We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

V Tramell • 5 years ago

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

Guest • 5 years ago

Well we know america has the most guns and there fore the most gun deaths. Seems your ideology has failed. According to you, you should have the least school massacres , not the most.

V Tramell • 5 years ago

No doubt you information comes from anti-gun sources the likes of Michael Bloomberg, Gun Control Inc and Piers Morgan.

The fact is the country with highest firearm related homicide rate compared to ownership is Honduras. There is an average of 10 firearms per 100 people with a homicide rate of a little over 60 deaths per 100.

The US ranks at a little over 85 firearms per 100 people with a homicide rate of less than 10 per 100.

Piers Morgan likes to site Britain as having lower crime rates because they have stricter gun control. What he will not tell you is that Britain only the only firearms related homicide that are counted are those in which a conviction has been attained. In other words all unsolved homicides or pending court cases related to firearms is never counted in their reports.

There is a good reason for this.

A European Union report showed that Britain has a worse rate for all types of violence surpassing the U.S. and even South Africa.

The report cited;
- Britain has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
- It has a higher homicide rate than most of its western European neighbors, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
- Britain has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
- It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

The other point you have missed is that there is an estimated 2 million instances a year whereby a person in the US is saved from death or serious bodily harm because of a legally owned firearm.

By your reckoning you would happy to see 2 million more Americans injured or killed a year for the sake of your anti-rights agenda.

Guest • 5 years ago

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I am Canadian . America has 10 times the population of canada yet 58 times the gun deaths.

Britain has 500 murders a year 46 of which are gun deaths. 500 Total Murders. You are so incredibly wrong its laughable. America has 11,000 murders that are just guns not counting all the rest. You see I know my facts. You made the mistake of listening to NRA propaganda and embarrassed yourself.

Honduras?
When you use 3rd world countries to justify your guns like honduras you make my case for me, except you aren't bright enough to know it.

V Tramell • 5 years ago

So your Canadian. Does that make you a singular authority on worldwide firearm related homicides?

As I pointed out before unlike the US which reports all firearm related homicides Britain only reports firearm related homicides that have resulted in a conviction. This was admitted to by the Home Office. This fact alone seriously skews your data. You also fail to account for the vast difference in population between both countries.

Ah now you now want to add conditions to your original post.

Very well, when singling out "developed countries" as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Mexico has a homicide rate of approximately 18 for every 100 firearm owners followed by Estonia and Chile.

Conclusion: Despite your attempts to make the US appear as some sort of wild wild west, The level of firearm related deaths per capita is surpassed by numerous other countries.

There is incontrovertible proof that communities where the law abiding are armed have lower crime rates than those with draconian gun-control laws.

Here is a prime example.

In 1982, the Kennesaw, GA City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

Now, compare that to Morton Grove Illinois, the first city to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers which it did in 1982, the same time Kennesaw County passed its ordinance.

Within a year of its ordinance, Kennesaw's crime rate dropped 74% whereas Morton Grove's crime increased by 15.7 percent and has stayed above the national average ever since.

In 25 years since the passage of its ordinance there has only been 1 firearm related homicide in Kennesaw County. Between 2000 and 2012 there have only been 3 murders in a town with a population of some 30,000.

But if our Creator given rights disturbs your delicate sensibilities, you are free to not come here.

Guest • 5 years ago

Nice to see you back off your phoney claim about england. Since we are talking about murders whether solved or not. So much for your point. God never gave you the right to endanger your children. Thats was your right wing wackos that did that. You hold the world record for mass killings in your schools. Congratulations.

V Tramell • 5 years ago

You are either not reading my post or not comprehending it. And now in typical liberal fashion you have now sunk to childish name calling which proves you have no valid rebuttal, but thanks for playing.

Guest • 5 years ago

Ok I gave you credit for being able to figure it out. You didn't so I will explain.

United States had 15,000 murders in total 9000 by firearms

Britain had 648 murders 39 by firearms

Since United states has 5 times the population they should have 5 time the guns deaths,

39x5 is not 9000. Get it yet?

jaytrain • 5 years ago

When the muzzies do their american Nairobi, shoot up a shopping mall , it will be done in the Northeast and the Left Coast where the citizens are unable to defend themselves . By the time the swat team gets there , the deaths will number in the dozens .

JHL • 5 years ago

When the crap hits the fan the swat teams will be shedding their uniforms and head downhill out of the state. The people will be on their own. Lapd Chief will be pissing down both legs hiding in the closet wishing he hadn't dis-armed the people knowing his head is going to roll right after that nut we have for a gov.

Francis W. Porretto • 5 years ago
"The answer to the terrorists and jihadists is not to surrender our rights and liberties, but to embrace them."

Therein lies the great irony of contemporary "free" societies. "Our" governments are almost as hostile to freedom as the Islamists are. Even though it would be obvious to a microcephalic idiot that a diffuse threat like terrorism can only be countered by the diffuse defense of an armed citizenry, Western governments are fanatically hostile to private armament and would far rather we remain exposed to deadly therrorists than that we be capable of acting againt them without "official" sanction.

The Islamists must be destroyed. After that -- very soon after -- it will be mandatory to take a big honking peach switch to "our" governments' behinds.

Webster • 5 years ago

No, before.

proseshooter • 5 years ago

Somehow I do not believe the Muzzie actions are included when it comes to the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.

Bass Reeves • 5 years ago

Not only do we have soldiers walking around in uniform we have soldiers and their spouses walking to and from their barracks and residences in plain clothes. We also have thousands of disarmed federal workers in uniform and plain clothes. It's not difficult to figure out who they are.
DC politicians don't care about the safety of law abiding individuals. They think that we should be more than willing sacrifices for their twisted, elitist and corruption based ideology.

LibertyForAll • 5 years ago

Frankly, those in government, the media and others that wish to accommodate and tolerate Islam and their radical beliefs, are just as or more dangerous to our society than Al Qaeda, ISIS or any other Muslims that wish to do away with what they consider infidels, and our way of life. These people are our enemies.

o_day_terrence • 5 years ago

Any government that does not trust their peaceful, law-abiding citizens to be armed, is a government that can't be trusted by the citizens. And think on this...two groups of people fervently want law-abiding citizens to be disarmed. Liberal Politicians and Criminals. Interesting pairing, huh?

Juan Motie • 5 years ago

When you say "liberal politicians and criminals," it is like you speaking of categories of people who are identical twins! In most cases there seems to be no difference between a so-called "liberal politician" and a criminal. Just look to the lawlessness of this current administration and his willing goons and thugs in congress.

Guest • 5 years ago

Chicago and Washington DC are clear proof that those cities where gun control laws are the strictest, are precisely where citizens need to be armed.

ProperModulation • 5 years ago

Just ask a New Jersey resident what "compelling need" means. If means no permit for anyone who is not politically connected.

proseshooter • 5 years ago

I have no problem with "compelling need" in D.C. as long as the same standards and requirements also apply to the Washington Post articles and editorials, and registering and exercising the right to vote.

silversurf • 5 years ago

Off course the Leftist in Australia are coming out and decrying Abbott's hardline on terrorism as using war as a distraction. They say there is no real threat to Australia. They only serve their socialist goals and have no concern about security of the lives of others.

With diligent jihadists going around looking to kill, /to make a production out of killing/, random Austrralians, they say there's "no real threat"?

What would they consider a "real threat"? A Conservative government?

JHL • 5 years ago

As soon as one of those officials loses his head because nobody was armed to save him their castrated gov't officials might think twice about how they dis-armed the populace. I expect that crap from the piss their pants and beg limey's but I had a better impression of the Aussies.

o_day_terrence • 5 years ago

In this country we have some politicians who would apologize to the terrorists if any resistance was made by citizens against a terrorist attack.

JHL • 5 years ago

I agree with you there. I already a few names that come to mind.

"Resistance"? Don't you mean Islamophobic overreaction?

Craig Simpson • 5 years ago

1st Step this legislative session, Sell UBC's as a "Common Sense way to stop children and communities from being slaughtered". Claim a "Gun violence pandemic" is happening.

2nd Step next legislative session, Sell 594 is working but "We must do more by registering all guns. If all guns were registered criminals could not have them. We can stop the violence now!". Expand on initial Propaganda "children and communities cannot be safe without registration of all guns because too many guns exist in peoples hands, and many of those people would not pass a background check, or Are criminals.

3rd Step when the time is right, (FINALLY THE END GAME!) The Propaganda machine worked and cannot be stopped. We must act quickly now. Confiscation!!! Finally children and communities can be safe. Bonus we will have hurt the "Duck Dynasty" type culture we see as uncivilized.

JHL • 5 years ago

I would hope you say that with tongue in cheek.

Craig Simpson • 5 years ago

Just sharing the truth :)

Frank Clarke • 5 years ago

"If the United States abandons its [corporate] interests in the Middle East, the accommodationists think we’ll be left alone."

There; fixed it for you.

Even if we are NOT left alone, we will have done three important things: (1) we will have taken the moral high-ground (which we do not now have); (2) we will have butted out where we have no real national security interests, only campaign-donor interests; and (3) we will have taken the first step toward isolating insane mass murderers among their own kind. Where's the downside to any of that?

o_day_terrence • 5 years ago

Your key part is "Even if we are NOT left alone". We will NOT be left alone. We may wish to isolate ourselves from them, but the reverse isn't true. They wish to destroy us because of our Philosophy, Freedoms, Religions, Way of Life, etc. The only way they'd leave us alone is if we willfully destroyed ourselves (and everything we stand for) for them first. And to isolate those insane mass murderers among their own kind would require the very intervention the accommodationists are opposed to using. Moral high-ground means little when you and your loved ones have just been beheaded.

Albert Aho • 5 years ago

Yet another example of the type of brutal violence that requires armed self defense: http://wtvr.com/2013/08/20/...

Jim Coles • 5 years ago

"The answer to terrorists and jihadists is not to surrender our rights and liberties, but embrace them." Preferably embrace them in your hand with a caliber that begins with '4.' As in .40 or .45.
Ask no quarter -- and give none.
Remember: it is impossible to be an observant Muslim and a loyal, patriotic, traditional values American. The two life systems are mutually exclusive.

jstsyn • 5 years ago

So we'll get to watch the folks working so hard to disarm us lose their heads? I'm disabled and would be unable to help. My index finger works extremely well though, but the headless would have me keep it in my pocket.

Guest • 5 years ago
pappap42 • 5 years ago

Don't forget to kill the women and children also. This is the only way to stop them. It worked in WW 2 it will work again.

David Kenjiro Karásek • 5 years ago

Editorial like THIS in Washington Times? O.O
Seems that times are a-changing.

SloBlo • 5 years ago

Not necessarily... but the Times ARE different: NY Times (uber liberal), WASHINGTON Times (fair and balanced). Same applies to the NY Post (reasonably conservative) vs. the Washington POST (Obama's mouthpiece).