Katz: Restrictions could cut gun violence

Violence occurs everywhere but guns make it much worse — temporary moments of rage become permanent acts as individuals wield an object that can instantly destroy life. Unfortunately for Americans, there are plenty of guns to go around.

In 2007, 29,645 Americans died from gunshot wounds according to a study in Newsweek, a staggering number in comparison to other industrialized countries like Britain, which had only 176.

With a disparity of this size, one wonders if Americans are simply more violent than, say, the British, Spanish, French and Japanese combined, as the statistics suggest. That is until you compare our gun policies.

With nearly as many guns as there are people and very few restrictions, you can legally acquire just about anything in America. Walk into your nearest gun shop and you’ll find wall upon wall of high powered assault rifles, semi-automatic pistols and extended magazines for those needing to fire more than 20 rounds without reloading. Though this image closely resembles a military weapons cache, it is all legally attainable.

What’s worse is many guns are purchased without any documentation in what gun control advocates call the “gun show loophole.” There are around five thousand gun shows held every year. In each, dealers notorious for easy-sells stand behind makeshift tables. Even less documented than dealers are the individual sellers, who walk around with assault rifles slouched over their shoulders, a price tag usually sticking out of the barrel.

Regardless if you are mentally ill, a convicted felon, or a supplier for Mexican drug lords, if you look older than eighteen and have the cash, you can walk out of a gun shows heavily armed.

But acquiring assault rifles like America’s two best sellers, the Russian Kalashnikov or the American M16, would be unthinkable in other industrialized countries. In Japan, where only 96 gun deaths were recorded in 2007, handguns are illegal and shotguns can only be purchased with strict documentation.

In Britain, semiautomatic and pump-action rifles were banned followed by handguns in 1997. In 2007, it recorded less than one death for every 100,000 citizens compared to America’s ten. Consequently, London police rarely carry pistols.

While handguns are completely banned in Japan and Britain, the United States allows citizens to carry loaded ones. Since 2008, two landmark Supreme Court cases financed by the National Rifles Association (NRA) ruled that all states must respect “individuals” right to bear arms. With these cases under its belt, the NRA is successfully dismantling virtually all gun laws. Forty-eight states, including Kansas, have concealed carry laws and the University of Kansas is next.

Republican Forrest Knox and the Kansas House of Representatives passed a bill that allows students to carry concealed weapons on campus. Knox’s justification for the bill could not better represent the warped nature of American gun policy. In an interview with the Lawrence Journal World, he said the bill would help improve students’ safety.

As for the KU students he addresses, ask yourself if you will feel safer when armed classmates come into your life.

Braden Katz is a senior from Overland Park in political science and English

By
  • Updated Aug. 27, 2010 at 6:00 am
  • metacognition

    Demanding law abiding citizens submit to unconstitutional restrictions on gun ownership is a racist demand.

    The races which comply are immediately unable to defend themselves from the races which do not comply with the laws. There is a 3rd world in this country and everyone knows it. It helps to inspire a lot of cultural media which improves all of our lives.

    But when whites and asians are unable to defend themselves against those of Spanish conquistidora or African descent, race wars will flare up even further.

    Your petty complaint about gun ownership represents that you have not known the effects of unlawful gun ownership. Drive through certain parts of KC or Topeka at 3 am. Whether your ideal gun laws go into effect or not, your face is a target.

    Gun laws do not change gun violence in the hands of people who live in the 3rd world down the street.

    Or do I have you pegged wrong? Are you advocating instituting martial law and bringing in the Marines to clean up the ghettos?

  • linguo_the_grammar_robot

    People who feel the need to carry a gun in public obviously have some type of phobia or neurosis. I’m not scared to walk the streets without a gun. I feel perfectly safe. I guess the next time I walk downtown and a mountain lion jumps out to eat me, I’ll regret not carrying a gun.

  • linguo_the_grammar_robot

    Thank you metacognition for proving my point about mental instability. Yikes!

  • MissyChevious

    Surprise, surprise. Another op-ed where Braden manages to bash the mentally ill.

    It is insulting and offensive to the thousands of Americans diagnosed with some type of mental illness for you to throw us into a category with “a convicted felon or a supplier for Mexican drug lords.”

    The biggest risk with the mentally ill in regards to gun use is the high potential of suicide by gun. The mentally ill aren’t more likely to use guns on other people, which is implied by comparing them to convicted felons and suppliers for drug lords.

    And what about people who have no history of mental illness, no criminal background and aren’t suppliers for Mexican drug lords? “Average” Americans that are just flat-out evil? Americans who come home from work, kill their wife, two small children and family dog and then skip town? I’d say they are a much bigger threat than the mentally ill population. This article as a whole came off as bigoted, elitist and racist.

  • PatrickEwing

    Metacognition–Whoa, slow down. I mean for real. Where are these race wars happening? Do you really think Black people and Mexicans hide behind bushes all night waiting to shoot any white people they see? That’s ignorant. It doesn’t happen. Black on Black crime is a problem, not Black people attacking white people in the middle of the night in KC. You obviously haven’t driven through those neighborhoods in KC or anywhere in the US, because “white faces” aren’t a target for random shooting. There’s no evidence to support that.

    You say it’s racist to take guns from white people because those other races can’t control themselves. Don’t you think it’s odd that your claims of racism are supported by categorical definitions of entire races?

    By the way, Spain is a European country full of white people, so people of Spanish conquistador descent (whatever that means) would be white.

  • metacognition

    Look at the Iowa state fair. I know the vast majority of violent crime is intraracial and I apologize for using the term race war. War is a prolonged activity between two camps, as opposed to sporadic misbehavior by individuals.

    I know Spanish are white. But they are not like Northern Europeans and that is a fact. Their method of genocide in North and South America obliterated millions and look at how their descendants act.
    Car bombs, mass murders, elimination of journalists, communism, extrajudicial killings, narco and human trafficking on industrial scales, torture, dismemberment of murdered men and women… should I go on? They are exporting it here and you know it. MS 13 has over 40k active members in America, according to the Feds.

    Machismo based cultures and guns don’t mix, I will cede that point.

    What differentiates the conquistador Spanish from regular Spanish or Hispanic peoples are that Hispanics live at peace with their neighbors and are good citizens. Conquistador Spanish dominate others and abuse weapons. They are the ones coming here illegally. True Hispanics would follow the laws. Conquistadors conquer and pillage.

    It is racist to take guns from citizens because law abiding citizens will not fire on police entering their neighborhoods. There are whole areas of cities where cops can’t go and 90% of murders go unsolved. Unless the Marines are employed to remove guns, whites and asians and hispanics and many people of African descent will volunteer as good citizens. The others will hide their guns, luckily they don’t have the skills to place them securely in oil buried in their backyards.

    Unconstitutionally restricting gun ownership will lead to gun seizure unless actively combated at every level of the government and legal institutions.

    And to the political correct cops – My apologies for making blanket statements about groups of people. Is any individual guilty of situations created by culture? No. Is any individual to be held responsible for a group’s behavior? No. Individuals are responsible for themselves and deserve equal treatment before the law and all the respect in the world.

  • PatrickEwing

    Dude, your racism is creepy. You sound like a 18th century physiognomist. How can we distinguish the “consquistador” types from the “good” Hispanics? The width of their noses? Their musculature? Does it matter that California, New Mexico, and Arizona were all part of Mexico until 150 years ago until white Americans conquered those areas (that’s the English cognate of ‘conquistar,’ by the way)?

    Um, and if you want to talk Northern Europe’s wholesome goodness, you might not want to bring up how they “don’t do genocide.” The quintessential Northern European country is….drum roll….Germany. Did they ever have any genocidal incidents? Hmmm…

    And let’s not forget Britain (the whole imperialism thing got nasty) and Belgium (King Leopold was a rapacious murderer).

    Please return your creepy race categories to the 18th century where they belong.

  • connerm

    Hey, let’s get off the topic of racism for a minute here (it’s a popular one, I know) and stay on subject.

    Mr. Katz, did you by chance look up the number of gun deaths that result from suicide? You’ll be surprised to find out that the majority of US gun deaths are suicides. Does having a gun make someone more likely to make that decision?

    How about the annual number of gun deaths that are acts of self defense?

    How about the number of murders in Britain rather than the number of murders by gun? I understand that this is an opinion piece, but you clearly have no interest in being objective and are more interested in supporting your opinion with statistics than letting the statistics shape it.

  • jackburton

    Poor brandon has no more clue as to what an “assault rifle” is than a five year old riding a tricycle has about NASCAR racing. But ignorance can be cured…

    Log on here and and learn more in five minutes than he has learned in a lifetime.

    http://hubpages.com/t/36206

  • metacognition

    Cite genocides by race all you want, my favorite classification system for perpetrators of genocide is the economic/political systems they employ. Race is a nonfactor in almost every possible indicator of human existence.

    The measurement of conquistador vs human in someone of Spanish descent is the degree to which bravado trumps respect, the chest thumping versus communication. Don’t get worked up.

    If you don’t want to carry a gun, then don’t. That’s your call. But you unless I am on your private property, whether home or business, you can’t tell me I cannot protect myself. It is in the constitution.

  • sjschlag

    When the dead rise up and walk the earth again, we will look back and think about what idiots we are for not allowing people to own assault rifles. Think about the future here people! When your great uncle rises up from the ground, hungry for your brains, aren’t you going to wish you were able to own a sawed off shotgun? We need to start preparing for the inevitable, and the first step is allowing everyone the right to own as many awesome guns as they can afford.

  • metacognition

    sjschlag, you made me think…

    The government should subsidize gun sales.

    It isn’t fair the poor are less able to defend themselves.

    Don’t towns that have mandatory gun ownership have some of the lowest violent crime?
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts

  • linguo_the_grammar_robot

    metacognition=racist

  • GimmeMyGuns

    Restrictions could cut gun violence? Just like making marijuana illegal has cut down the use? If a criminal wants a gun, he will get a gun, and more times than not, that gun will be acquired illegally. Why should normal citizens not be allowed to defend themselves from criminals???

    Also, what the f*ck is a pump-action rifle?

    For a senior, you should have more common sense than a sixth grader.

  • kalboy

    Some corrections about the corrupt Mexican history. Mexico as an independent country didn’t occur until 1821, when the Mexican Empire was created from the ashes of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. The VNS included what is now the present day countries of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Belize, Costa Rica; the United States regions of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Puerto Rico, Guam, Mariana Islands, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Florida; a portion of the Canadian province of British Columbia; the Caribbean nations of Cuba, the Dominican Republic, the island of Hispaniola, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda; the Asia-Pacific nations of the Philippine Islands, Palau and Caroline Islands.

    One could easily say that Castro or Canada could lay claim to the US Southwest and Mexico itself too (or the Mexicans can claim British Columbia) as what gives Mexico the right to be first in line? The Mexican Empire only allegedly controlled Texas for 15 years, and portions of the rest of the US Southwest for 32 at maximum (with the Gadsden purchase).

    Mexico, Empire or Republic or whatever it is, is a corrupt sewer and always has been since the breakup of the VNS. Instead of demanding respect from the citizens of the US, the citizens of Mexico should stay home and revolt against their corrupt masters and earn our respect. Of course, then there would be no reason to come to the USA, which would solve all the illegal immigration problems from that nation of cowards who won’t stand and fight for their liberty, let alone care about our liberty here in the USA.
    I’m sure the citizens of the USA would be happy to donate arms to help the Mexican citizens gain their liberty.

  • linguo_the_grammar_robot

    More racists. This is really sick.

  • Thatcher

    First of all, use statistics which are normalized for the size of the population. Second, of course shooting deaths will be lower in countries where gun rights were long ago taken away.

    To put things in context, do some research and give up some statistics on the number near-fatal and fatal stabbings in the UK. You will find that guns were quickly replaced by knives as the weapon of choice in committing crimes.

  • metacognition

    George Washington owned and used guns.
    Tom Jefferson owned and used guns.

    Guess why we can own and use guns?

    Go be a serf. Go.

  • justme

    A lot of name-calling and race-baiting. How about talking about any real evidence about gun ownership and whether that increases your chances of dying by gun or decreases your chances of dying by gun. Isn’t one of the main arguments for conceal carry laws so that people can protect themselves and others? Isn’t that the primary argument for allowing concealed weapons on campus, to prevent another Virginia Tech? Anyone know if there is any evidence either way?

    That would be interesting.

  • metacognition

    Why do you need evidence when it is right in your hand?

    Oh I bet you wouldn’t own a gun because you don’t want the responsibility of defending yourself. It is just too much work, and after all there is a wonderful government just waiting to help you!!!!

  • metacognition

    “The economist John Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime, states that laws which make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get a permit to carry a gun in public places, cause reductions in crime. Lott’s results suggest that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms deters crime because potential criminals do not know who may or may not be carrying a firearm. Lott’s data came from the FBI’s crime statistics from all 3,054 US counties.[88]”

    ya ya I know I got this from Wikipedia, but one thing the site does well is find other resources. So go read Lott’s book for the original documentation. He took data from the FBI crime stats.

  • sjschlag
  • xz007

    So what I’m getting from this is that… everybody needs a gun. So we can have more moments like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmTvAZvJ5Mc

    You know, this is idiotic reasoning. Guns are necessary for protection, which is why there should be less gun restrictions, because when there are gun restriction, gun violence is more likely… of course, if gun violence is a problem, guns are a problem… but somehow it’s the *restriction’s* fault and not the actual availability of… oy. Loops and loops and loops.

  • connerm

    How does a video of actors doing something ridiculous back up your point? Come now…

  • Dillon

    Where are the multiple replies to this article I read in the paper? I’m curious why they aren’t posted online.

  • reuben

    The Kansan is terrible at putting letters to the editor online. I really don’t know why; it can’t be that hard, considering many letters do get put online, and all of their articles do as well.

  • GroovyChristian

    “As for the KU students he addresses, ask yourself if you will feel safer when armed classmates come into your life.”

    Short answer:
    YES.

    Long answer:
    I guarantee that the Virginia Tech shooter would not have gotten very far if some portion of the student body was armed. Instead, the students had to resort to hiding under desks and we all know how well that worked out. If you don’t like guns, don’t carry one.

  • metacognition

    Fewer guns = more knife violence

  • Thatcher

    When you outlaw guns, outlaws are the only ones who have guns.

  • metacognition

    The pro-tyranny philosophies rarely reveal themselves at the outset of debate.

    It takes a bit of extrapolation but eventually the pro-tyranny views come to light. It is the cognitive dissonance that does them in.
    Intuition within tyrants tells them their actions are not justified. They go ahead, anyway.

    kujayhawk advocates that the enforcers of the law should be the only ones legally allowed to have guns. That is the military and police, FBI, DEA and CIA. Only those with absolute power should have guns, according to those who wish to align themselves with tyranny.
    They believe they will be in the driver’s seat instead of first against the wall.

  • metacognition

    Oops, I forgot. Rule #1 on the internet: Do not feed the trolls.

  • xz007

    I’d like to think my views on gun control are nuanced (though in reality, it’s probably more like they’re conflicted.) On the one hand, I don’t think its right to tell, say, a hunter, “No, you can’t go out, enjoy nature, and shoot a deer.” So obviously, guns shouldn’t be completely prohibited from public usage. But the whole “needed for protection” thing doesn’t jive. Having a gun in the house, readily accessible for this supposed “trespass” sounds like a danger to an inquisitive, clueless kid or, you know, a suicidal one. Then there’s the entire inner city problems.

    In the end, guns are the biggest responsibility one could have… and definitely not something that should be treated lightly, or like a God-given right. I do believe that, for the most part, only the authorities should have guns. Otherwise, you’re inviting a vigilante system, and then you get crap like the Minutemen on the border, and it’s borderline anarchy. And this from somebody who’s not a big fan of government suppression. But I feel we, as a public, have some control over the government. We don’t have control over some yayhoo in Waco who felt stiffed by his boss at the post office.

    Now, God help us if we have a military coup… I don’t know what we’d do. But I don’t think a “every gunmen for themselves” attitude is going to ease the situation. And this conceal-and-carry business is completely nervewracking. I mean, there’s absolutely no reason to carry around a .45 around, say, Mass Street. And then there’s the assault weapons and all that, which also just has no reason to be in the average citizen’s hands. I say heavy duty testing before getting a hunting rifle, and that should be it for society.

  • metacognition

    If you want to outlaw them, what is your plan for getting them out of the ghetto?

  • Thatcher

    If I lived in one of the cities in California where the cops have come out and PUBLICALLY stated that they will not be responding to certain reports of crime due to lack of money and manpower, including home invasions, I’d certainly like to have a gun.

    Gun laws are only abided by law-abiding citizens, thus, gun laws have effects contrary to the intentions of the mealy-mouthed, mushy-hearted liberals. Does it make you safer knowing that only cops and the military have guns? What was the purpose of the second ammendment again? Something about deterring an undemocratic government?

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…

    I’d say that is pretty clear. If they intended it in the author’s sense, they’d have said someting like…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless better-thinking, smug liberals decide its not a good idea anymore or object to the ‘gun show loophole.’

  • metacognition

    Kujayhawk – if you were the governor of a state, president of the country or benevolent dictator of a city what would be your plan for extracting guns from minority community?

    Also the supreme court ruled that we all as citizens form the militia so we all are entitled (not by the government, but by a higher power whether it be chance or deity) to be armed. Every citizen is a member of the militia.

    I ask again, how would you remove firearms and ammunition from minority communities?

  • metacognition

    I’ll give kujayhawk the answer:

    The % of whites (the majority) in law enforcement, DEA, FBI, CIA, DoD vastly outnumber the % of minorities. If any of these agencies has to enter a minority neighborhood known for a 10% murder conviction rate, they have to go in with a small army.

    Before Brown vs Board of Education there were incursions into minority neighborhoods by ruthless people from the majority. All they did was cause mayhem and deny people their civil rights.

    So kujayhawk wants to give any and all people with more authority than the average civilian full power to disregard the 2nd and 4th amendments to the constitution.

    The FBI could easily take guns from the people in the majority – we are registered.
    But they have to go house to house for everyone else. If done in a blanket sweep it wouldn’t have a warrant for each house. Maybe this commu-fascist in training would rather just have martial law declared.

    Since this person kujayhawk is espousing communist soviet philosophy (destroy america) he does not know what he is actually talking about. All he knows is that there is this feeling inside of him, that if described, would solve everything.

    The rest of us are in reality.

  • Calvin

    Kujayhawk is easy to understand. He said so himself. The government is the guise of the city, state, and country should have all the guns and the people get nothing. The founders felt exactly the opposite. I know which side I prefer to be on and maybe KUjayhawk should change his screen name before he sullies it some more.

  • xz007

    You know, I *want* to actually read some of your comments, Thatcher, but something about being referred to as “mealy-mouthed and mushy hearted” just kinda makes me not take you seriously at all.

    Or to paraphrase from where I come from, “Hey, I don’t piss on your flowers, so what are you doing in my garden with your fly open?”