Work on doing something to the criminals that commit crimes. When these other wanna-bees see hardened criminals get slaps on the hands, early parole's they feel they can do it to......Change the way this liberal justice has become and it may just slow down some of the crimes.

The U.S. is not, as you state, the most violent of developed nations. Just look at the violent crime rate in England and Wales: for the year 2011, the latest year for which complete statistics are available. Their rate of 1,361 violent crimes per 100,000 residents is over triple the U.S. rate of 386 per 100,000 for the same year. It is true their murder rate of 1.3 was lower than the 4.7 per 100,000 in the U.S. The numbers are similar for other countries, such as Australia, that once allowed private ownership of firearms and have recently restricted them. The real question we need to be asking is are we willing to subject the law abiding people of our nation to an additional 975 violent crimes per 100,000 residents, many of which will have lifelong negative consequences for the victims, in exchange for the 3 fewer murders per 100,000 we could expect to prevent?

If one examines the F.B.I. crime statistics in greater detail it is plain that the majority of our violence occurs in cities of over 250,000 residents. In the 186 MSA'a that exceed that number the violent crime rate for 2011 was 754.5 and the murder rate was 10.1 per 100,000 population. Many of these population centers have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation yet have the highest levels of violence. The overwhelming number of these crimes is committed using handguns rather than rifles. By far the most violent areas within these metropolises are the areas with the highest rates of poverty. Yet instead of pursuing public policy that addresses the poverty without subsidizing it (and thus causing it to grow) like we currently do, we propose strict limits on weapons (rifles of all types) that were used in less that 500 of the 11,000+ firearms homicides in the U.S. in 2011.

There are several common denominators that the vast majority of the recent mass shootings share. Most of the perpetrators are late adolescent or early adult males who have demonstrated major problems with social skills if not outright mental illness. They have all seemed to crave a sort of notoriety as they go out in a self-perceived blaze of glory. The use of high capacity weapons by the killers is also common, but they as often than not are using handguns instead of rifles. The one overwhelming characteristic that every mass shooting for the last half century has, save one three years ago in Arizona, is that they occurred in so called "gun free" zones where common citizens are not allowed to defend themselves with firearms. Why, instead of a civil debate about a strategy that has already proven between 1994 and 2004 to not make a difference, aren't you advocating a civil debate about how to reasonably eliminate soft targets like "gun free zones" from the sights of mentally ill young men?

17% less shooting using assault weapons during the 10 years of assault weapons ban. NOT A BAN on guns only "assault" weapons and big mags. I am for that why or how can you not be????

Melba were did you copy your post my numbers don't follow yours.

Bubba again says no guns no one died from gun shots.

A good guy with a gun does work.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/55742445-68/shooting-atlanta-police-says.html.csp

thomas e it did not work at Columbine

Bubba says really stretching

Good guy waited 40 minutes before he acted on the threat. Having a gun in a holster and not using it is the same as not having a gun. Sad that bubba is too lazy or too much of a coward to defend himself or allow others to do so.

The government already is steeped in gun control. We cannot have grenade launchers, Rambo hand held M60s, or an antiaircraft gun. I mean you never know. Is that not the question? When the government takes over and anarchy ensues you are gonna need a lot more than a piddly AR 15 to protect yourself.

Amendment 2. Period.

U.S numbers directly from online FBI Crime reports data. England date from their online Home Office (official government information bureau), total number of incidents divided by total population/100,000.

Not to mention that the overall murder AND violent crime rates in the U.S. are 1/2 what they were in 1992. This in spite of what the gun control advocates like Feinstein and Boxer have called the "irresponsible" proliferation of "assault style" weapons in the near decade since the 1994 ban expired in 2004. This in spite of legislation in many states allowing more law abiding citizens the right to concealed carry permits that opponents said would result in a bloodbath of violence. The only bloodbaths are occurring in "gun free zones" where the mass shooters are confident they will not meet armed resistance until they have had time to do their damage to society.

We can look to Mexico to see our future if we implement strict gun controls. Gangs in Mexico are the only people with guns, and they kill ruthlessly. As we are giving free access into our country to hard-working Mexicans who only want jobs, the gangster Mexicans crossing our border with fake IDs are also enjoying free and open borders. The future, with the new amnesty, will become more lawless, and citizens need to protect themselves.