • Browncoat

      Like… a tyrannical government?

    • Thomas Joseph

      “…and lastly ban AK47 type guns. They are not used for hunting or home
      protection they are only for shooting large grps of people as in a war

      And WHAT do you think the 2nd Amendment is for?

      • The Pissed Off Bleeding Heart

        NOT to give you the fucked up pleasure of playing with military hardware. The Second Amendment was ratified when fucking MUSKETS were the norm. And then there’s that little “well regulated militia” thingy. None of you gun fucks belong to a “well regulated militia”, so, NO, no military hardware for you.

      • Lou McKellar

        In the context of the 18th Century word militia, we ARE that. And well-regulated doesn’t mean what you think.
        And actually I DO legally own and possess military hardware.

      • Gregg Park

        Actually, when the 2nd was written, the military had the exact same hardware as the citizenry. We should actually be allowed the same, military hardware our soldiers carry today. I realize that will make your head explode and lots of spit to fly out of your mouth and such. Try not to ruin your keyboard with your hate filled and clueless reply.

  • JeanieB

    oh and one more thing (see first post below) I am a liberal Democrat who voted for President Obama in both elections and would gladly do so again.

  • Thomas Joseph

    IF you had been in Paris, would you have preferred to be armed or unarmed for these attacks? What does the opinion of an ignorant leftist matter when you life is on the line? Gun laws in France did not cause this tragedy, but they facilitated it.

    • Just Saying

      But I don’t understand how having a gun during the attack would have helped? I actually live in Paris, and I WAS there…

      In the Bataclan Theatre, 3 terrorists pulled machine guns on the crowd in the middle of a rock concert, in the dark. Would it really have helped to have a gun in your pocket? Would you even have had time to pull it on the terrorists, before they shot you down with their machine gun missiles? Would you even have REMEMBERED that you had a gun in your pocket and had the presence of mind to pull it out, or would you have been frozen and absolutely unable to move from sheer terror???

      In the street attacks, 2 terrorists pulled machine guns on the people in the restaurant and café, and 3 others blew themselves up in suicide explosions. The gun raids lasted 10 to 15 minutes.

      Could somebody please explain to me how on earth a pistol in the victims pockets would help against a 10-minute machine gun raid, and a kamikaze explosion?

      I suppose you could pull out your gun and shoot at the terrorists, and maybe injure them slightly, just before they turn on you and blow you to bits with their Kalachnikov. But what would be the point of that?

      If somebody could explain to me how a person can protect himherself from a terrorist attack with a personal handgun or pistol, please enlighten me here!!! It hardly seems possible.

      Just wondering.

      • Lou McKellar

        During WWII, the US dropped thousands of small Liberator pistols over enemy territory. The purpose was to surprise a more heavily armed enemy soldier, kill them, and take their weapon.

        The question is how would you prefer die – defenseless like lambs to the slaughter or on your feet, shooting back?
        Most CCW holders won’t get involved unless it’s necessary. If you don’t have a dog in the fight, don’t get in the fight!

      • Gregg Park

        Wow. The complete ignorance of this post is amazing. Can you explain to me how on earth one of the victims having a gun in their pocket would have worsened the situation? What makes you think that a well placed shot would “maybe injure them slightly”? Most likely, a couple people with concealed handguns wouldn’t have been able to make a difference against suicide bombers with full auto weapons, but with 10-15 minutes to lay down and wait for death to come, what’s the downside of trying? Taking out just one of them would have surely reduced the death toll, especially if they ended up being unable to detonate themselves or empty their weapon. Likely? No. Better than 0%? Certainly. I’ll take that over a bullet to the back of my skull any day. You watch too many movies.

      • Just Saying

        Woah there tiger! Your answer is a bit more hostile than it needs to be. We disagree, it’s no big deal!

        If you think it’s possible for a civilian with a handgun to defend him/herself from a terrorist attack, then hey that’s just great. All the power to you.

        I don’t. So we’ll agree to disagree. Have a nice day!

      • Gregg Park

        I didn’t say success was likely, but in a dire situation such as that, what is the downside? Surely you can’t believe it’s ‘impossible’. I’ll take even the slimmest odds over zero. Can you tell me how a citizen with a handgun would have worsened the incredible tragedy in that theater?

      • Just Saying

        Goodbye, and like I said, have a nice day!

      • Ember Spirit

        Who would survive versus a tiger. A girl with a gun. Or a man with a sword?

    • noah vail

      what a simplistic douche you seem to be…but then i know if you had been there those terrorists wouldn’t have stood a chance, would they?

      • Thomas Joseph

        The irony of your factless attack comment is incredible. You are not worthy of debate. Men of action know more than the meek like yourself could ever imagine about being in a real danger situation. Just because you are too weak to imagine having the guts to fight for your life (or others), don’t try to remove the right to do so by those of us who have the strength. Without those like us, limp wrists like yourself wouldn’t even have the opportunity to spout your verbal diarrhea.

      • noah vail

        i’m guessing you’re a 20 year old douche sitting in your dorm room pretending to be a real man….real tough guys don’t have to tell others that they are …please observe the mistletoe on my shirt tail and act accordingly…

  • Lop Treadmill

    The French need to read the lyrics of their national anthem (La Marseillaise) and follow its message https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Marseillaise

  • noah vail

    the bigger the gun the smaller the dick…now all the ammosexuals can run out and get .22 pistols to show their wife that they realy are capable of something other than talking big…

    • Gregg Park

      Excellent talking points Noah.

  • Bang Stick

    Here is a stat for you libtards……

    What are odds that a completely disarmed population have to stop a terror attack? Just shout it out if you know the answer………..Absolutely ZERO!

    With a few people in the crowd carrying guns and least there is a chance and that is way better odds than ZERO.

    • pookemon

      Which armed citizen stopped San Bernardino? Oh right – it was a number of Police officers. No doubt you think that if all the pin heads have their guns taken away the Police will also have to give their’s up. Stopping acts of Terrorism is the job of the Police and other government agencies.

      • Bang Stick

        There were no armed people there because California makes it difficult to get a license and the compnay probably has a ban as well depriving the people of their right to defend themselves. Those people died BECAUSE of gun control!

        Police only come after the mess is already made.

      • Wesson Smith

        Because most of it not all the San Bernardino victims WERE unarmed thanks to Liberal policies that insist you are safer if you can’t defend yourself. 42 States a shall issue or better. More and more citizens are waking up to the fact that they are just as qualified to defend themselves as the State.

  • Gregg Park

    These gun haters are sure hung up on dick size. As far as what is a sad example of what is happening in the United States, I present ‘The Pissed Off Bleeding Heart’ as Exhibit A. Clueless, hate filled trolls.

  • Michael Schundler

    2/3 of gun murders are suicides. 20% are drug and gang related. Therefore, nearly 87% of gun homicides are either suicide or drug and gang related. If you take out these two sources of homicides from both the US and France are death rates are about twice as high as France’s before these recent terrorist attacks. The question is how much would gun laws impact the 87% of gun murders in the US (would suicides find another way) and would drug/gang deaths decline with stricter gun laws (no if Chicago is any example). If tough gun laws would reduce the other causes of gun deaths to those of France’s we are talking about less than 1 person per 100,000 people in the US. Interestingly the two countries with the highest gun ownership rates in Europe have lower gun death rates than Frances. All of this seems to point that gun death rates have less to do with gun laws, then mental health, crime, and culture. Bottom line, the Paris killing represent as much a new source of “cultural murders” where radical Islam considers murder acceptable then a comment on gun laws per se. But understanding how culture plays a role in gun murder rates, may also serve to show that gun laws are unlikely to move the needle much in the US gun murder rates and as such has become a “political fund raising” issue, then a real human safety issue.

  • Ember Spirit

    Well if you liberals don’t like guns then don’t own them. I happen to like guns and having them around just in case you know. Like what are you going to do when the government fails? Or if a solar flare royally jack all technology up? How will you defend your self from OTHER people who have guns? Here is a quote for you: “Its better to have a gun and not need it than needing a gun and not having one”

  • Browncoat

    “More Guns Don’t Make You Safer” Find the stats on mass shootings from, say, 1900 through 1983. Are they getting more frequent in more recent years? As more and more gun and gun control laws have been established, have the shootings become more infrequent? Again, I point to Chicago. Detroit. LA. New Orleans. It’s the PEOPLE not the guns doing the shooting.

    “Shootings are more frequent” That they are. And that points to a ‘people problem’ not a ‘gun problem’. More to the point… a sin problem.

    “Mass shootings are not terrorism” WTF does that have to do with anything?

    “By contrast, restrictive gun licensing laws refer to a system in which individuals who want to purchase firearms must demonstrate to a licensing authority that they have valid reasons to get a gun – like using it on a shooting range or going hunting – and that they demonstrate “good character.”
    Who decides what is and isn’t “good character”? The government? Self-defense is the best possible reason to own a gun. Yes, I subscribe to the mantra ‘It’s better to have one and not need it than to need it and not have it.’

    “Individuals must prove that they do not belong to any “prohibited group,” such as the mentally ill, criminals, children or those at high risk of committing violent crime, such as individuals with a police record of threatening the life of another.”
    Who gets to decide the threshold for the definition of ‘mentally ill’? Prozac users? Xanax? ADHD? PTSD? Vets are already being persecuted.
    What’s next… criminals and children? Already illegal.
    “Those at high risk of committing violent crime, such as individuals with a police record of threatening the life of another.” Guilty until proven innocent. What about the existing laws in cities restricting ownership that have cost the lives of victims trying to obtain a gun for self-defense? If someone threatens someone with death and/or bodily harm, isn’t that illegal? They should have been arrested but, again, existing laws aren’t being enforced so… blame the guns again.

  • James Dixon

    You liberals are 100% CLUELESS!How is disarming Americans gonna stop terrorism?

  • stephen Rutherford

    I wish this statement actually had a point but seems like there’s a few lacking points. Now let me ask you this. If tasked with such a thing as terrorizing a culture etc. Would you attack a school, which for example here is a gun free zone? Or attack a military compound, thus far armed to the teeth with weapons an other assortments of things not to mention the training in which to pulverize you to dust? So next question if guns wouldn’t have stopped it, WHY DO THE POLICE HAVE WEAPONS? OHHHHH LOOK AT THATTT. If you wanna argue guns go to Australia tell me how much it worked when they got rid of all their guns. Next explain who still has guns an what they do with there. OR why Germany and Russia is allowing guns again, our citizens being armed is what helps prevent a foreign invasion. How ever it isn’t the only thing. Not to mention our own government from being tyrannical. (or at least it was supposed to) Also look how many shootings are done in the U.S.A by the people who are taught to use guns as well as who and what the shootings are from. truth is most of them are 9/10 times are goanna be stolen, imported etc. Not law abiding citizens.