Party Boy: In sum, though many nations with widespread gun ownership have much lower murder rates than nations that severely restrict gun ownership, it would be simplistic to assume that at all times and in all places widespread gun ownership depresses violence by deterring many criminals into nonconfrontation crime. There is evidence that it does so in the United States, where defensive gun ownership is a substantial socio‐cultural phenomenon. But the more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact severe anti‐gun laws. On the other hand, in nations that have experienced high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reaction has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws. This is futile, for reducing gun ownership by the law‐abiding citizenry-the only ones who obey gun laws-does not reduce violence or murder. The result is that high crime nations that ban guns to reduce crime end up having both high crime and stringent gun laws, while it appears that low crime nations that do not significantly restrict guns continue to have low violence rates.

I think it's not so much the number of guns but the culture of guns that's important to look at. For instance, just from anecdotal experience in Western Europe, people don't feel the need to tote guns around because they don't view public spaces as dangerous places (I've seen in America a lot of white fear about black and brown crime and thus a justification for gun ownership- particularly in the South). I think a good question to ask is, "ignore the second amendment for one second (after all, the right to do something does not compel), why do you feel the need to have a gun and to carry it on your person?"

Also, perhaps I haven't followed news stories and commenters as closely in previous mass murder episodes (there are so many!), but this time I noticed a flurry of very similar sounding talking points coming from the pro-gun, anti-regulation crowd literally hours after. It seems to consist of the following talking points:

1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
2. More people carrying guns would prevent such a tragedy.
3. Any discussion of any regulation is akin to "wanting to take away our guns".

The arguments are so similar in wording and so relentless it's really astonishing. Bravo to the NRA I guess for being so successful in shutting down any rational discussion of some reasonable policy-making regarding this issue. Politicians are certainly too scared to say anything. And shame on them for that.

"Confessed" a broad media consensus "to curtail gun rights".

Great use of doublespeak there, Right-Wing Blog. I believe that the quoted individual "said" this. "Confessing" it indicates guilt and strongly suggests to the reader that the speaker is engaged in an illicit activity. Which brings us to the media's "consensus" to "curtail gun rights". How, pray tell? Through their legislative power? Their control of the courts? Or, could it be that the general sense of the media talking heads is that there should be more gun restrictions? See, then the sentence would be:

"Time Magazine editor-at-large Mark Halperin said Monday that there is a broad media consensus that the US needs more restrictive gun laws."

That sentence avoids the "bias" that you MRC farks pretend to be against, at the same time it makes the same point. But when you write it THAT way, you end up with many people agreeing with "the media", and the 'wingers can't be having that, can they?

Besides, if it's a "broad media consensus", I'd assume that includes Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, and their ilk, right? Since they're the only "real" media?

Or he said that the employees generally support stricter gun control.

I don't think we need more gun control, but lying and twisting words to suit the pathetic GOP narrative about OMG THE LIBERAL MEDIA is f*cking stupid.