In response to the letter by P.J. Bourgeois ("The solution of confiscating guns isn't the answer either," The Daily News, Oct. 22): I note that I didn’t distinguish between pistols, rifles and shotguns.

Our average number of deaths by guns is very high, exceeded only by traffic accidents and natural causes. Europeans have a much lower death rate from guns than we do, by a factor of about 1-to-3. Are European lives worth more than ours?

I invite Mr. Bourgeois to present his plan, if he has one, to lower the gun death rate to something approaching that of the Europeans'. Surely he would be in a better position than the Proletariat to do this. Non-Sequitur: The Kennedy accident is not related to gun control. Mr. Bourgeois will have the last word on this issue.

Stephen A. Hodgson

Galveston

Locations

(51) comments

Steve Fouga

I'd say if we're to adopt Europe's gun laws, let's adopt their universal healthcare plans too.

Carlos Ponce

"Europeans have a much lower death rate from guns than we do, by a factor of about 1-to-3."
Misleading since most deaths by guns in the US come from suicides. European, African and Asian suicide rates are about the same but they don't use guns. Many European countries have a higher suicide rate per 100,000 in population than the US, some not much difference.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: ["Europeans have a much lower death rate from guns than we do, by a factor of about 1-to-3." Misleading since most deaths by guns in the US come from suicides.]

A suicide death is still a death.

Randy Chapman

I suppose we should outlaw cars as well, eh Marky? Car accidents are a leading cause of deaths. A death is still a death, right? Seriously, can you not come up with a less nonsensical argument?

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky, take away their guns and someone bent on suicide will find a means. Sad but true.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [take away their guns and someone bent on suicide will find a means. Sad but true.]

Guns are faster, easier, and more convenient than most any other methods. Why would you pretend otherwise?

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: [Guns are faster, easier, and more convenient than most any other methods. Why would you pretend otherwise?]

Just out of curiosity, do you think someone has the right to kill him/herself? If a woman has the right to kill a viable fetus, why not herself? Would not the logic be the same for both being her right? And, if so, why would you deny her the way you believe is "faster, easier, and more convenient than most any other methods?"

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ why would you deny her the way you believe is "faster, easier, and more convenient than most any other methods?" ]

Oh look, it's a red straw herring.

Who seduced you into believing that hating all gun control was a good thing for the US despite global evidence to the contrary?

Craig Lindberg

Mark: [ Oh look, it's a red straw herring.]

Predictable Dishonest Mark in true form: calls a perfectly valid hypothetical question a “red straw herring” while running to hide under his desk because he can’t answer it without painting himself as a hypocrite. Come on; answer the question:

--> Do you think someone has the right to kill him/herself? If a woman has the right to kill a viable fetus, why not herself? Would not the logic be the same for both being her right? And, if so, why would you deny her the way you believe is "faster, easier, and more convenient than most any other methods?"


Mark: [Who seduced you into believing that hating all gun control was a good thing for the US despite global evidence to the contrary?]

Global evidence? What a few statistics pulled out of context? Pick up a copy of “More Guns Less Crime” and find more statistics to the contrary than you can handle. It’s not just about crime rates in Europe vs the US. It’s much more than just statistics. This is a common problem with liberals. They apply simplistic, linear thinking to complex issues and then wrongly believe they understand and can solve a problem.

Do you ever stop long enough to think about how hypocritical your positions are? You write things like “Who seduced you into believing that hating all gun control was a good thing for the US…,” however when the right in question is one that you agree with, freedom of religion for example, you take absolutely extremist positions.

Mark Aaron

Steve: [I'd say if we're to adopt Europe's gun laws, let's adopt their universal healthcare plans too.]

Works for me.

Doyle Beard

Who pays for this universal healthcare plan?

Mark Aaron

Doyle: [Who pays for this universal healthcare plan? ]

The people most able to pay for it, like the top 1%. Noblesse oblige.

Carlos Ponce

I hear Europe is accepting those who claim refugee status, Little Marky. Bon Voyage, you get your gun laws, your health care and you should be happy.[beam]

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [Bon Voyage, you get your gun laws, your health care and you should be happy.]

Most Americans agree with me, Carlos, not you.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/20/single-payer-health-care-poll-242907
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Pack your bags, Carlos. Sudan is waiting. Guns and theocracy, what more could you ask for?

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sudan

Carlos Ponce

So Little Marky is quoting from a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll. Riiiiiiiight......
Demographics for that question are found on p143
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015e-9b5e-d7ac-a3fe-ff7f395a0001
As usual they over poll Democrats and Liberals.
This poll does not reflect the American people especially the voters.
But even with their finagling the numbers only a plurality prefer single payer, not "most" as you state.
Gallup (2017) ranks Conservatives at 36% and Liberals at 25% Moderates at 34%. Not reliable but we'll use these numbers for comparison since Liberal Salon uses these numbers.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx
https://www.salon.com/2017/01/03/a-more-liberal-nation-fewer-americans-are-calling-themselves-conservative-these-days/
Politico polled 37% Conservatives, 39% Liberals, 23% Moderate.
Increasing the percentage of Liberals polled from 25% to 39% will definitely skew results towards a more Liberal outcome.

Carlos Ponce

On Gun Policy, the Marist poll cited demographics included 35% Democrats, 26% Republican, 36% Independent. Over polling Democrats I see.

Carlos Ponce

On the CNN poll on guns conducted by SSRS Republicans were under polled:
"31% described themselves as Democrats, 23% described themselves as Republicans, and 42% described themselves as independents"
p14
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/10/17/rel10b.-.trump,.guns.pdf

Carlos Ponce

On the Quinnipiac University poll on gun laws:
29% Republican, 32% Democrat, 34% Independent were polled.
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us10122017_demos_U92pfwa.pdf/

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [So Little Marky is quoting from a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll. Riiiiiiiight......
Demographics for that question...]

Still pretending you know more about sampling for polls than the best pollsters in the world do Carlos?

Sure you do.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky, still pretending that polling is accurate despite evidence to the contrary????
I can't fix STUPID!

Craig Lindberg

You're a funny guy Mark. Writing "best pollsters in the world like that gives your argument some sort of legitimacy. How did your best pollsters do with their polls saying your girl HRC would win the Presidency?

Mark Aaron

Craig: [How did your best pollsters do with their polls saying your girl HRC would win the Presidency?]

Sec. Clinton won more than 2.8 million more votes than Trump. But you knew that when you pretended otherwise. Ask yourself why you needed to pretend.

Craig Lindberg

Mark: [Sec. Clinton won more than 2.8 million more votes than Trump. But you knew that when you pretended otherwise. Ask yourself why you needed to pretend.]

Who is pretending? That would be you Predictable Mark. Dishonest as always. Of course you know that I was not referring to a national poll but rather all the state polls they got wrong as that is how they (wrongly) forecasted HRC's electoral college win.

But thanks for admitting you were wrong in your own special way.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [Of course you know that I was not referring to a national poll but rather all the state polls they got wrong as that is how they (wrongly) forecasted HRC's electoral college win.]

So you expect me to be a mind reader in order to understand you Craig? How many of those alleged 'wrong' state polls that you posses were within the margin of error?

Craig Lindberg

Mark: [So you expect me to be a mind reader in order to understand you Craig?]

My mistake. I assumed you were familiar with the electoral college and how we elect Presidents in the country.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [My mistake. I assumed you were familiar with the electoral college and how we elect Presidents in the country. ]

Again you have to pretend. Ask yourself why, Craig.

Here's a clue: if you admit polls are credible you have to admit that many things you don't want to admit to are also credible. So you pretend.

Micheal Byrd

Of course you do

Craig Lindberg

Steve: [I'd say if we're to adopt Europe's gun laws, let's adopt their universal healthcare plans too.]

Sure, who needs a Constitution anyway. If we are going to pretend like the 2A isn't in the Constitution, why not also pretend like regulating healthcare is a power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.

Or maybe we follow the Constitution and do neither.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [Sure, who needs a Constitution anyway. If we are going to pretend like the 2A isn't in the Constitution,]

How about you stop pretending the 2nd Amendment says something it doesn't? The courts have made clear legislatures have the right to regulate firearms, even to ban them in places.

==> [why not also pretend like regulating healthcare is a power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.]

The courts have decided otherwise when they looked at Social Security, medicare, medicaid, and the ACA.

==> [Or maybe we follow the Constitution and do neither.]

Better yet, we'll obey the Constitution, the courts, and common sense, and do both.

Craig Lindberg

Mark: [How about you stop pretending the 2nd Amendment says something it doesn't?]

Saying that European style gun laws would be unconstitutional is "pretending the 2nd Amendment says something it doesn't?"

Only on planet Mark.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ Saying that European style gun laws would be unconstitutional is "pretending the 2nd Amendment says something it doesn't? ]

Yes. Cite some you believe would be unconstitutional.

Carlos Ponce

Denmark: Carrying a firearm in public is strictly prohibited as self-defense with a weapon. Civilians may only keep hunting shotguns and rifles at their residence.
Greece - Private citizens are forbidden from owning rifles in any caliber.
Netherlands - self-defense is not a valid reason to own firearms

Craig Lindberg

Mark: [Cite some you believe would be unconstitutional]

Do you ever attempt to educate yourself before you go mindlessly running you mouth? Google “European Firearms Directive.” Read and learn. Focus on this sentence in particular: "Acquisition and possession allowed only by persons who have good cause."

I know you struggle with the concept of rights vs. privileges, but try to keep up. If you have to show good cause, it’s not a right. It’s a privilege. Maybe you can understand the concept in terms of free speech. There would be no right to free speech or protest if CK had to show good cause before he could protest, and keep in mind that someone who doesn’t think like you might be the one who gets to decide what is and is not “good cause.”

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ "Acquisition and possession allowed only by persons who have good cause."]

Perfectly reasonable demand. Any US State that wants to put that into their state constitution is within their rights. See: Presser v. Illinois

Craig Lindberg

Mark: [Perfectly reasonable demand. Any US State that wants to put that into their state constitution is within their rights. See: Presser v. Illinois]

No. That’s not true. How do you come up with this nonsense? A state cannot put something in their constitution that is unconstitutional vis-à-vis the US Constitution. By your logic (which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues in Presser), a state could establish a religion and ban free speech. Having to show “good cause” to buy or possess a gun is as blatantly unconstitutional as would be requiring such as test to protest.

By the way, the SC held in Heller that “Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Mark Aaron

Craig: [A state cannot put something in their constitution that is unconstitutional vis-à-vis the US Constitution.]

What you think is unconstitutional, or what I think is unconstitutional? The states retain their rights to regulate firearms as tightly or as loosely as they see fit. A state can even ask why you need a gun. If it's for home defense, fine. But you don't need an arsenal. The states can regulate that as I understand it.They can even ban weapons in sensitive areas. Sensitive areas covers anyplace that has a crowd by my interpretation.

==> [By your logic (which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues in Presser), a state could establish a religion and ban free speech.]

No, my logic says the 2nd Amendment was more about militias and less about firearms. Its primary intent was to stop the abolitionists from disarming slave patrols.
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm

==> [By the way, the SC held in Heller that “Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation.”]

Nor did either case endorse a personal right interpretation. You'd have to be well regulated for that to take place.

Craig Lindberg

Mark: [No, my logic says the 2nd Amendment was more about militias and less about firearms. Its primary intent was to stop the abolitionists from disarming slave patrols.
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm]

Complete leftist BS propaganda. Bogus is bogus. Citing the VPC? Might as well cite the National Enquirer.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [Citing the VPC? Might as well cite the National Enquirer. ]

Who duped you into believing that nonsense Craig? The VPC is an excellent source. You just don't want to hear the facts.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ Citing the VPC?]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-origins-of-public-carry-jurisprudence-in-the-slave-south/407809/?0ot81qitljkg

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-us-right-to-own-guns-came-with-the-right-to-own-slaves

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/

Steve Fouga

I just saw your response, Craig.

I actually meant my original post to be sarcastic, but I see it didn't come across as I intended. While I think we can do better with our gun laws, I strongly support our right to bear arms. Anyone who knows me well would attest to that. My position on gun rights is strongly conservative.

On the other hand, my position on health care is strongly liberal. I believe everybody living in an advanced nation has the right to medicare-like health care.

This is why I made the statement I did. Essentially, "If we're forced to submit to draconian European gun laws, let's at least get the health care that some European societies provide." I can see it didn't come across that way.

Gary Miller

Most US gun deaths are suicides. True! There are more European suicides than US suicides but disarmed Europeans don't use guns as often. Government and criminal gun owners don't provide a suicide service for disarmed citizens. The European choice is their health care system.

Craig Lindberg

Are European lives worth more than ours? That’s a patently disingenuous question. One could just as easily ask “are European lives worth LESS than ours?” Europeans have a much lower rate of self-defense using guns than we do, by several orders of magnitude more than a factor of 1-to-3.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [Europeans have a much lower rate of self-defense using guns than we do, by several orders of magnitude more than a factor of 1-to-3.]

Where are you getting these numbers? Most European countries have a lower crime rate than the US.
https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

Gun homicide rates are 25 times higher in the US than in Europe.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

Craig Lindberg

There is nothing remotely accepted by both sides as to the number of times firearms are used to prevent crimes, but common sense tells you that even at the lowest of the absurdly low estimates would be at a much higher rate than in Europe given the small number of guns, no?

Mark Aaron

Craig: [There is nothing remotely accepted by both sides as to the number of times firearms are used to prevent crimes, but common sense tells you that even at the lowest of the absurdly low estimates would be at a much higher rate than in Europe given the small number of guns, no? ]

Got a link for those assertions?

Craig Lindberg

Mark: [Got a link for those assertions?]

Of course I do. Unlike you, I don't go around making stuff up - which I suspect is why you rarely post links to support your BS claims.

"Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's definition of a defensive gun use, survey design, population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach of 4.7 million per year." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

As for using some common sense, I don't think there is anyone who can help you with that.

Mark Aaron

Good source. Thank you.

From your source:

_"In 2000, Hemenway published a survey which found that "Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense"; also that year, he published another survey which found that "criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use." Both of these surveys argued that many defensive gun uses may not be in the best interests of society. Also in 2000, Hemenway and his colleagues conducted a small survey that found that guns in the home were used more often to intimidate family members (13 respondents) than in self-defense (2 respondents). The same study stated that its results suggested that most self-defense gun uses did not occur in the home, and that non-gun weapons are used more often to thwart crime than guns are."_

Suppose a gun wasn't available during these 'preventions.' What are some of the more probable outcomes that might occur?

Craig Lindberg

Mark: [Suppose a gun wasn't available during these 'preventions.' What are some of the more probable outcomes that might occur?] How would I know? Rape? Robbery? Kidnapping? Murder? Pretty much any crime.

Hemenway is the guy at the low end of the estimate. His methodology is worth noting: it's a telephone poll/interview of random people. Nothing is done to verify the results either way. Nothing is done to ensure a proper sample (note that no information is given on the margin of error). A third of the people contacted refused to participate. Maybe people who have had to use a gun to protect themselves don't want to talk about it? Seems more likely than people who haven't not wanting to talk about it, no?

Mark Aaron

Craig: [How would I know? Rape? Robbery? Kidnapping? Murder? Pretty much any crime.]

Or you could get a dog. If things get especially bad a baseball bat or a golf club. Less dead people that way.

Craig Lindberg

Mark: [Or you could get a dog. If things get especially bad a baseball bat or a golf club. Less dead people that way.]

The abject arrogance of liberals on full display. You think you and people who think like you should be able to dictate when, where, and how others defend themselves yet you would never apply that thinking to rights you like. You think posting the Ten Commandments on Broadway is unconstitutional, maybe you just don't need to look at it? By your logic, why should you get to decide when, where, and by what means you enjoy 1A rights?

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ You think you and people who think like you should be able to dictate when, where, and how others defend themselves ]

When your festish begins to endanger the public the state has a duty to step in and stop you.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.