In American crisis, anger and guns

By Bernd Debusmann
March 19, 2009

Bernd Debusmann - Great Debate
– Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own. —

In the first two months of this year, around 2.5 million Americans bought guns, a 26 percent increase over the same period in 2008. It was great news for gun makers and a sign of a dark mood in the country.

Gun sales shot up almost immediately after Barack Obama won the U.S. presidential elections on November 4 and firearm enthusiasts rushed to stores, fearing he would tighten gun controls despite campaign pledges to the contrary.

After the November spike, gun dealers say, a second motive has helped drive sales: fear of social unrest as the ailing economy pushes the newly destitute deeper into misery. Many of the newly poor come from the relentlessly rising ranks of the unemployed. In February alone, an average of 23,000 people a day lost their jobs.

Tent cities for the homeless have expanded outside a string of American cities, from Sacramento and Phoenix to Atlanta and Seattle, for people who are living the American dream in reverse. First they lose their jobs, then their health insurance, then their homes, then their hopes. The encampments are reminiscent of Third World refugee camps.

Often former members of the middle class, tent dwellers’ accounts of their plight to television cameras have a common theme: “I never thought this could happen to me.” Unlike the victims of Katrina, the 2005 hurricane that destroyed much of New Orleans, many of the newly-poor are white.

The FBI says it carried out 1,213,885 criminal background checks on prospective firearms buyers in January and 1,259,078 in February, jumps of 28% and 23.3% respectively. Keen demand turned the stocks of publicly-trade firearms companies like Smith & Wesson (up 80% since November) and Sturm Ruger (up more than 100%) into shining stars on the New York Stock Exchange.

There are no statistics on how many guns are bought by people who think they need them to defend themselves against desperate fellow citizens.

But, as columnist David Ignatius put it in the Washington Post, “there’s an ugly mood developing as people start looking for villains to blame for the economic mess.” In November, an analysis published by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute listed “unforeseen economic collapse” as one of the possible causes of future “widespread civil violence.”

The American economy is down but not out, and in mid-March some experts reported signs that the pace of the decline was slowing. But it hasn’t slowed enough to sweep away the sense of anxiety and fear that comes through in many conversations and commentaries about the future of this normally optimistic country.

While Obama’s approval rating remains high, at 59%, almost two thirds of the population thinks the country is on the wrong track, according to a poll commissioned by National Public Radio in mid-March.

“What is really remarkable about all this is that there hasn’t been social unrest,” remarked an executive with business interests in Latin American countries where riots and street demonstrations in response to economic squeezes are routine. “The conditions for it are all there.”


Anger is building. Just under half of those surveyed in a poll by the Pew Research Center this month expressed anger about “bailing out banks and financial institutions that made poor decisions.” The poll was taken before details became known of the full extent of the bonus-paying spree to members of the very team that brought the insurance giant AIG close to collapse.

The government propped up AIG with close to $200 billion and now owns 80% of the company. The argument that $165 million in bonuses had to be paid under contractual obligations went down particularly badly with workers of the three U.S. car companies whose leaders appealed for support from the Bush administration last year when the economic crisis gathered steam.

One of the conditions for the billions that were dispensed to the car industry was that contracts between auto workers and their union, the United Auto Workers, had to be renegotiated to cut costs. The union agreed, and the question arises: are contracts with blue-collar workers less binding than those with highly-paid derivatives traders?

Some see this as another sign of the inequalities that Obama promised to address. Remember his famous exchange with Joe Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, during a campaign stop? “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Obama told him.

There’s less wealth to spread around now as trillions of dollars has evaporated with increasing speed in the deepening crisis. In housing alone, more than $5 trillion has vanished. The gap between rich and poor, a gap of Third World proportions, has not changed. A full-time worker, on average, made $37,606 last year, considerably less than in 1973, adjusted for inflation.

While CEOs made 45 times as much as workers in 1973 they make more than 300 times as much today, according to Holly Sklar, author of “Raise the Floor, Wages and Policies that Work for All of US.”

To what extent those gaps will shrink under Obama remains to be seen and the outlook for swift action is not promising. There are, in fact, not many things for which the outlook is promising. Exceptions include Smith&Wesson. They expect revenue to double within the next three years.

You can contact the author at


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Herr Debusmann,

interesting opinion. I personally would like to hear from those that are living in “tent” cities why they are not living in their Japanese or Korean Cars, or sleeping between their sheets made in pakistan, or walking in their shoes made in China. Consume, consume, consume, that is all I ever hear, well I am finished. I will no longer buy from a business that does not support other local companies, including American Car companies!

As for the rest, I am sick of it, I will keep saving 20% of my income, pay my mortgage, love my wife, and remain a proud American!

Posted by Sherwood Baker | Report as abusive

Typically as joblessness grows so do black markets. People need money. Since this or the prior administration has not funded the safety nets well enough to care for the millions of jobless, they will turn to alternative work. Drugs and prostitution will become the fastest growing. There will be those that, for some reason think robbery is the less moral damaging way to go but may of them will be armed with something deadly. So as turf wars wage and burglars surprise business and home owners violence will ensue. This administration could set up cheap housing for the displaced in a very short time frame but without a WPA style jobs program that would make sure honest income was flowing to these families black market income looks real good.

Now what is really bad is Mr. Debusmann trying to somehow get the fact that there are more guns in society as a contributing factor in the commission of violence. The people buying guns legally are most likely not going to commit a crime. They may stop one, though.

Posted by B.Free | Report as abusive

Mr. Debusmann’s leftist politics fit perfect with Reuters political motives.

His quote:
“fearing he would tighten gun controls despite campaign pledges to the contrary.”

That is a lie.

If you look at site, and had you looked closer at his campaign websites, Barack has always said he supports a permanant “assault weapons” ban. You know, the ones Mr. Obama said “belong on a battlefield”?.

I don’t know anybody here in America that has been able to purchase a select-fire weapon since the 60′s…

Posted by Scott | Report as abusive

The American Dream is quickly turning into an American nightmare. Maybe the purchased guns are to be used against top AIG executives or bailout bankers?. The American society is turning into a powderkeg with a long fuse. And the situation is bound to turn worse before it improves.

Posted by Ricardo | Report as abusive

Firearms are also useful in hunting — obtaining food is the second reason I have firearms (the first is target shooting). In much of the US hunting for food has long been a way of life — I know of families that survived the Depression on rabbits, ducks and squirrels taken by hunting.

Posted by Mike D. | Report as abusive

B. Free (whose gun apparently gives her so much confidence and security that she is too frightened to publish her real name), says: “The people buying guns legally are most likely not going to commit a crime. They may stop one, though.”

Surely even in the wackiest caricatures of Dubya’s America, trading the crime of theft for the crime of manslaughter never counted as “stopping” a crime?

Posted by Ian Kemmish | Report as abusive

Ian Kemmish says “Surely even in the wackiest caricatures of Dubya’s America, trading the crime of theft for the crime of manslaughter never counted as “stopping” a crime?”

I say manslaughter would never be the charge if you stopped a theif cold with a 40 S&W who breaks into your house while your kids are sleeping in their beds. It’s called justifiable homicide. There’s no “trading”. One is a crime, one is not.

Posted by Roundup Logan | Report as abusive

I’m not sure what the author is trying to convey here…are we buying guns because the economy is in the pits? Are we buying guns because we’re angry? Are we buying guns because we’re planning to subvert the gov’t because, quite frankly, they’re a bunch of boobs and we need to get rid of them?

A very ominous sounding article that has no focus and no understanding of gun ownership in America.

One question that doesn’t appear to have been asked or researched was ‘where are all the guns being purchased?’ I know that some of the gun sales increases have come along the border we share with Mexico. This is because the Mexican drug cartels are waging war for control of the distribution routes into the US. This has resulted in an increase in shootings and kidnappings here in the US. There is also evidence that drug cartel members are crossing the border into the US to purchase guns they can’t purchase in Mexico.

As for Mr. Ian Kemmish’s response – I am a proud gun owner. Sir, you make a false assumption that killing someone in the defense of their property is the same as manslaughter. It is not (as long as it’s proven that you were indeed defending yourself). In those states where conceal and carry laws have been passed, the incidence of violent crimes with guns has been reduced. Those states that still have a ‘ban’ or laws that prohibit citizens from owning guns (ie, New York City, Washington D.C.), rates of violent crimes actually increase.

Finally, from a high level, another reason why gun sales could have increased was just last fall the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case revolving around the gun ban in Washington D.C. and whether or not it is Constitutional. I would think that prior to these arguments, gun owners might have been purchasing guns just in case there was a ruling for the gun ban (and therefore against the 2nd Amendment) in Washington D.C. Fortunately our Justices ruled correctly in favor of the 2nd Amendment and against the Washington D.C. gun ban.

Posted by Don from Texas | Report as abusive

Ian posted:
“Surely even in the wackiest caricatures of Dubya’s America, trading the crime of theft for the crime of manslaughter never counted as “stopping” a crime?”

Ian, protecting your home and family with deadly force is not Manslaughter it is justifiable homicide. Most thinking states have adopted the Castle Doctrine which protects homeowners from prosecution for defending their homes. Unfortunately in the world we live in now the scumbags who would rob you care nothing for your life and will take it even if you give up your money, wallet or car without arguement.

Have a great day…Go Armed!

Posted by T. Jefferson | Report as abusive

Ian (if that is your real name), Drop the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard. A large number of innocent citizens are maimed and killed by thieves. My definition of “stopping a crime” is someone defending themselves, not their property.

Do you want unarmed police to come to your house when you’ve called in a burglary? Do you realize that the police are always just a few minutes too late to save someone’s life? Criminals buy guns to commit crimes; law abiding citizens buy guns to defend their families from criminals.

Some people like me also live in states where you don’t have a neighbor within a couple miles and don’t have a police station within 20. What would you have me do if some criminal threatened my life or the life of my family? Call the cops and ask the criminal to wait 30 minutes?

Wake up or continue to live your life as a helpless victim with your eyes closed to the realities of the world you live in.

Posted by North2Alaska | Report as abusive

The tradeoff, Ian, isn’t manslaughter, it’s usually what would be “brandishing” (a form of assault) if not justified, other times it’s non-criminal homicide; and in most states simple “theft” (larceny) isn’t enough, it has to be personal, “robbery” or “burglary”.

In any case, is it the newly poor who are buying guns?

Posted by David Scott | Report as abusive

This guy Ian must be completely out of his mind if he believes that defending oneself, family, or property is considered a crime. I don’t know where you live but in many parts of this Country (The US), it is legal to defend ones home (Including ones automobile) with deadly force if necessary. So if someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night to rob you and your family, I guess you’ll just hide under the covers and hope they’ll leave you and yours alone and unharmed???

Posted by anthony temacino | Report as abusive

Hey Ian, I have guns and I’ll gladly publish my name. I live in a state that upholds my God-given right to defend myself and my family and that’s why I always carry a legally-concealed loaded hand gun. I train with it on a regular basis so that I am always able to immediately respond with lethal force in the face of a threat on my life and/or property. Hopefully I’ll never have to.

Posted by Robert Ridgway | Report as abusive

Ian, I used my real name just to show you I am not afraid. Trading what you are calling manslaughter for theft is not considered so in any state where guns have not been outlawed. (i.e. Kalifornia, Illinois) It’s called protecting your family and property. Some day you must grow out of this ‘Dubya’s America’ thing and realize things are changing and it’s not all the Hope and Change and Unicorns and Skittles promised by the current administration.

People ask me why I carry a .45 everywhere I go and at all times. My response is simple, “Because they don’t make a .46″

Posted by Tj Rueb | Report as abusive

Ian Kemmish assumes (without any supporting evidence) that B. Free wants to kill someone. In truth, in the overwhelming majority of instances where a firearm is used to protect property or for defense, the firearm isn’t fired. So there is no trading of the crime of theft for the crime of manslaughter.

Additionally, manslaughter is not committed in circumstances of self-defense. Mr. Kemmish needs to familiarize himself with the laws concerning this issue.

It is a strong deterrent to be looking from the wrong end of a firearm someone is obviously ready to use.

Posted by Lobengula | Report as abusive

Hello Ian,

You just revealed that you are unarmed and vulnerable. Could you please include an address next time? Unlike you, B. Free is practicing good personal security by not revealing whether he/she is armed or keeps weapons in the home. There is no need to attach a name to an opinion on an Internet forum, especially if it marks you as a target in some way. B. Free is acting intelligently, rather than impulsively…exactly the type of person you want to own a gun.
Being armed does not mean that you have to use lethal force if you encounter criminal activity. It simply means that the option is available if the crime escalates from petty crime to a threat of violence. Would you live in a jungle without some means to defend yourself from potentially violent wildlife? If not, that doesn’t mean you are a bad person, it just means that you are prepared. If you began killing animals needlessly, then there would be a problem. I don’t believe there is any difference between gun ownership in an civilized area or a jungle, the animals are just more intelligent (for the most part) outside the jungle.

Posted by Gun Owner | Report as abusive

Mr. Kemmish: I fail to comprehend why the defense of my property and life against a criminal intent on depriving me of same is regarded as a bad thing. We have laws that say taking other people’s property is wrong. Since the thin blue line is under no obligation to intervene during the commission of a crime, I’d like to know why it’s considered wrong for me to defend myself and my property. I work to provide the few luxuries I have, why should I just let someone take them away from me? Do they deserve them more because they take what they want and I foolishly pay for the privilege of ownership? Or is this a socialist ploy saying that “ownership” is wrong? Of course, getting past my redneck alarm system (multiple large mongrels and one purebred charmer)will give the local constabulary time to arrive … and ticket me for the noise level while the criminal escapes. The odd thing about everyone having a gun, a lot of people will think twice about pulling and using one. Not everyone, but a lot of them; which prevents me from having to use one myself. I’d rather have the weapon and not need it than end up dead, raped and/or robbed because I didn’t.

Posted by SC Loftin | Report as abusive

Americans and guns are like babies and candy;it’s bad for them but they don’t care, they want it anyway.Ninety percent of armed crimes are commited with guns obtained in B&E’s from ‘legitimate and honest’gun owners (according to a statistic quoted on the radio from police records).Take away private guns and you take 90% of the new guns off the street.We are not only degrading the safety of Ameicans with our gun fetish but because of blackmarket gun running to Canada and Mexico we are endangering our neighbours.There is no real argument for handguns,only an infantile lack of urge control.

Posted by gary cooper | Report as abusive

So Ian, you’re saying that if you woke and found someone burglarizing your home and potentially threatening your family you wouldn’t do anything to stop them? I don’t own a gun, but having been raised to respect firearms and the rights of the American people I am hard pressed to accept the words of your last paragraph.

“B. Free” for all the hiding behind a screen name did not condone ‘manslaughter’- shame on you for putting words in other peoples’ mouths.

If you are content to let a thief walk off with the things you have worked hard for in life, by all means, go right ahead. Me, I’m using anything at my disposal- be it a table lamp or a baseball bat to make my point to the criminal. Not to kill them, but to stop them.

Posted by Julie Evans | Report as abusive

Stopping a robber is not manslaughter, nor a crime, it is justice. People have a right to defend one’s property, with deadly force if necessary.

Making criminals, especially ones interrupted in the act and clearly guilty, seem like innocent victims a caricature of the values this country was founded on. We resisted, with deadly force, the Crown’s tyranny. We should also resist the tyranny of our fellow man.

Only a morally and ethically bankrupt person suggests that we should stand by and allow criminals to take away our property without so much as raising a finger in self defense. Personal dignity and liberty is more important than survival.

Posted by Michael Paulson | Report as abusive

It all comes down to whether or not you believe in private property rights and what value you assign to human life. Those values are going to be different for everybody, and rightly so, as we’re all individuals.

I would not presume to force my values upon you or consider you “wacky” for the values you hold, in return, I’d expect the same level of respect.

Posted by Uncle Jeff | Report as abusive

Ian – are you suggesting that more gun owners means more man slaughter? This makes zero sense really, since the statistics do not bear that out. 80% of all crimes are done with illegally obtained guns. Another 10% are committed with guns stolen from people who bought them legally. The reality is that responsible gun owners are safe. And if one of those gun owners shoots and kills a robber trying to steal from them, or hurt their family, it is certainly not man slaughter but justifiable homicide. Gun laws have never and will never stop criminals, because criminals will find a way. If gun were outlawed, killers would still kill and robbers would still steal. They would just devise devices that fit their needs. The dark underworld would just build their own guns and kill innocent people with those. Then people could not complain that the blood is on the hands of the gun makers now could they?

Posted by Robert Preston | Report as abusive


Shooting a person that is in the commission of a violent crime is NOT the crime of manslaughter, it is SELF DEFENSE. This may be a foreign concept to you. I voted for Obama, but this liberal Brady-esque view of gun control never made sense. We’ve banned drugs and alcohol, and I think you have a clue as to how well prohibition works. You’re suggesting that we add one more item to the black marketeers list of wares. Incredible!!

Posted by Charles Teasley | Report as abusive

A typical piece of Mr. Debusmann’s – dark, foreboding, and totally devoid of insight. Mr. D, in the words of my father..”Do you come with a solution or are you just another part of the problem?”

Posted by Sam Meyer | Report as abusive

I personally choose not to own a gun. But if you want to own a gun, go for it. Guns don’t kill people, guns are deadly weapons people use to kill people. I think Canada has more guns per-capita than the US yet has fewer gun based murders per-capita than the US. So it seems like the problem with gun violence is more complicated than the availability of guns. IMHO.

Posted by Josef | Report as abusive

most everybody likes to think they are in the ‘middle class’…um, i recall the 1960′s and what middle class was back then. those times are gone.

Posted by d | Report as abusive

Ian, nice cheap try at B. Free. It’s not about being frightened. It’s called smart. And I’m pretty sure B. Free’s comment was that an armed and gun smart citizen has a better chance stopping a crime against him/her. It’s about strong self defense. Looking down the wrong end of a 45 tends to get the attention of thieves, punks & would-be criminals.

Since your post says you’re a lib,(nice slap at Repubs ;), here’s your free education on gun control: jk

My bet is that you’d become a gun advocate in a heart beat if your wife woke you at 2:00 am to whisper that an intruder was about to enter your room.

Posted by BIlly C | Report as abusive

Funny, Germany has some of the most strict gun laws in the world and they just had a shooting spree that only ended with the shooter’s suicide.
People were murdered before firearms and will be murdered after firearms. Murder is a social ill and has NEVER been legitimately equated with gun ownership levels. Homogenous levels and political stability have much more affect on murder rates than gun ownership. If gun laws reduced crime, why then is DC the murder capital of the US? It has the most strict gun laws in the nation?
Beyond all of these arguments, the second ammendment is not about murder or even hunting for that matter. Read the Federalist Papers and you will see that Madison and fellows detailed their thinking behind the second ammendment. An unarmed populace is an enslaved one.

Posted by becolby | Report as abusive

gary cooper: People who get their guns stolen are not acting responsibly with their firearm, simple as that. It is sad that people who get something stolen (the victim of the crime) by those who would disarm them. You seem to assume that the fact that people are victimized and robbed, are at fault for that crime against them. Yes their guns should have been in a locked safe, but that very fact should alert you to the problem in America. You would rather people not have guns, because that way when they are robbed the criminal gets no deadly weapons out of it. 90% of the stolen guns are crimes of convenience, in other words the criminal did not go there seeking a gun, but got lucky and found it. Why? Because guns have resale value and B&E criminals are looking for money.

So should we also take all the knives out of our kitchens? And all the axes and saws and drills from our garages? What about baseball bats, hockey sticks, tire irons, lawn darts, BBQ Skewers and anti freeze? Any one of those things can be used to kill a person, yet we all have them. So why do people assume that taking away guns will take away crime? It won’t and only ignorance would say that it might. Do you know how most homicides are committed? BFT or Blunt Force Trauma. Which can be done with just about anything from a fireplace poker to a rock. And you can bet that if there were no guns, criminals would just kill you with one of those in a second.

I don’t know what is wrong with America, I don’t know why we are so violent. But the fact is that we are. And until that is long gone the need to protect yourself and family is there. The police do all they can, but they are reactionary by nature. They usually arrive after the bad stuff has already happened, so expecting them to be your 1st line of security is a mistake some people cannot afford to make.

Guns are not the problem. There are just as many guns per person in Canada as their is in the USA and they do not have our problem with crime. People need to learn that this entire anti-gun mentality is no longer fooling anyone……Democrats and Republicans both see this now. This is part of the reason for the increase of gun sales. For 30 years the government has been making it tougher to get guns, and adding in more laws and regulations, yet violent and random acts of crime had not gone away, not in the slightest. As one city’s stats go down, another one goes up.

Legal and responsible, and trained gun owners are choosing to take a precaution. If you choose to not take such precautions fine, but don’t tell others that they cannot.

Posted by Robert Preston | Report as abusive

Gee Ian, I didn’t hear B. Free mention the exact type of crime and I’m pretty sure the crime implied to be prevented would be a violent one. Perhaps attempted rape is justification for a potential victim to use deadly force? No? How about if the “theft” is armed robbery? If a thief pulls a gun on you do you have the right to protect yourself with a gun?

Your reasoning is quite off if you think someone defending herself from a violent crime would be punished with manslaughter.

Posted by P. Kellogg | Report as abusive

From a Gun owner and economic casualty…

I think that it is a good thing for the well off to get nervous about the people who used to work for them who are well armed and pissed off. The reason we have the right to bear arms is that it is precisely that right which perpetuates the revolutionary ideals that made this Republic possible. I can hear echoes of the lamentations of the British 270+ years ago waxing self rightious about how the colonists would be so much more easy to manage if they didn’t have so many guns.

Some closing words from famous psychic Thomas Jefferson:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.\” – Thomas Jefferson

Posted by Kevin Kiernan | Report as abusive

Buying a gun actually reduces your chance for safety… UNLESS you actually learn to use it. I don’t mean taking it to the range a few times, I mean sign up for a class. Start with a class that teaches you how to handle, fire, and clean your gun. Then take a class that teaches you basic gun combat (once a gun is fired you are in combat whether you like it or not… this is a fight you do not want to loose). Like any other treacherous weapon from cars to nukes, appropriate training is essential to safe and effective handling. I for one think ALL guns should be legal, they are just tools… but I believe each firearm owner should be required to take at least 15 hours of training with their weapon before they can take it home for first time buyers and one hour refresher for multi gun owners along with refreshers whenever you renew permits. An armed society is a polite society, but we don’t want people pulling a Plexico or worse yet killing someone on accident.

Posted by Adam Cagle | Report as abusive

This may be an American Frontierman’s reaction, and most of these guns will be intended for defense. There are however a lot of sad people suffering financial distress, who will be throwing themselves off the top of tall buidings, and no doubt a lot of people enjoying, perhaps undeserved, rising financial success, are going to be shot. Any public information, news or pronouncements have to be of a moderating, and hopeful influence. Everybody needs hope.
Sincerely…..John T.

Posted by John Turnbull | Report as abusive

Interesting story. I agree– guns are legal, and one has the right to own one GIVEN that they register it, do the background checks etc. AND LEARN HOW TO USE IT..

What I find continually fascinating is— the people who will SCREAM at you about the 2nd Amendment — CONVENIENTLY skip the part of it that says ” A well regulated militia”!!

To me that is very clear — we need perhaps a Switzerland-style situation where the GOVERNMENT handles a logical, basic TRAINING course that also registers you as a “TRAINED USER”. What I just described it EXACTLY, PRECISELY what we do for driving cars — why not do the same for a TOOL THAT CAN KILL YOU?

“They” only read the part they like — the part that says “the right to bear arms”. We need to all remind them of the REST OF THE AMENDMENT!!

Posted by Andre' Cholmondeley | Report as abusive

A friend of mine recently said I should move to New Zealand, buy a farm and put up a large electric fence – at the time he said I looked at him as though he had two heads. Looking at these gun statistics, I’m now looking for the property.

Posted by Richard Williams | Report as abusive

So Bernd Debusmann has issues with guns, or more so, with gun owners. You know the type; “redneck”,beer guzzling,NASCAR fanatic. The Southern “Redneck” who likes nothing more than to down 4 or 5 shots of “Jack” and then go huntin’. I could go on with the wretched and bigoted stereotypes that Southerners have endured for a long,long time. The fact is Southerners have respect for firearms and respect for their families and friends;they are not the “gun problem”. If you study gangs in the “Inner Cities” or the “hood” you’ll see where most of the gun violence is coming from.
To stem the tide of “gun violence” Boston Mayor “Mumbles” Menino decided to sue the gun manufacturers out of business. This charade has been played out in several cities, only to be shot down by the courts. But the response has been not to name the source of the problem but to punish law abiding citizens for owning guns. Liberals will go to no end to protect their “pet rock”;African Americans. Blacks will not be abandoned by their liberal benefactors, even if it means slandering white America. So lets cut the bull and look at 2nd Amendment issues clearly without resorting to “Michael Moore 6th grade logic”.

Posted by Xmossad | Report as abusive

The Second Amendment is an example of brilliant foresight by the founding fathers of the United States of America. It foresaw the day when it would be necessary for the common citizens to be able to overthrow a government that has gotten so far out of touch with the values of the average citizen that it no longer workable. What you see is democracy at work with bumps in the road along the way. We are headed towards one of those at this time.

Posted by Bob | Report as abusive


You’re making completely unsupportable assumptions.

First, while B.Free may indeed be a pseudonym, you don’t really have any idea whether it is or not. Regardless, it’s perfectly reasonable for B.Free to want to protect her identity, so as not to have to deal with opinionated, negative people who don’t really know what they’re talking about. Or, simply because she chooses to exercise her right to anonymity. She doesn’t have to have a reason.

B.Free is right about the incidence of crime committed with legally acquired firearms. It is extremely low. Gun crime is very nearly always committed using illegally acquired weapons.

And, there *is* an inverse correlation when reviewing the incidence of both theft and violent crime in areas where gun ownership is noticeably increased. As legal gun ownership increases, theft and violent crime decreases.

(Yes, correlation. Not cause. But, you can look at the decrease of incidents in the area in question, and compare it to the incidence of such crimes not just in the areas in question, but also surrounding areas without an increase in gun ownership to make reasonable and meaningful comparisons.)

Second, there’s no “‘trading’ of theft for manslaughter” here.

We’re not talking about vigilantism. Just self-defense.

If you knew anything about home self-defense or concealed carry laws, you’d be aware that in the vast majority of jurisdictions, they do NOT permit the use of force to protect property, merely the use of force as a LAST resort specifically to protect someone in cases where they believe they are in “immanent danger of death or serious bodily harm”. And, serious bodily harm is just that. It doesn’t cover simply being assaulted. It’s for when you may be assaulted in a way from which you may never recover.

At worst, that’s ‘trading’ a case of aggravated assault or murder for an act of self-defense. At best, there’s no act of violence at all. Instead they may deter a crime from occurring. (Sadly, there’s no good way to track incidents where a crime that might have otherwise taken place doesn’t, so there’s no way to really provide hard data for that.)

It’s also worth pointing out, before you go down the path of “that’s what the police are for”, that the supreme court upheld lower court rulings finding against a woman tried to sure her police department for failing to fulfill their duty to “defend and protect” her when she and other female friends were held and raped in her apartment over a period of multiple days after she called 911 to report they were being assaulted. (Units were dispatched, but did not enter her apartment because they did not hear anything, so they did not feel they had probable cause to enter.) The court ruled in favor of the police, stating that no duty exists on the part of the police to “defend and protect” any private individual.

This isn’t necessarily a case of negligence on the part of the police. It just clearly illustrates that they can’t be everywhere at once, and that they can only do so much.

Even in instances where the police might try to intervene, they are usually several minutes away, so they have no ability to intervene in situations of extreme danger before it is much too late. Ultimately, we all have to be responsible for our own defense, as well as being responsible citizens in our own turn when measuring an appropriate response to any given situation.

So, while you’re right that no one’s wallet is worth another person’s life, conversely, you’re wrong in assuming that that’s what B.Free is talking about.

If necessary, it’s possible that she may be able to prevent someone from raping and murdering her, and in that case using force to do so on her part is justified.
Hopefully, that will never be the case.

But, if it does come to that, if the government, and the vast majority of individuals represented didn’t think there were occasions where that level of force was justified, then police officers wouldn’t be permitted to carry guns, either. (No police department or armed government agency has a ‘shoot to wound’ policy.)

It’s not the gun that’s the problem here. It’s human nature. And, if it wasn’t guns, it would be knives. And if it wasn’t knives it would be sticks. And if it wasn’t sticks it would be rocks. Or something else. All of which favor a larger male attacker, not B.Free.

Removing a defensive weapon doesn’t make things better. It makes things worse. Anything can be a weapon. What makes it so is intent. What’s at issue here is intent. Just because someone has a gun, it does not mean they intend to ever use it against someone else. In the case of normal citizens, they hope very hard that they never have a situation where they may have to use it. This is not so in the case of someone with criminal intent. And, if they have such intent, they don’t care whether having a gun is legal. They’ll get one anyway. If a normal citizen can’t have one legally, then the only people who will have them are criminals (who will take advantage of that discrepancy) and, possibly, police, who won’t be able to intervene, because they can’t be everywhere at once.

And, none of us want to live in a police state, so really, we’re all better off that they aren’t everywhere at once. (George Orwell made some very good observations.)

It is a shame that people feel the need to arm themselves
in order to feel safe in their surroundings.
If one takes this route one must seek the proper instructions on how to handle,care for and shoot in the proper conditions.Also,one must be cognizant of the rules and regulations around the country for possession and use of firearms-good luck

The Wall St. felons and feckless politicians have need to worry about the wrath of the American citizens. The American dream of own a home has, for many, been reconfigured as surviving in a tent city. The actions of these criminals has established a pattern which will ultimately lead to most of us living under conditions similar to those in Darfur. Both the workers and the middle class are on the road to extinction. While owning a gun might not do any good at this this time it is unlikely to do any harm.

Posted by SamColt | Report as abusive

There has been a big increase in black bear damage to property in my area, so over the last 6 months I have purchased 3 guns: a single shot survival 12 gauge shotgun for the Jeep, a pump action shotgun for my remote cabin and an AK-47 clone called a WASR 10 that has a magazine that holds 30 bullets. The WASR-10 will never be fired.


Each time I was in the store I was told by customers that they were purchasing weapons that would be banned if the anti-assault rifle law was reinstated or a handgun ban was attempted by the new administration. The first time I heard this, the WASR-10 was $400, the second time it was $500. I returned on a lark to see what the WASR-10 was priced at about a month after I bought the pump shotgun and there was one left: $599. I bought it on the spot, as an investment. While waiting for the background check to be completed the store owner brought out 2 new WASR-10′s for sale… priced at $645. A man who had walked in after me sighed and picked one up and got in line. He smiled at me and said that he had been forced to sell his M-16 clone for $1500 because he needed the money, he had bought it for $600 several years ago. He said that the way things were going the best way to preserve his cash was to buy another gun.

Moral of this story? If any of the writers of these sensationalistic articles was an actual journalist they would have actually gone to a gun store or two and asked questions of the people buying the guns. There is no doubt in my mind that people are purchasing guns at record rates because they are – first: a great investment; second: pay a dividend in providing comfort against the unknown.

Posted by Art Fuller | Report as abusive

To Josef,

The most recent study I’ve found ( .htm, 1997) states that gun ownership per capita in Canada was .25/person while in the States, it was .82/person, about 3.3 times as many guns per capita.

This has led to 14.5x more deaths by handguns in the States than in Canada, where handguns are restricted weapons ( The study seems to argue that there is a direct correlation between gun ownership and firearms deaths.

Posted by Michael Mazur | Report as abusive

When asked why do I carry a gun I reply because I can’t carry a cop

One thing that seems to tie many gun owners together is fear.

There seems to be a lot of abstract fear in these communities which is not healthy. What can we do to reassure these people and bring them into a more honest and productive debate?

While we were arguing amongst our selfs, we saw many egregious abuses of civil liberties which went unanswered by the very people who hold up the constitution as the bastion of all that is well and good. Why didn’t you use your guns then?

Posted by Tom | Report as abusive

were not fearing hes going to tighten gun control he already is

Posted by Bob | Report as abusive

““What is really remarkable about all this is that there hasn’t been social unrest…”

That’s because the useful idiots on the left, whose job it is to foment civil unrest, don’t want to do it in the freezing winter cold. Once summer gets here, I imagine we’ll see some riots that’ll make some Latin America countries green with envy.

Posted by Larry | Report as abusive

The firearms rights issue is not remotely related to firearms; it is a simple property-rights issue. That is to say, a man’s possession of firearms does not require the existence of any specific right; without physically invading him, we have no way to know whether or not he has chosen to do so. Conversely, in order to enforce the assertion that ownership of a firearm is not a man’s inherent right, it is first required that we invade him to learn whether he is in possession; once this initial aggression has been undertaken, a further invasion is necessary to forcefully divest him of his property. In doing so, we are not only acting with violence to confiscate the property of a peaceful and innocent party, but we have also turned an otherwise law-abiding individual into a criminal in the eyes of the law.

As such, it should be obvious, when we contrast those who wish to own firearms with those who wish to restrict the ownership of such, which is the inherently-violent group.

Posted by JD | Report as abusive

There is a current drug war going on in Mexico with 6,000 deaths just last year that could represent perhaps three or four percent of those increases. We’ve entered a negative feedback loop. Articles in this nature as well as the economy as a whole induce fear and anxiety and the cycle repeats itself. Also guns are usually good barter items. People afriad of economic collapse are buying these so they can continue to feed themselves when the grocery store runs out of food.

Posted by Jared Heltemes | Report as abusive

Interesting topic, I would love to see it analyzed further as a couple other posters mentioned. Are these across the board increases in gun purchases, or does it focus in certain parts of the country, or certain types of firearms, the potential for more information is intriguing. The economy is sucking, the world is always changing throughout time, but right now most people would agree its a time of uncertainty across the spectrum of humanity rich and poor alike.
I believe this would be a good time to learn to use firearms and to consider ownership if you don’t practice it already. Times are tough, there are no guarantees in life but death and taxes, and who knows maybe the fat cats have overstepped to far this time, and something will light the fuse, some issue or event and when that hits you want to be ready. Ready to either participate or to defend yourself against those who might try to profit from unstable times. Either way better to have a gun and know how to use it, and never have to use it, then to need a gun and not have one.
As far as those that would argue, ban all guns and no problemo, some guy even posted that 90% of guns in America involved in crime are from legal purchases. Well what about that 10% that still gains access or has guns due to illegal means? I am sure they would be quite satisfied knowing the rest of the populace is unarmed.

Posted by Chris | Report as abusive

The reason why we have guns is to fight back against our government in the instance if they choose to destroy our inalienable rights of citizens in this country. Its called the 2nd amendment and our founding fathers made it clear to have it in the constitution. If drastic changes are made within the next years, I highly suggest everyone buy a gun to defend themselves, also alot of ramen noodles.

Posted by jp | Report as abusive