The Truth About Dangerous Firearms


Gun crime in America is all too easy in the 21st century. Have a fake ID and a history of mental illness? No problem – just pop down to your local gun store and purchase a handgun. Background checks aren’t even required for private gun sales. Belong to a militia with a radical agenda? Why not purchase a fully powered assault rifle? America’s gun laws are some of the most backward across both the developed and developing worlds. If we are going to solve the problem of gun crime in America, we are going to need a shift in America’s attitudes toward dangerous firearms.

Gun Crime Facts and Figures

  • Over 500 children are killed in firearm accidents every year
  • Over 31,940 people died in firearm related incidents in 2011
  • Over 270 million firearms are owned by American civilians
  • Firearms are responsible for more murders than all other weapons put together

The ‘Second Amendment’ Myth

Firearm advocates will often claim that the ‘Second Amendment’ denies the Federal Government the authority to regulate and control the use of firearms. But this claim has been utterly discredited by constitutional scholars. Here are some points that have been made about the Second Amendment by constitutional experts:

  • While the Founding Fathers may have supported the ownership of slow, expensive powder-loaded rifles, it’s doubtful that they would have been able to conceive of shotguns, assault rifles, handguns, and other contemporary weaponry.
  • The only U.S. Supreme Court ruling that actually focused on the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller (1939), found that there is no individual right to bear arms independent of national self-defense concerns. The Supreme Court has spoken only once, it has spoken in favor of the civilian militia interpretation, and it has not spoken since. If the Court has held a different view, it has certainly had ample opportunity to rule on the matter since then.
  • Civilian militias are unnecessary and few and far between in the 21st century. The founders assumed that we would always need a militia for national and personal defense, but this assumption has now been invalidated.
  • If you really want to overthrow the government, bearing arms probably isn’t enough in 2006. You’d need aircraft to take the skies, hundreds of tanks to defeat ground forces, and a full navy. The only way to reform a powerful government in this day and age is through nonviolent means.
  • What the majority of Americans believe about the Second Amendment is unsurprising, because a majority of Americans have been misinformed about what the Second Amendment accomplishes and how federal courts have traditionally interpreted it.


In the 21st century, America’s army and police force are more capable of protecting us than our founders could ever have imagined. There is simply no excuse for owning dangerous firearms when an effective police force is a phone call away. America’s backward gun laws are looked upon by Europeans and Canadians with horror, and our gun crime figures are something we should be ashamed of. We owe it to our children to produce a safer society where access to dangerous weapons is restricted and monitored by a democratically elected government, and where our safety is administered by a professional and trustworthy law enforcement.


  1. How about an article on the truth about dangerous blacks and the fact that they produce the majority of violent crimes in America. also you might want to check your recent Supreme Court cases on the absolute right of Americans to own firearms.

      • the FBI reports Hispanics as “white.”

        There are a variety of state- and city-wide crime analyses that properly distinguish these groups.

        Blacks commit about half of violent crime, Hispanics around a third. Most of the rest is white and a tiny sliver is Asian.

      • Yes I have, and encourage you to look at the % column by category. When you do, you will find that blacks cause a very disproportionate number of murders (relative to the population) in certain categories. Specifically:
        > Murder and non-negligent manslaughter @ 49.7%
        > Robbery @ 55.6 %
        > Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc. @ 40.3 %
        > Prostitution and commercialized vice @ 43.6 %

        Plus whatever crime that Mexican drug/crime gangs cause, gets bundled into “White” crime.

        If you want to make an argument for “gun control” in inner cities and high crime areas, then by all means… take guns away from Blacks and Mexicans.

      • drB, “PhD” (response to Aug.16, 3:40 pm post)

        1. Given that I stuck to FBI-published facts and made rational, mathematical inferences from these fasts, it strains the credulity of your term “racist”. Please define ‘racist’.

        2. Given that you seem ‘challenged’ in the powers of observation, and making logical inferences or conclusions from said data, it puts the value of your degree or Alma Mater in some doubt, IMHO.

        3. I will give you full marks for “Political Correctness” – which, as Bill Maher points out correctly — is an oxymoron in itself.

        4. Not to sound vulgar or crude, but to underscore my point: “I don’t give a rat’s ass” what skin color, gender (not ‘sex’), culture or faith a person belongs to, I will call out BS, lies and hypocrisy EVERY single time. NO exceptions or “special status” (which is discriminatory in itself) to anyone.

        If, for example, WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant), blue-eyed, males — the only group left that seems ‘politically correct’ to slander — were in the “trouble” group of gun criminals, I’d say the EXACT same thing. And so should anyone else, w/o feeling ‘guilty’, or scared of a new and different kind of social or legal reprisal. Got it?

        Screw political correctness! How about bringing back Intellectual Honesty!?

        Hope this clarifies things, if perhaps a tad verbose.


        p.s. And not to get too personal, but I too have a string of degrees — in the REAL sciences – from a couple of REAL universities (global Top 20 ranking), but I don’t go waving that flag, to bolster my ego, status or anything else. Ideas should stand on their own merit, not borrowed merit.

        p.p.s. In the off-chance that you were being sarcastic in your response, I most humbly retract my above ‘tough love’ comments, and salute your sarcasm. Peace be with you.

  2. Your blog has titles like “legitimate” and “accredited”, then you drop terms like “fully powered assault rifle” as though such a thing exists. Few of your facts are accurate or taken in any rational context, especially the part about the number of “children” killed annually. A “child” of 15 armed to the teeth in a savage street gang is no child at all, but they are the ones being shot.
    I’m no firearms fanatic, but when you spew lies and plainly and obviously as in this column, there will be no rational discourse, only the rhetoric of extremist thinking, either pro and con, and nothing will change.

  3. “Firearms are responsible for more murders than all other weapons put together”. Don’t you mean governments? Aren’t they the greatest mass murderers of all time?

    • Without Governments to protect us from bad people like Hitler and Mao, we would be helpless!

      Or do you think you could fight Hitler using your assault rifle? No, you’d need tanks, fighters, submarines and bombers, things only a Government can afford!

      I know libertarians mean well, but they just won’t think things through!

  4. Son, you really need to put down that hash pipe. That stuff is rotting your brain.


  5. Well, if there isn’t a reason to ever own a “dangerous” firearm then come over to my place out in the country where there is a wildcat sanctuary not too far from me…. Where the police are at minimum 20 minutes away.

    On the other argument…. if even 1% of the guns in this country rebelled, that would be 270,000 of them on their way to D.C to unemploy 535 individuals.

    I’m pretty sure that’s more than are in Afganistan’s opposition force.

    I don’t condone the use of firearms against our govt. by the way. I’m just saying that the original intent of the 2nd amendment is valid.

    If I were an evil dictator wanna be, I’d think twice before attempting to enslave this country.

    • Nobody wants to enslave you. Your mind has been poisoned by reasing nonaccredited blogs.

      We progressives just want to tightly regulate all of your daily activities. We know what is best for you because most of us have studied public policy at accredited Universities.

    • This is a thought-provoking comment, Joe, but I am a bit confused by your mention of a “wildcat sanctuary.” Wildcats are pretty tough predators, so they don’t really need protection, or do they? I’d imagine the local birds and rodents would be the ones that need a sanctuary, but I don’t have a lot of experience with wildcats. Also, if the cats are in captivity, are they still considered wildcats? For how long? Anyway, I don’t see why you need a gun if the cats are locked up in a sanctuary. It wouldn’t be very sporting to shoot them while they’re caged. Plus I’m sure the sanctuary people wouldn’t let you do that, or it wouldn’t be much of a sanctuary. Though I can imagine the sanctuary keepers might need guns in case the cats got out of control. My cat is terrified of noise, and she runs to hide under the bed on the first day of hunting season. Seems like you could just use blanks, though, or even a hammer and a metal trash can lid. So you wouldn’t even need a gun, and it would save a lot of money. You can pick up a hammer and a trash can lid at Home Depot for under ten dollars probably, if there is one near you. You might want to check prices at the hardware store next time you stop by for supplies for the sanctuary. Plus, it would be safer than a gun. You wouldn’t want to accidentally shoot the wildcat when you’re just trying to scare it.

  6. I think that we can all agree that regardless of what the “Constitution” says, only accredited individuals such as the police should have guns. But enforcing this obvious reality will require manpower, and also presents an opportunity. There are plenty of able-bodied patriotic Americans out there who are currently unemployed. What a business opportunity for right-minded businessmen to employ these unfortunates in an outsourced gun confiscation operation!

    • and start with those states where there are dangerous racist laws like Stand Your Ground. Guns are only used anymore by lunatic libertarian types for killing innocent children like Trayvawn Martin

  7. Thank you MDB for the official accredited viewpoint on guns. Only the government and accredited agents should be allowed to own guns.

    People are not responsible enough to handle too much freedom. Freedom must be restricted when it goes too far.

    • While I agree with your sentiment, I would argue that you are not giving away any freedom by refraining from barbaric private gun ownership. Through faithful, honest, and hard-working elected officials and their accredited appointees, such as police and army, it is YOU who is armed, albeit indirectly. Perhaps that is what Founding Fathers meant when creating the Second Amendment.

  8. Mexico is a perfect example of what tough gun control laws are all about. The bodies are piling up to the ceiling. (Google “may massacre chapala”). Thanks to gun control the bad guys are armed while the locals have no way of defending themselves beyond farm tools. Don’t believe me?? Move there and find out. You’ll develop an amazing appreciation for the 2nd Amendment.

    • A good example of hands-off policy towards guns is Somalia, which should be paradise for so-called libertarians. Anyone can have not only handguns and high-powered assault rifles, but also machine guns, APC’s, and even tanks. As a result, gun murder rate has skyrocketed showing yet once more a need for comprehensive gun-banning legislation in the United States.

    • Ron, I would laugh at your conclusions if the matter weren’t so serious! People are DYING in Mexico and you want the criminals to be allowed to have MORE guns??? Mexico ILLUSTRATES why such laws are necessary, and need to be strengthened!

      I don’t want to be rude, Ron, but do we need any MORE evidence that our Government needs to do away with the dangerous 1st amendment that allows well-meaning but misguided non-accredited people to confuse innocent Interweb swimmers, who, looking for an accredited newsource like the New York Times, might accidentally encounter and be swayed by such dangerous opinions???

      End the dangerous 1st Amendment now!!!

  9. Chauncey,
    thank you for the excellent link! It shows the distortion of reality in the minds of libertarians as well as their picking and choosing data that helps justify their ideology. While the facts showed at the link are legitimate, the libertarians fail to show many important factors. Few examples include lack of access of visible minorities to healthcare, lack of renewables in production of electricity consumed by Somalian population, gender inequality, and many other factors that would go against their Somalian “paradise” theory.

  10. The dangerous weapon you overlook is… Permanent doom & gloom by websites like Zerohedge. The Tylers are getting rich off the chronic and permanently depressed doomers and bears, while ridiculing market Bulls and economic optimists.

    Admittedly there is a time and a season for everything, but to those people “The sky never stops falling”.

    • You’re absolutely right, Hardy! Zerohedge should be taken over by the US government, and the editorial board should be run by an accredited economist, like Dr. Paul Krugman, whose upbeat and sensitive articles bring a smile to the faces of millions of investors, reminding them that they still live in the greatest country in the world, despite al the nay-saying doom and gloom they might accidentally have been coerced into reading while swimming on the Interweb.

      Although I like to think the best of everyone, even non-accredited people, it seems clear to me that Tyler Durden (if that really IS his name !) deliberately tries to scare people into selling such worthwhile financial securities as US treasuries and shares in Apple, to buy useless shiny rocks like gold and strontium. I think he is probably a financial terrorist, and he should be put on trial so we can all find out the truth!

      End the dangerous

      • … ‘right’ of non-accredited mischief-makers like Tyder Durlen to print fearmongering articles on the InterWeb!

        Join my campaign to end the dangerous 1st Amendment NOW!!!!