Sacramento, CA…Americans Against Gun Violence extends heartfelt sympathy to the families, friends, and colleagues of the five people killed, including the newspaper editor, three journalists, and another staff member, in the mass shooting on June 28, 2018, at the office of the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland. At the same time, we agree with the statement by the late Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut who said in a press release and a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate 50 years ago:
Pious condolences will no longer suffice….Quarter measures and half measures will no longer suffice….The time has now come that we must adopt stringent gun control legislation comparable to the legislation in force in virtually every civilized country of the world.
The regular occurrence of mass shootings is eminently preventable. The United States is the only high income democratic country in the world in which such mass shootings occur on a regular basis. The overall homicide rate in the United States is 10 times higher than the average rate in other high income democratic countries, driven by a gun homicide rate that is 25 times higher. The reasons for the extraordinarily high rate of gun violence in the United States are clear. Our country’s rates of mental illness and substance abuse are comparable to the rates in other high income democratic countries. We do not have a more violent society in general. Our rate of assault by any means is lower than the assault rate in most other developed countries. The reasons for our extraordinarily high rate of gun violence are our extraordinarily lax gun control laws as compared with all other high income democratic countries, the associated extraordinarily high number of guns in circulation in our country, and what Senator Dodd referred to 50 years ago as “the ridiculous ease” with which almost anyone in our country can acquire almost any kind of a gun.
In every other high income democratic country of the world, the burden of proof is on the person seeking to acquire a gun to show why he or she needs one, and that he or she is of good character and able to handle a gun safely; not on society to prove why he or she should not have one. Moreover, recognizing that there is no net protective value from civilian gun ownership, most other developed countries do not accept “self-defense” as a reason for having a gun. The alleged shooter in the Capital Gazette mass shooting, Jarrod Ramos, had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor harassment of a young woman who refused his advances in 2011. He filed an unsuccessful defamation of character lawsuit against the Capital Gazette after the Gazette published a critical – but accurate – account of his conviction. Ramos subsequently made numerous threats against Gazette staff on social media. He was nevertheless able to legally purchase the pump action shotgun he used in the Capital Gazette mass shooting under lax federal and Maryland state gun laws. A person with this background almost certainly would not have been able to acquire a gun in any other high income democratic country in the world.
Other high income democratic countries have reacted swiftly and definitively to prevent mass shootings. For example, following a mass shooting committed with assault rifles in the resort town of Port Arthur, Australia, in 1996, the Australian government took just 13 days to agree to ban civilian ownership not only of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles, but also of all pump-action shotguns of the type used by Ramos in the Capital Gazette mass shooting yesterday and by Dimitrios Pagourtzis in the Santa Fe High School mass shooting in May of this year. There have been no further mass shootings in Australia since 1996. Despite scores of horrific mass shootings in the United States over the past half century, the U.S. federal government has failed to take any definitive action to prevent these massacres from recurring on a regular basis.
It is the position of Americans Against Gun Violence that the United States should adopt stringent gun control laws comparable to the laws that have long been in effect in every other high income democratic country of the world. If such laws had already been in place, it’s exceedingly unlikely that the Capital Gazette mass shooting would have occurred. Until such laws are in place, when the next horrific mass shooting occurs in our country, we shouldn’t ask ourselves why these tragedies keep occurring. Rather, we should ask ourselves why we fail to take the obvious steps necessary to prevent them.
Americans Against Gun Violence Responds to Capital Gazette Mass Shooting in Annapolis, Maryland added by admin on
View all posts by admin →
Re: “most other developed countries do not accept “self-defense” as a reason for having a gun”
The Second Amendment is not about hunting, target shooting or “self defense”. Its purpose is clearly stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights where it says “The convention of a number of states having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse, of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. Note that when the Second Amendment was written, every weapon was a weapon of war, there were no restrictions on the private ownership of weapons and the militia was equally matched with the Continental Army. After all, if they weren’t equally matched, it would be pretty hard to deter or prevent a “misconstruction or abuse, of the government’s powers” – so in reality, the citizen militia of today should have the same firearms as the current US military. Unfortunately we are no longer equally matched because we have let our gun rights be eroded by buying into this notion if we just compromise to accommodate the people who – for whatever reason – don’t like guns they will quit trying to take away our gun rights. The problem is history has shown that no matter how much we compromise, it’s never enough so we need to stop compromising.
Re: ” The overall homicide rate in the United States is 10 times higher…”
According to the CDC in 2015 there were about 12979 people murdered with firearms in the US which works out to about 35 people per day. These are the “word doctored” figures the news media and anti-gun folks like to publicize because people relate to the magnitude of those numbers and it sounds like a lot of people until you realize this is out of a population of 321 million Americans. In that context, it works out to about 1 person out of every 25,000 people being murdered by a firearm and about 1 person out of every 923,000 (FBI data) being murdered with a rifle which includes so called “assault rifles”. Dwell on the magnitude of your individual significance next time you are in a stadium with 25,000 or 923,000 people and you will realize these events are rare. It is also estimated there are about 109 million gun owners and 20 million “assault style” weapon owners in the US which means on any given day 108,999,965 gun owners didn’t kill anyone nor did 19,999,965 “assault style” weapon owners – yet because the news media magnifies these relatively isolated and infrequent events to the level of an epidemic, the anti-gun folks answer is to restrict or take the guns away from people who harmed no one. The number of homicides with a firearm will never be zero – so if you think 1 person out of 25,000 or 923,000 is unacceptable then given the fact that deranged individuals and murderers are an intrinsic part of the human race and we currently live in a free society, what number of illegal firearm homicides would ever be acceptable to you to the point you would say “we don’t need any more restrictions on the private ownership of firearms”?
Re: “The regular occurrence of mass shootings is eminently preventable”
The sad fact is you can’t stop every lone wolf who is a first time offender. Even if all the guns could be banned, there are plenty of other methods available to kill a lot of people thanks to the internet – i.e things like pipe bombs (San Bernardino, pressure cooker bombs (Boston), propane tank bombs (Columbine), truck bombs (Oklahoma City), exotic battery bombs (Austin, TX), gasoline cans and a match (Happy Land fire on 3/25/90), heavy truck crashing in to a crowd of people (Nice, France), home made flame throwers made from plumbing parts and gasoline (nowhere – yet) and any pressure vessel filled with shrapnel and gun powder manufactured the same way it has been since the 6th century that will momentarily confine an explosive pressure wave. And when any of those things are used and there are no civilian firearms to deter the government from limiting our Bill of Rights, it’s likely no one will know about them because at that point in order to silence any criticism for actions they can’t control and to maintain civilian support and power, the government has no reason to allow them to be reported. In other words, banning “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines just starts us down the road of incessant, progressive bans on other firearms with the end result being that only criminals and the government will have guns
The 2nd Amend is a RESTRICTIVE admendment. It states such in the Preamble to Bill of Rights. the 2A does not grant nor convey any right, but RESTRICTS and PROHIBITS the government from infringing upon this enumerated, pre-existing, God given right.
*The Second Amendment was not inserted into our Bill of Rights for the purpose of hunting or target shooting. It was put there for the purpose of the people being able to defend themselves from criminals AND from oppressive governments.
There is no such thing as “gun violence”. This is a focus-group-driven buzzword and talking point to create an imaginary bogeyman as the main anti 2nd Amendment propaganda tool. There are PEOPLE who commit violence with guns, but there are many more people who commit violence without them.
And, since the term “gun violence” is a catchword/cliche, the title suggests an unattainable goal. People have been robbing and killing other people, using the weapons of the day, since the beginning of man on this planet, which identifies the real issue – controlling criminal impulses in humans, not the otherwise legal instruments they use to commit crimes.
Anyone who doesn’t realize and/or acknowledge this isn’t thinking, s/he is ‘feeling’, and our liberty cannot depend upon what anybody ‘feels’.
How many of the gun murders, were already ILLEGAL ACTS committed in violation of numerous currently existing laws which totally FORBID the illegal acts like murder, in places where simply possession of a gun is already a FELONY? (For that matter, is non-gun violence considered acceptable, because it doesn’t involve a gun?)
Do you realize, that the “reasonable gun control laws”, ONLY disarm the law-abiding, who obeys the law and aren’t the problem? That the law only disarms the intended victims and prevents them from defending themselves?
“For example, following a mass shooting committed with assault rifles in the resort town of Port Arthur, Australia, in 1996, the Australian government took just 13 days to agree to ban civilian ownership not only of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles, but also of all pump-action shotguns of the type used by Ramos in the Capital Gazette mass shooting yesterday and by Dimitrios Pagourtzis in the Santa Fe High School mass shooting in May of this year. There have been no further mass shootings in Australia since 1996.”
Does the Australian Constitution specifically enumerate the Right of its citizens to own and carry guns? No?
The U.S. Constitution DOES!
How many mass-shootings did the tiny pissant country of Australia have BEFORE the ILLEGAL Port Arthur shooting?
The UK, Australia and NZ COMBINED the total population of those 3 countries is only 94,460,000…or just 10 times the size of just New York City.
While the USA has a population of 323,100,00. (How much of the “gun violence” attributed to the U.S., happens in the U.S. cities with STRICT gun control laws, like Chicago and Detroit etc?
If gun control laws WORK, as you seem to believe, please list a few U.S. cities with STRICT gun control laws AND a violent crime rate LOWER than the national average. (If the problem was actually “Easy available of guns in other states with LAX GUN CONTROL LAWS!” As the intellectually dishonest usually claim, wouldn’t logic and reason suggest that the SUPPLY STATES would have a much HIGHER violent crime rate than the RESTRICTED STATES?
So that all said, what new “reasonable” gun control laws, do you believe, the violent predators who ignore the current and more serious laws against rape, robbery, and murder would obey?
Where has the cowardly and illogical ideology of “The more helpless you are when attacked with deadly intent, the SAFER you are!” actually saved the lives of those attacked with deadly intent?
Being helpless when attacked with deadly intent doesn’t work to protect 4-legged-sheep; as the “Gun-Free” Capital Gazette slaughter suggests, it doesn’t seem to work any better to protect the bipedal sheep either.
Every other high income country in the world does not recognize a constitutionally guaranteed right of its people to keep and bear arms.
The U.S. does. End of story.
Americans Against Gun Violence state: “Moreover, recognizing that there is no net protective value from civilian gun ownership, most other developed countries do not accept “self-defense” as a reason for having a gun.”
The lie/hypocrisy of this claim is glaring to the reasoned mind: In which of those countries are the TRUE “Nobility” (Nobility = Ranking Politicians, The Rich, and anyone that another Noble has deemed their life/person “WORTH Protecting”) NOT protected by security details armed with guns?
Great Britain has extreme gun control yet a violent crime rate five times that of the U.S.
London and New York City are roughly the same populations, but so far in 2018 London reports more murders than NYC. Of course most of theirs are knife, club, or acid attacks, so don’t factor into the anti gun narrative.
The ultimate goal of the anti gun crowd is patently obvious, and it’s not to make us safer. Chipping away at our rights until eventually they are completely removed is the only way to achieve a citizenry that can be forced to comply with whatever behaviors our rulers deem appropriate.
Amazing how quickly anti-freedom groups like Americans Against Gun Violence prove that they are basically clueless on the topics which they are suppose to be espousing policy. The type of simple shotgun that the Gazette shooter used is still allowed in even countries with Anti-Freedom laws bordering on absolute stupidity.
Groups like “Americans Against Gun Violence” only get away with their message because there is no truth in advertising. If there was truth in advertising, they would have to call themselves something like “American Socialist Society to Aid Violent Criminals Against Decent Citizens”. They only exist to disarm you, nothing they push for will keep anyone safe except criminals.