Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Unions, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance are/were "deranged leftist" concepts, according to their critics when they were first proposed. As for taking responsibility for one's actions, there is a deranged orange monster in the White House who provides a great example of someone who cannot.
Alas for the days when the National Rifle Association was a group of hunters (i.e. people who use rifles). And staunchly pro-gun control.
Yes, there was a time before it became strictly a gun manufacturers' lobbying organization, devoted entirely to keeping sales up.
Gun culture is a major part of the USA doing its best to achieve third-world status.
American gun death rates are exceptional, is that the kind of exceptionalism we aspire to?
Will greater number Make America Great Again?
Will this inspire more foreign tourists to visit?
No right is without responsibilities.
And this bill whittles down the responsibilities, without building in adequate safe-guards to prevent misuse of the right.
Always glad to oblige. ;-)
What your report shows is that there is no way to achieve absolute safety; and anyone who demands that is delusional. But we knew that. Which is why I oppose banning all guns. Specifically, I see no justification for banning hunting rifles, for all that they can be (and occasionally are) used to kill people rather than game.
I would note, however, that it appears that the number of homicides via teddy bear appears to be zero. And even accidental deaths from teddy bears look to be way lower that accidental gun deaths. Just sayin'....
Guns are safe as teddy bears.
And the number of people killed (or seriously injured, just for completeness) every year by teddy bears would be...?
Apologies for the vagueness of the insult. I did not mean to insult red states specifically with regard to their gun laws.
I meant to insult their general level of education and culture which leads to this need to own a gun and carry it with them, unlike any developed world culture elsewhere on the planet.
The best lesson for the deplorables to look at once they figure out where it is on a map, is Australia.
California is a "may issue" CCW state and the police normally do not issue CCW to anyone who is not politically connected. Diane Feinstein is a well known anti-gun advocate but when she was mayor of San Francisco, she got a CCW even though as mayor she had a 24 hour police bodyguard. A friend got a CCW because he lent his hunting cabin to the local sheriff to use when he was not using it. The reality is in "may issue" states, giving out CCWs is a perk that politicians use to reward supporters. So people who need CCWs do not get them while those who do not need them get them. My friend got his CCW just to show he could do it. He had no need for it and never carried a conceal weapon at all.
The link between CCWs and higher gun homicide may well be due to this fact, that CCWs are often issued to people whose only reason to have one is to show they are politically connected. It is an abuse of power and people who do that are prone to abuse their power knowing their political connections will get them off.
Remarkable how Republicans abandon policies for politics. Deficit? Old hat. States’ Rights? The NRA is a state.
That particular story is well reported in the media, so it doesn't exactly support your claim that the stories are not well covered. See here for national (and international) coverage. And the great thing about America is that you Texans can decide for yourselves how your restaurants should be regulated, while allowing San Franciscans to decide the same for themselves.
Meanwhile, the murder rates in Texas and California are - about the same. Which doesn't lend much help to either side in this debate.
The reality is that the real danger to our civilization is from idiots who believe that their political opponents are insane or wicked, and incapable of reasoning or arguing in good faith. Anyone who believes that should just recuse themselves from politics entirely, because they are incapable of doing anything constructive or good.
I mean, I imagine there might be one or two homicides caused each year by someone smothering with a teddybear?
Except that the higher gun homicide is found in the states with looser concealed-carry rules, the ones where you don't have to be politically connected to get a permit. So the moral seems to be that if only politicians' friends get to carry concealed weapons, the homicide rate stays down nice and low.
I love The Economist but their stance on gun safety and regulation has always seemed out of touch in my opinion. It's easy for a European magazine to spout off the dangers of firearms and to dismiss 2nd amendment advocates as dangerous or misguided. Europeans have never had a large gun culture, and governments in Europe have actively restricted ownership for centuries, while Americans have been fortunate to enjoy liberal rights in this regard.
I agree that there are measures to be taken to improve the background check system to try and stop those who likely should not have access to firearms, but attacking the reciprocity bill is wrong. The 2nd amendment is clear in its intention to protect ownership and use of firearms for all Americans, whether they're from Utah or Los Angeles. The current regime of state-by-state regulation does not and should not supersede the 2nd amendment.
The bill got 6 Democratic votes in the House, so while it may be unlikely that Senate Democrats sign on, it is not impossible.
Unfortunately, yes, a long standing policy because so many of them are in the pocket of the NRA!
The Economist is practical. It's interested in laws that might, just might, possibly get passed. It's not, on the whole, interested in pipe dreams that are nowhere near reality.
This article discusses one law that did have a reasonable chance of being passed on its merits, and describes how it's been effectively sabotaged.
Calling for another law, one that hasn't even been proposed because everybody knows it would go nowhere - might make some people feel better, but it's not really constructive because it's not within the bounds of things that might actually happen. It's like calling for universal (i.e. worldwide) free food for everyone: sounds like a nice idea, but without a roadmap of how to get from here to there, it's meaningless.
I often think the Economist goes too far off into the cloud cuckoo land, this time I think you’re just not being clear.
A handgun is designed, built and made for the express purpose of killing people. There is no other use. It is a human to human weapon. There is no legitimate reason for private citizens to own a handgun. None.
Assault rifles. The AR-15 (M16) and various derivates are the best selling assault rifle in the United States. There is a universe of other makes readily available. The number and various types of assault rifle available to Americans is huge.
These weapons are designed, built and manufactured for the express purpose of killing people. They are not designed and built for hunting animals. They are designed to kill people in a human to human conflict situation. There is no legitimate reason for private citizens to own one of these assault weapons. None.
There is no excuse. There is no justification.
The carnage in Vegas and the steady trickle of people shooting each other by accident (all too often small children) and intent is a direct consequence of the conscious decision taken by the majority of American citizens to allow this. Every vote by an NRA member, every membership of the NRA taken and paid for contributes to this slaughter of innocent and not-so-innocent life.
You can get into arguments around semi-automatic shotguns (eg., the Remington 1100) used for skeet and duck hunting and semi-automatic rifles (eg., Browning Automatic Rifle, the BAR range) but an AR-15 with combat sights, a combat stock, combat 30 round magazine is built for an entirely different purpose.
Continuing to allow the sale of these weapons to private citizens means the death of large numbers of people.
Banning the sale of these weapons and collection of those outstanding will stop the slaughter and save thousands of lives in the course of the next ten years.
I live in Texas. Cases of self defense with a gun are very common. They are not always reported by the media, particularly the national media. A few days ago, a gunman entered a nearby restaurant and threatened the patrons with a gun, including one patron's daughters. The father pulled his legal concealed carry pistol and killed the deranged nitwit with one shot. End of story. Justice served.
When I applied for my concealed carry permit, they completed an exhaustive FBI background check. So, I'm not sure what TE is referring to, but concealed carry permit holders receive not only a background check, but, in Texas, a range test where they must demonstrate proficiency in the use of their firearm. I would rather be sitting in a restaurant where all the patrons were legally armed than in a San Francisco bistro where nobody is armed and it is a sanctuary city for criminal illegals.
The reality is that the real danger to our civilization is not from gun owners anymore than it is for car owners or knife owners. The real danger is from left wing idiots who want some ethereal big government to come save them. Left wing, liberal sociopathic, morons want Mommy and Daddy to protect them for the rest of their lives. They do not want to take responsibility for anything: Not their education, not their medical care, not their safety, not their job, not their immorality. Everything wrong is someones else's fault. Everything that goes well is because of their unique genius and superiority. This is why psychiatrist, Dr. Lyle Rossiter, classifies liberalism as a mental disorder. Any similarity between liberal thinking and logical analysis is an illusion.
So why indulge these deranged leftists with laws that do no good? Why even try? It's like my Dad always said, "You can't teach a pig to sing, you only waste your time and frustrate the pig."
Indeed, you do sound like you live in Texas.
If you have a point to make about gun control, ranting on and fantasysing about alleged liberals is the wrong way to go about it.
Hey, Economist, let me ask a simple question.
You say that "between 2000 and 2013 armed civilians stopped only 3% of active shooting incidents."
So, what's the percentage of lawful concealed carry permit holders who led active shooting incidents?
Because if you want to take a look down in Texas, sweet Texas, legal gun owners have a murder rate less than half of that of the famously gun-controlled UK.
And concealed carry permit owners, from a study from the Crime Research Prevention Center, are not only more law-abiding than the general public by a vast margin, but more law abiding than actual police officers.
So, remembering that 98% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones, and noting your own statistic that 3% of mass shooters are stopped by an armed, law-abiding citizen, despite the fact that only 4.8% of Americans own a concealed carry permit and not all of those are going to be carrying at any even time, please do explain how making it easier for extremely law-abiding citizens, with well under half the crime rate of the United Kingdom, who stop a percentage of mass shootings over two-thirds of their own percentage, to more easily carry to defend themselves and others is somehow a travesty.
As noted, there is no absolute safety. There's "a couple of people" who get killed with any number of everyday objects, of the kind found in homes across the nation. We don't worry about banning, or even regulating, them because they are useful objects for other purposes. Purposes unrelated to killing people.