AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PLACE AND THE PRICE OF GUNS in our American society is a voyage into a land strewn with disorder, trauma and death. The land of the free and the home of the brave is also a land that, on this question, is out of touch with its basic — and cherished — humanity.
I begin with a dramatic comparison involving figures for fatalities in all American wars from the Revolutionary War to the present. Including them all, large and small — the Civil War, World Wars I and II, Vietnam, Korea and the many dozens of smaller engagements — from the Wiki site, the total figures for combat deaths in all wars — and surely we should call it the tragic total — is 848,163 deaths.
In a startling and surprising comparison, using figures from the Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence, we learn that since 1968, when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated — a period of just 44 years — more than a million people have been killed with guns in the United States! The current figures are a little more than 30,000 deaths a year, plus an additional approximate 65,000 to 70,000 wounded. And what should we call that?
How freely do guns flow in the United States compared with the world’s other industrialized countries? The following are drawn from the Dec. 26, 2012 Huffington Post piece, “U.S. Guns: Statistics Show America An Outlier Among Developed Nations,” by Joe Van Brussel.
“In addition to lax gun regulation, the U.S. stands out in the sheer number of guns. According to the Small Arms Survey, the estimated total number of guns held by U.S. civilians is 270 million — 88.9 firearms per 100 people. (Some consider that estimate low.) The country with the second-most guns is India, with an estimated 46 million guns in private hands — or about four firearms for every 100 people.
“The U.S., with 4.5 percent of the world population, accounts for about 40 percent of the planet’s civilian firearms, said Dr. Garen Wintemute, of the University of California-Davis Medical Center.
“The U.S. is not a uniquely violent society, said Wintemute, who practices emergency medicine and conducts research on the nature and prevention of gun violence. Our overall rates of violence are similar to Australia, Canada and Western Europe. Where the U.S. stands out, Wintemute said, is in the homicide rate.
“‘That’s a weapon effect. It’s not clear that guns cause violence, but it’s absolutely clear that they change the outcome,’ said Wintemute.”
(Is it possible to avoid the stark and horrifying reality of those last four words — “they change the outcome” — when assessing guns and violence?)
“Adjusting for population, the U.S. death rate by firearms — which includes homicides, suicide and accidents — was 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009, according to the Coalition for Gun Control. The closest developed country was Finland, with a firearms death rate of 4.47 per 100,000 people in 2008, less than half that of the U.S. rate. In Canada, the rate was 2.5 per 100,000 people in 2009. In the United Kingdom, the 2011 rate was 0.25 per 100,000 people.
“According to GunPolicy.org, run by Philip Alpers, a firearms analyst at The University of Sydney, the United States is unusual in what Alpers described as the ‘two pillars’ of gun control: licensing gun owners and registering weapons.
“‘You are basically the only country in the developed world that doesn’t license gun owners across the board and you are almost alone in not registering guns across the board,’ Alpers said. ‘It’s very difficult to compare (the U.S.) with others, because you simply don’t have those things.’ New Zealand and Canada are the other developed countries that don’t register guns across the board, Alpers said. The two countries do register handguns and military-style semi-automatics, but not rifles and shotguns.
“The Small Arms Survey, an independent research project based in Geneva, noted that of the 28 countries it surveyed for its 2011 report on civilian firearm possession, only two consider civilian ownership of a firearm a basic right: the U.S. and Yemen. But even Yemen has begun clamping down on civilian guns, Alpers said.”
From the Brookings Institution came last July’s “Aurora and the U.S. Obsession with Guns,” by Daniel Kaufmann, another look at our ascendancy in the developed nations’ pantheon of centers of citizen-assisted deaths.
“Since guns are not ubiquitous in many other industrialized countries, far fewer people die by gunshot than in the United States. In fact, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is about 20 times higher than in 22 other populous, high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. Unsurprisingly then, they claim that in recent years, among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80 percent of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States.”
It is crucial to remember that in all of the studies presented, figures for death must be multiplied to take in the wounded and maimed!
As noted by Bill Moyers, The NRA’s Dark Gun Culture” (July 21, 2012): “Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S. Firearm violence may cost our country as much as $100 billion a year. Toys are regulated with greater care and safety concerns.” Moyers reminds us of a video, available to all, “in which Adam Gadahn, the first U.S. citizen charged with treason since 1952, urges terrorists to carry out attacks on the United States. Right before your eyes he says: ‘America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?’”
Given my interest and involvement in the issue of curbing domestic violence, I found the following studies from the database of the Brady Center of special significance:
• Study: “When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2008 Homicide Data,” September 2010:
In cases where victim-offender relationship could be identified, 92 percent of female victims were murdered by someone they knew. In 86 percent of all incidents where the circumstances could be determined, the homicides were not related to the commission of any other felony such as rape or robbery.
• Study: “Firearm Availability and Female Homocide Victimization Rates Among 25 Populous High-Income Countries,” March 2002:
The rate of female homicides in the U.S. is vastly disproportionate in terms of population compared to other high-income countries. “The United States accounted for 32 percent of the female population in these high income countries, but for 70 percent of all female homicides and 84 percent of all female firearm homicides.”
The study concludes that “U.S. women are at far higher risk of homicide victimization than are women in any other high-income country.”
Underlining that reality is a piece by Monica Casper, “What We Aren’t Talking About When We Talk About Gun Control,” from The Feminist Wire, Jan. 18.
“… In stunningly vitriolic fashion, the (NRA) advocates armed guards in schools and a gun in every classroom and bedroom to protect our innocent children from ‘people so deranged, so evil … that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them.’
“But let’s stop for a moment and consider what we know about guns, who uses them and who is vulnerable to harm. Sorenson (2006) found that ‘intimate partners with guns present the greatest fatal risk to women.’
“While we reel from spectacular violence that horrifies and makes headlines, mundane violence that harms, terrorizes, and kills women (and often their children) goes largely unnoticed. Domestic violence, with three women on average murdered every day, is more than a silent epidemic; it’s a public health emergency. And yet Congress has failed to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act in a striking display of cowardice . . . and male privilege.”
(The long-delayed renewal of the Violence Against Women Act just passed the Senate, with 22 Republicans voting against it. Now, however, it faces the Republican-controlled House, which refused to consider and pass the Senate-passed renewal in the previous Congress.)
And the beat goes on … and on … and on, and the question remains: Will the grand alliance of the NRA and the Republican Party, so powerful in all gun control matters, be able to continue to delay even this expression of that precious humanity?
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
When only cops have guns, it’s called a “police state”.
Love your country, but never trust its government.
— Robert A. Heinlein
Quote: “The U.S., with 4.5 percent of the world population, accounts for about 40 percent of the planet’s civilian firearms, said Dr. Garen Wintemute, of the University of California-Davis Medical Center.
This is why we remain a free country. We can protect ourselves from foreign and domestic threats, including any from our own government.
We may currently have more gun related crime in the US over Britain and Australia, but the later has 10 times the violent crime , because people can protect themselves since they were disarmed. Just ask those citizens.
“including any from our own government”
Interesting conceit, cowboy. This sentiment demonstrates one of the main problems with gun owners: arrested development. They live in John Wayne fantasy land.
Why don’t you contribute something instead of just spouting off?
See you next Tuesday, if you know what I mean.
Your argument is ridiculous. You aren’t even consistent with yourself. Reread your last sentence.
Right on, “Real American!”
because people can protect themselves since they were disarmed. Just ask those citizens.
Sooo sorry. I meant can’t.
Guns save more lives than they take. Why don’t you spend more time focusing on the real issues. Guns are not the greatest causers of deaths in America. 1.2 million children are murdered through abortion. Gun violence pales in comparison. Auto accidents and a growing number of accidents and fatalities involving texting. I have a God given (not government given) right to self defense with a gun and the second amendment is there to make sure you nor the government try to take it away. It ain’t gonna happen so if you REALLY want to see change in our world, start barking on some real issues with some real answers rather than just quoting false or severely left leaning tainted information being spewed out by the main stream media.
“1.2 million children are murdered through abortion” – Why are children having abortions? This number seems unlikely.
“I have a God given …………. right” – If there was no god, would you still have rights?
“Auto accidents and a growing number of accidents and fatalities involving texting” – Hence, regulations/laws regarding cell phone use and driving. Remember when you weren’t legally required to use a seat belt.
“….the second amendment is there to make sure you nor the government try to take it away….” – Mr. Page probably won’t be attempting to take anyone’s guns away.
.
Feel free to do your own research but here is one resource with data from the CDC and other sources.
http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf
It is approximately 1.2 million annually. That is 3,287 deaths DAILY. Compare that to 82 gun deaths per day. We know that over half of those something like 61% are suicide, the number is really about 32 deaths per day. That includes cops shooting bad guys and gang bangers shooting each other, so in reality the number is very low. The number estimated of people who use guns to defend themselves annually is estimated to be 800,000 on the low side and as much as 2.4 million by others. Lets take the low number, that it 2,173 times every day that guns around America are used to save lives.
So, I don’t believe guns are the problem. So called assault weapons are not the problem. Rifles are used in less than 3% of violent gun crimes. AR-15 are used even less than that. Hammers, baseball bats and clubs are used more often to kill that rifles are.
Why do cops carry guns? To defend themselves. Why do cops carry AR-15s? To defend themselves; against bad guys. When you are being assaulted, who do you call? Cops – with guns. That is what is required in many cases to thwart crimes, violent acts and death. That is why we as Americans need them too – to defend ourselves against bad guys using the appropriate tools. They are the same tools that are used to provide security around the president and around his kids at the school where they attend. He is no better than me. Then why shouldn’t I be able to use the same tools to defend myself as him.
You may be one who prefers to call the police if you have a home invasion and the bad guys are beating you up and raping your wife, but I prefer to be my own first responder because when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
“You may be one who prefers to call the police if you have a home invasion and the bad guys are beating you up and raping your wife, but I prefer to be my own first responder because when seconds count the police are only minutes away.”
Actually, I do exercise my 2nd amendment rights. I’m well equipped to protect my family. Meet me out at the range in Concord and I’ll show you a thing or two. BTW – Please recuse yourself from insinuating such foul scenarios concerning my wife.
My main concern right now is that the arguments from pro-gunners get thrown under the bus by the use of tired old cliches and reactionary emotions. I personally think that the gun laws we have in California are an ideal model for the rest of the country. However, I see certain politicians in the state that want to ratchet it up a bit. I feel that this would be unnecessary.
Now that is a fair post TP. Very good.
JLB must stand for Worst Case Scenarios.
Right on.
As long as we’re ascribing intent to the mysterious deity to whom we all must defer, I have a god given right to get an abortion. It’s called fuck you and stay out of my uterus, also known as Roe v Wade.
Also interesting to note that in the last 15 years we have avoided an increase to the population of 21 million unwanted children (roughly the population of Sao Paulo, Brazil).
I guess that some how makes it ok to murder innocent lives.
How do you know they are unwanted? They may not have been wanted by the birth mother but they may have been wanted by someone else. I say that as an adoptive parent of my two beautiful children who may have otherwise been chopped up into bits if their mothers were so selfish as you and miss real american. There are people all over this country that are looking to adopt children. If you don’t want children, either have protected sex or no sex but don’t let the inconvenience of that be your justification for murder. The vast majority of abortions are purely for contraceptive purposes and that is avoidable. Unfortunately, it also what keeps planned parenthood in business. We use inconvenience and financial hardship as a justification for murder. It won’t be long before we begin using the same justification on seniors or disabled people who pose a financial hardship or have become just too darn inconvenient for our chosen lifestyle. Think about it!
A woman who makes the decision that involves an unwanted pregnancy does so by her own accord. It is her decision to make and hers alone. I really don’t think holding a belief that a woman if free to do with her body what she will is being selfish. Quite the opposite actually. I think it is great that there are people out there like you who are willing to adopt, I know several gay couples that have done so as well (now if only they could get married). However, it only serves as a drop in the bucket in solving any societal issues stemming from the result of far to many neglected children, real children.
By the way abortion is not murder, as murder is partly defined as an “unlawful killing”. This being the case, you’ll have to show me where abortion is against the law.
“It won’t be long before we begin using the same justification on seniors or disabled people who pose a financial hardship or have become just too darn inconvenient for our chosen lifestyle.” That is quite a leap. Do you know what else? “Soylent Green is people!”
God does not give the right to take innocent life but he does give the right to defend yourself.
Your God is yours. My God is mine. Don’t proselytize — especially if you can’t handle exposure to ideas that differ from yours.
You seem awfully angry. I am just expressing my believe as you are yours. Obviously we differ in opinion and that is ok. We can have debate and exchange ideas and we can agree to disagree. Name calling, profanity and bitter commentary is really unnecessary. I can handle differing ideas just fine but I don’t have to agree. You seem to be the one getting your panties all in a wad.
You’re quite the sweetie, aren’t you. Just be sweet and you don’t have to stand with your opinions before the bar of fact in the court of reality. Right? Wrong!
The idea (stemming from Jefferson and his colleagues) that human rights are God-given was merely a default position in lieu of a really more complex statement equally hard to demonstrate, let alone prove. It appealed to a common denominator in the mentality of that age.
Guns will never be illegal. Neither will abortion. Deal with it.
We neither wish nor need to “make guns illegal,” generally. Certain types must be out of public reach and circulation. I covered all this weeks ago in a feature on this forum.
That’s akin to eating Frosted Flakes because Tony the Tiger says, “They’re Great!”, For you see he is a fictionalized cartoon character. Even if he were real, tigers don’t talk, nor do they eat cereal.
I do believe the F— was you that got f—–. In your case it may be that no one wanted to enter your uteras. So we have no abortion problem there.
Nobody’s talking to you. Learn to read.
Bob you win the prize for ugliest man ever to insult me. Congratulations.
You walked into it. I am not the only one that has caught on to your act who ever you are.
You reap what you sow.
Sure seems like you are sowing a lot of sour seeds. Maybe you should consider your own advice. It is appearing that you are not really a serious person but rather someone who just wants to stir the pot because apparently you have nothing better to do.
Bob, you have officially gone off the rails. Aside from the fact you obviously flunked biology, what a truly hateful man you are.
Benicia Mom I just responded to real American and her comment. Remember she said it. Just what is wrong with freedom of speech. You seem to think that abortion is OK but not the death penalty. No Bush wars but Syria, Cuba and Iran are OK. Freedom of religion is Ok if its only minorities and not Evangelical Christians that might lean to the right. Did you also support the Nazi, Russians and Japs {yes I said Japs, that is how they were referred to during WII} during their reign of terror? I find the Liberal Socialist thinking very confusing. .
Poor Bob is stuck in a WWII mindset. That explains his perpetual confusion. Life is hard for a Conservative Fascist.
One thing is for sure I will use my name. Real American and Benicia Mom are cowards and hide behind a fake name. By the way Bob is not poor.
The world and I are so sick and tired of hearing you all with your self-promotions and derogatory comments toward each other. I am aware of many thoughtful Benicians who simply will not post anything here because of the fetid atmosphere on these pages. I am increasingly inclined to give up reading comments altogether, as they are so predictable and wildly, offensively abusive.
Rev. Roger Straw go back and read your comments about Dennis Lowry. Very offensive and may not even be true. Very surprised at your comment. Many of your comments Rev. Straw I woulde consider vile. Take a good look in the mirror before you chose to degrade others with your vile comments.
I knew you would do that. This is not what this comment service is meant for. On the playground, you would be sent to the principal’s office. Bob, PLEASE, stop this and play nice.
Editor: PLEASE do something about this!
Rev. Straw I play nice. Why do not you try also. Sorry Rev Straw this comment section is not about you. You need
Mr. Straw, said,
Editor: PLEASE do something about this.”
“Our biggest challenge is that we are continuously working to overcome impressions of the paper that were formed years before I arrived, that impression that we are a fly-by-night paper.This is now a source for news and there was not that feeling when I got here.”
Source: Benicia Magazine. “Interview with Mark Ethier.” October 2012.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is up to the editor (Mr. Ethier) to come up with a “professional policy” to monitor this site.
Mr. Gregory wrote, “It is up to the editor (Mr. Ethier) to come up with a “professional policy” to monitor this site.” Although I agree, I would suggest that this is no easy task. And I would publicly commend the Editor and the BH Reporters for incredible strides in making the Benicia Herald a more relevant and responsive, not to mention graphically pleasing source of local news. How, oh how, to crack the nut on abusive comments????????
How about a volunteer citizen editorial board composed of diverse viewpoints and appointed by the editor? Would such a board be allowed, for example, to recommend to the editor, guidelines that would not allow repetitive abuse, etc.? If so, how would the guidelines be implemented; that is, on whose dollar would someone spend time all day every day monitoring comments and recommending that the editor delete those that are not constructive? Would a citizen editorial board be allowed to recommend that the editor ban a playground bully – or even just someone whose comments are consistently detrimental to the publisher’s best interests – from these pages? How – if at all – would these kinds of actions be different from censorship?
My apologies for posting this kind of discussion among comments on Mr. Page’s article. Where else might we have a careful discussion about BH comment policies?
Bob Livesay is poor only in mind and heart, but there’s no way he can discern that fact. We all see it clearly.
Robert – personal attacks like this are not helpful. Doesn’t matter who started it – sometimes one needs to let it drop and move on to issues of substance. The alternative is that this forum will become (if it has not already) a playground brawl among a few, while ignored by increasing numbers of readers. Please stop.
Roger, how can we have a sensible, committee discussion on comments and participation if Robert Livesay is allowed to be part of it? Won’t it degenerate into the same abject, egotistical blather? That’s democracy for you. Congressional legislation and appointment review in both Houses is subject to the same sort of personality conflict and smallness of vision. I guess we just have to breathe deeply and toughen our skins.
Roger,
Good to see that you have decided to call Shelby out on his constant use of “personal attacks” and are not just singling out Bob Livesay (as it initially appeared). Bob’s use of this tactic though pales in comparison to both past and present posters.
One “Mike” was banned from the site by the editor, because he was over the top, however, his wife “Real American” carries on the tradition especially with her, now constant use of a derogatory reference to Mr. LIvesay.
I have been guilty of the same, as I am a person who fights fire with fire, I freely admit that. So if those who use this tactic on a too regular of a basis would agree to a truce, I am sure that such a truce would be honored.
Mr. Straw, said,
“How about a volunteer citizen editorial board composed of diverse viewpoints and appointed by the editor? Would such a board be allowed, for example, to recommend to the editor, guidelines that would not allow repetitive abuse, etc.? If so, how would the guidelines be implemented; that is, on whose dollar would someone spend time all day every day monitoring comments and recommending that the editor delete those that are not constructive? Would a citizen editorial board be allowed to recommend that the editor ban a
playground bully – or even just someone whose comments are consistently detrimental to the publisher’s best interests – from these pages? How – if at all – would these kinds of actions be different from censorship?”
Mr. Straw: If you recall, in the 2011 election between Councilman Alan Schwartzman and Mayor Elizabeth Patterson — “103” letters to the editor were written by a single individual to the Herald over the course of 10 months leading up to election day. I wrote at the time, “This mass of letters was unprecedented in all the time that I’ve been subscribing, reading,researching and writing for The Herald — a period of nearly a dozen years.”
Continuing, I said, ” Many of these letters have taken on a demeaning, dismissive and derogatory tone toward the Mayor specifically and the council more generally.”
Source :” In the dog days of summer.” Benicia Herald. July 12, 2011.
Though at the time, there was outrage in the community about this onslaught of letters to the editor over this time frame, nothing was done. There was no policy to limit the number of times a person could write a letter per month for example.
This blog has eliminated copy and paste articles that pertain directly to a authors written article. Broadening the discussion in my humble opinion. Others thought this approach was not appropriate, even though this practice was allowed for nearly a year.This wasn’t seen as a form of censorship. But, somehow it is o.k. to post incessantly (sometime more than 20 posts by the same individual for one article) without ever saying anything directly about the content of the article, written by the author! But somehow that is appropriate?
Regarding volunteer citizen editorial board, I would nominate Lois Kazakoff, Benicia resident. San Francisco Chronicle editor.
My apologies to Mr. Page about taking space reserved for comments on his (as always) well researched articles.
Will thanks for the comment on my LTTE. Yes that was me. I do believe in freedom of speech but also know that it can come with consequences at times. I do believe Will you do understand that very well as do most folks that write or comment. I also do not believe in censorship. We have a very fine editor at the Herald. It is his responsibility and not some outside group to monitor the comments and articles. He does an outstanding job. It is also the responsibility of the contributors to keep the comments civil. As we comment we must do self monitoring of what we say and not fall into the trap of personal attacks on other contributors. I must admit I will fight fire with fire. I would rather not. To single out any individual is wrong. We must all take personal responsibility in what we say in our comments. I believe if we all present our comments as we view our personal and political views it will be much more effective. I have no problem with political identification of others views. I do it all the time as do all the other folks that comment. It is not meant to be personal just a way of political identity. I would never ask anyone to change their style. It is their style that makes their articles or comments very interesting. But if you write with attacks that are considered personal do expect to have a few bombs written your way. We as contributors must be self monitoring on our responces. If we do that you will see a more meaningful comment section. So as you can see I do not think the paper needs any outside group. It can do it very well on their own. That is why we have an editor. The editor does an outstanding job. I have no argument with anyones comments and hope they keep them coming. We must all participate in making this a better comment section to make our points. I would never ask anyone to change their style. Maybe clean it up a bit. I will do that and I do hope others will do the same. All views are important and should be presented. Looking forward to continued participation by all.
Hear, hear, Mom!
Well said Real American. It kills me how these gun toting yahoos can go on about their “God given rights, not government given”. God didn’t write the constitution, the Pilgrims came to this country for religious freedom from the Church of England, not to just take a little cruise across the Atlantic. Why do you think your 2nd Amendment rights are more important than my 14th Amendment rights to privacy and no interference from a bunch of banjo playing idiots who think they know what is better for me than my doctor. All you freedom lovers looking to be saved from tyranny and stocking up for the apocalypse need to stay the hell out of the private parts and lives of other citizens.
Rock on!
Benicia Mom stated: “God given rights, not government given”. God didn’t write the constitution>
Those silly, gun toting, banjo playing idiots, where do they get this stuff about “God Given” rights???
Perhaps they read the Declaration of Independence :
to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…
Or maybe this part:
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
Real American stated: I have a god given right to get an abortion. It’s called fuck you and stay out of my uterus
Do you believe that that there may be any reasonable limitation placed on abortion, such as: parental notification (in the case of minors), limit on the gestation period after which the procedure would be restricted, or partial birth, or others?
The key always lies in “reasonable,” Dennis. (1) No abortions after fetus is developed fully enough to survive outside the womb with ordinary, hospital care, i.e., usually seven-plus months. (No near-full term abortions.) Where the mother or her family cannot cope with another, new baby, provision for adoption must be arranged. Abortions during first & second trimesters must absolutely be the prerogative of the woman and no other family member. (2) Young women under eighteen must have absolute choice during first trimester. In second or third trimester, her parents should have say in whether or not they will take responsibility for the infant. Some couples would rather raise an unplanned grandchild than lose it. (3) Rape and incest should necessitate abortion as early as possible for any age of woman. The illegal fathers have no rights at any time — because (a) criminal heredity should not be perpetuated; (b) inbreeding tends to be genetically dangerous for the offspring.
These are the provisions that seem reasonable to me.
RMS Stated:” The key always lies in “reasonable,”
Robert, fleeting though they may be, you do have lucid moments with a showing of reasonableness, though in the examples you describe there are points on which we differ, they are minor in comparison to the overall concept.
However, this differs radically from the poster to whom my question was directed; her position seems to be in agreement with the most radical of feminists, as well as the current President, who is fine not only with late term abortions, but with the most ghastly of procedures, which would follow a failed late term abortion attempt, an extreme, being so far from the mainstream of reasonable perspectives.
“JLB,” perhaps you own one or more guns and like to shoot them, and thus you share consciously or unconsciously in the implied guilt from their abuse. This makes you feel defensive of ownership and use, as well as fearful of deprivation. It’s true that cars kill more people than guns. It’s also true that you inflate the severity upon yourself of opposition to gun violence. I’m glad that a solid majority of folks on both sides are more reasonable than you. You are nearly paranoid. Please step back and examine yourself.
“Strewn with disorder, trauma and death”? Please…try to keep your feet on the ground. Thanks.
Mr. Page I suggest you take a look at your figures on war death. The Civil War along is reported as 618,222 with a new report by your beloved NYT of over 750,000 deaths in the Civil War. So I know your figure are wrong. Why should I believe any of the others. Are we supposed to take your word for all these figures? Please explain your total war deaths. Maybe I am wrong.
I know the figure you are using is combat and not the total deaths. So as you can see I believe your figures are inaccurate.
You engage as usual in inconsequential nit-pickery, B. L.
Rev Roger Straw and Will Gregory: I do believe you are both correrct. Maybe I am too sensitive about remarks that are directed at me. When they are vile I will come back if necessary. Because I am a conservative I do get my share of negative and personal attacks. I can take it. At the same time I do believe everyone that comments on the Herald on-line should also be a little more polite. I feel Rev. Straw your comment was directed at me and no other folks that comment. Is that so? Also do you feel that others make comments that are not exceptible to your standards? I can play as fair as everyone else does. Yes I will comment on politics using facts and opinions. I will play as fair as everyone else does and will not use foul langiage, personal attacks {only political identification} and will submit inder my name. I believe if the standard was use your real name vile comments would be cut down at once. So my challenege to all is lets keep this comment section polite and I will do the same.
My comments were indeed directed at you, Bob, but not exclusively. The back and forth name-calling and bickering and self-promotion DOMINATES the comments section of this NEWSmedia. It is sickening … and it lowers the standards of an otherwise good local newspaper.
Courtesy, like patriotism, Bobbie, is the last refuge of weak intellect and poor imagination. Be as witless as you like, but be sweet about it?
Thats fine Rev. Roger Straw. Are you also going to now keep your comments polite as I said I would?
I’m plumb tired of your every, trouble-making aspect, Bobbie. Do your grandstanding on a Fox-talk forum. They’ll applaud you, there.