Does the American public really wish to reduce gun violence?

Yesterday, we published “Five Solutions to Gun Violence.”

It contained five proposals, each of which if implemented, would reduce gun violence — if that is what the American public wants.

The title question is, “does the American public really wish to reduce gun violence,” or does it prefer to address small side problems, while pretending it is doing something about the main cause of gun violence?

The “more-guns = less-gun-violence” myth is akin to “more-anger = fewer-anger-crimes,” or “more-greed = fewer-crimes-of-greed.”

Reality doesn’t work that way.

If you really want to make sure someone stays lost give him a bad roadmap. Sending him on a wild goose chase will waste his time and energy far better than simply doing nothing.

In that vein, today I saw an article titled,“Omar Mateen, an ‘Americanized Guy,’ Shows Threat of Lone Terrorists” Here are a few excerpts to show how far off course we have been sent:

Omar Mateen had been on a terrorism watch list for incendiary comments he once made to co-workers at a local courthouse.

But the F.B.I. soon ended its examination of Mr. Mateen after finding no evidence that he posed a terrorist threat to his community.

Thus, we see the beginnings of the “blame the FBI” bad roadmap. The notion is that if only the FBI had done its job, Mateen would have been prevented from killing all those people in Orlando.

That is what the gun manufacturers want you to believe. They want you to waste your time, energy, and intellect trying to find ways to make the FBI better able to stop gun violence. They want you to follow a bad roadmap.

The government investigation could take months, but an early examination of Mr. Mateen’s life reveals a hatred of gay people.

This is the second bad roadmap — the search for reasons why this individual did what he did.

The hope is that if we knew he killed those people because he hated gay people, we could prevent future killings by . . . by what?

By somehow convincing bigots that gay people are good people? Is that the plan upon which we will expend thousands of hours and millions of words?

He was a man who could be charming, loved Afghan music and enjoyed dancing, but he was also violently abusive.

Family members said he was not overly religious, but he was rigid and conservative in his view that his wife should remain mostly at home.

The F.B.I. director said on Monday that Mr. Mateen had once claimed ties to both Al Qaeda and Hezbollah — two radical groups violently opposed to each other.

He could act like the NRA’s mythical “good guy,” and he also could act like a “bad guy.” No news there. That describes millions of Americans. Where does that lead us in any effort to reduce gun violence?

Investigators now face the question of how much the killings were the act of a deeply disturbed man, as his former wife and others described him, and how much he was driven by religious or political ideology.

Let’s say that after wasting months of tedious investigation, we conclude he was “deeply disturbed” (whatever that means). What then? How does “deeply disturbed” get us one inch closer to preventing the next gun murder?

Arrest all the “deeply disturbed” people, forever?

Unlike Al Qaeda, which favors highly organized and planned operations, the Islamic State has encouraged anyone to take up arms in its name, and uses a sophisticated campaign of social media to inspire future attacks by unstable individuals with no history of embracing radical Islam.

So, shall we search for all the “unstable individuals with no history of embracing radical Islam”?

How many millions of those do you think live in America? What about your dopey brother-in-law, or your goofy next-door neighbor. Are they unstable, with no history of embracing radical Islam?

What shall we do when find them? Arrest them all and keep them in jail indefinitely, for being “unstable”?

Mr. Mateen might have been gay but chose to hide his true identity out of anger and shame.

A senior federal law enforcement official said on Monday that the F.B.I. was looking at reports that Mr. Mateen had used a gay dating app, and patrons of Pulse were quoted in news reports as saying that he had visited the club several times.

So he may have been a guy ashamed of his identity. Should the FBI arrest all Americans who secretly are insecure about some aspect of their lives?

He came to the F.B.I.’s attention in 2013, when some of his co-workers reported that he had made inflammatory comments claiming connections to overseas terrorists, and saying he hoped that the F.B.I. would raid his family’s home so that he could become a martyr.

The F.B.I. opened an investigation and put Mr. Mateen on a terrorist watch list for nearly a year.

Mr. Mateen said he had made the incendiary remarks “in anger” because his co-workers had ridiculed his Muslim background and he wanted to scare them. The F.B.I. closed its investigation and took him off the terrorist watch list.

The F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Mateen a third time, but determined that his ties to the suicide bomber were not significant. The bureau had no further contact with Mr. Mateen.

Mr. Comey defended the work of his agents, although the bureau’s handling of the case is likely to be the subject of scrutiny and criticism in the coming weeks.

They interviewed him multiple times and put him on a terrorist watch list, all to no avail. Meanwhile, the gun industry laughs at their efforts, for none of this has any effect on gun violence. It’s all misdirection.

In fact, the inevitable failures to prevent gun violence beget more gun purchases. Orlando will prove to be another financial windfall to the gun makers, as more people are sold on the false notion that carrying a gun will protect them from future mass murders.

Still, cases such as these rankle F.B.I. counterterrorism agents, who believe they draw criticism for any choices they make — either for leaving cases open too long, or for closing cases that don’t seem to have enough evidence.

Don Borelli, a retired F.B.I. counterterrorism supervisor in New York, said there was a danger in criticizing agents who close investigations for lack of evidence. “Can we allow people’s futures to be affected if there is no proven basis for it? That’s the flip side to all this,” he said.

Sally Yates, the deputy attorney general, told reporters on Monday that the Justice Department might look to adopt new procedures that would alert counterterrorism investigators if someone who had been on a terror watch list tried to buy a gun.

And if she had been alerted, then what? How would Ms. Yates use that information to prevent future shootings?

“Why did he do this?” his father asked. “He was born in America. He went to school in America. He went to college — why did he do that? I am as puzzled as you are.”

To prevent our finding answers, the gun lobby and their voice, the politicians, has led us down a number of false paths. The purpose is to misdirect us.

They want us to scatter our efforts, by asking:
–“Why did he do it?”
–“What can be done about terrorism?”
–“What can be done about mass murder?”
–“What can be done about undocumented immigrants?”
–“What can be done about Muslims?”
–“What can be done about the mentally unstable?”
–“What can be done about hatred and bigotry?”
–“What can be done to preserve gun rights?”

Thousands of Americans are shot every year. Only a tiny percentage are shot by terrorists, mass murderers, the mentally unstable, undocumented foreigners, Muslims, or bigots. The vast majority of shootings are done by people who do not fit into any of the above categories.

The shooters are people who suddenly get angry, or who want to steal something, or who are part of a street gang guarding its turf. They are husbands and wives and children. They are smart and stupid.

Trying to solve the problems of terrorism, mass murder, the mentally unstable, etc., will make only the most minuscule difference in the overall shooting statistics. Each of these problems is more a diversion than a path to a solution.

That is the gun lobby’s plan. Change the subject. Change the focus, so no solution can be found.

The gun lobby doesn’t want you to know this, but the one common denominator for those thousand of American shootings is the easy availability of guns.

Anyone in America can buy a gun. Even if you are a convicted sex offender, multiple murderer, proven terrorist, child molester out on bail, you easily and legally can buy a gun.

Simply go to a gun show. Simply buy one online. Simply buy one from your neighbor or from a stranger in the street.

There is one, and only one way to reduce the vast number of gun murders: Reduce the availability of guns. Period.

Today, we hear politicians and media pundits debating everything from terrorism to insanity, pretending they are looking for solutions to all the gun murders. It’s all a facade, a pretense.

It’s like preventing dog bites by putting up a “no-collies allowed” sign. Even if the sign worked, and you eliminated all collies, there still will be thousands of dog bites.

The only way dramatically to reduce the number of shootings is to reduce the availability of guns as described in: Five Solutions to Gun Violence:

–Interpret the Constitution properly
–Remove the profit motive from gun manufacture and sales
–Eliminate gangs
–Greater penalties for gun carry during felonies
–Make gun ownership expensive; tax and license gun ownership

If we don’t do this, the gun lobby will continue to have us chasing our tails, searching in the wrong places for small solutions to small problems, while the big problem continues to bedevil us.

We return to the question that started this post: Does the American public really wish to reduce gun violence, or does it prefer to address small side problems, while pretending it is doing something about the main cause of gun violence?

=Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.


Recessions begin an average of 2 years after the blue line first dips below zero. A common phenomenon is for the line briefly to dip below zero, then rise above zero, before falling dramatically below zero. There was a brief dip below zero in 2015, followed by another dip – the familiar pre-recession pattern.
Recessions are cured by a rising red line.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.


Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.
•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
•Deficit spending grows the supply of money
•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
•The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between rich and the rest..
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..



21 thoughts on “Does the American public really wish to reduce gun violence?

  1. Logic is wasting everyone’s time. You can’t argue with such bigotry. But you can tax it. There needs to be a licensing tax that makes it expensive to own a gun. A sliding scale for different guns, starting from say $100/year and going up from that. No exceptions save pre 19th Century arms. Get the States to do it as their taxes can be used to fund gun victims help. and raise money.

    The point is that it will be avoided but doing so will be a felony and so they break the law. This can be made a stiff penalty and perps get a record. etc.
    ETC.It put many on the wrong side of the law. That’s what will give it teeth.


  2. Here is my proposal.

    Go read about the mass killing that happened in france not too long ago.

    Then think about how guns are illegal in france and yet the muslim terrorists were able to get arms without issues. Double the count of orlando.

    Think about mr mitchells home town of chicago, a city in a state where guns are practically banned. Does it stop criminals? Ask rodger.

    Finally ask, why is this man spewing this nonsense abour gun control?


    1. Danny, obviously you are not a resident of Chicago.

      Guns are not “practically banned.” Where did you ever get such wrong “facts”? Did you learn them from the NRA?

      Here’s a fact: There are some Chicago neighborhoods having more guns per person than almost anywhere in the world, and those are the very neighborhoods with the most gun violence.

      See how that works? Lots of guns = lots of gun violence. Zero guns = no gun violence.


      And by the way, here’s another fact: The murder rate in France is 1.2 per 100,000. The murder rate in the U.S., with many more guns, is 3.9 per thousand — more than three times a high.

      I’ll bet the NRA never told you that.


      1. Are guns legal in Illinois?

        The guns you refer to are illegal guns that have and will continue to be there if you make guns illegal. So why are those guns still there if guns are illegal?

        The murder rates vary by nation and do not have any relationship to gun ownership. Some nations have gun bans and have higher rates than the us, but of course you wont mention that.

        I mentioned france because you seem to think that a ban would stop an orlando type of attack, well, did it stop it in france?

        I think we have other issues outside of guns causing higher murder rates and if you look at non gun murders you will see what i mean. This illustrates why the issue is not guns but psychiatric medicine. Aside from that some nationalities are just more violent than others.


        1. ” . . . the issue is not guns but psychiatric medicine . . . “

          Ah, so you believe most gun murders are caused by people with psychiatric problems? Where did you get that information?

          ” . . . some nationalities are just more violent than others . . . “</i?

          Which nationalities are those?


          1. Ahhh so you keep dodging the question. Are guns illegal or not in your state?

            Show me 2 people that are the same. Show me 2 nations that are the same. You ask about nationality to change the topic and then call me a “bigot” or some other – its what you when confronted with facts. The fact some nationalities and races and religions are more violent than others. Which ones dont matter..


          2. Why did you accuse me of “dodging”? There is nothing to dodge.

            Guns are not illegal in Illinois. I would have thought a passionate gun lover would have known that guns are not illegal in any state. That is the problem.

            You did know that, didn’t you?

            It was you who said,” . . . some nationalities are just more violent than others.”

            Then you complained, “You asked about nationality to change the subject.”


            And, you said, “The fact some nationalities and races and religions are more violent than others. Which ones don’t matter.”

            Which ones don’t matter?? You bring it up, then say it doesn’t matter??

            Finally, you said I called you a “bigot.” I didn’t, but perhaps it was your guilty conscience talking to you.

            Anyway, your comments are typical NRA nonsense, devoid of logic, so please don’t bother, further.


          3. Perhaps i used the wrong set of words.

            You need a state issued license to get a gun in your state.

            There are no licenses for the guns you are refering to , meaning – those holding them do not have a permit. So these guns are “illegal” in your state and it’s obvious those holding them dont give a damn about laws.

            You really think that more laws will make those illegal guns disappear? It wont, at least not from people who dont give a damn about laws (gang bangers).

            Which is why, sir, your state and specifically chicago is full of them.

            If the morons in your state had any brain matter, they would remove any requirements for owining a gun, specifically in chicago. Then watch how how those gang bangers get what they deserve.

            Chicago, a motherload of liberalism shows what liberals will do when put in charge. People, not the rich, are in charge of their own destiny. Those complaining just dont want to see reality and the outcomes of their own stupid actions.

            You liberals need a dose of reality.


  3. And what took the cops 4 freaking hours?

    You like to be in a place with a terrorist for 4 hours while copa eat donuts?


    1. Go it, Danny.

      The problem is “the cops.”
      The problem is “some nationalities.”
      The problem is crazy people.
      The problem is making guns illegal.

      The problem is not the easy availability guns to every gun nut in America.

      I understand. You have been well trained by the gun manufacturers.


  4. Not that facts seem to matter in this discussion. Gun lovers ignore facts.

    But what the heck, here are some facts for those of you who have not been brainwashed by the NRA:

    Six things Americans should know about mass shootings.

    Mass shootings also took place in 25 other wealthy nations between 1983 and 2013, but the number of mass shootings in the United States far surpasses that of any other country included in the study during the same period of time.

    The US had 78 mass shootings during that 30-year period.

    In the other 24 industrialized countries taken together, 41 mass shootings took place.

    Mass shootings and gun ownership rates are highly correlated. The higher the gun ownership rate, the more a country is susceptible to experiencing mass shooting incidents.

    Restricting sales works. Countries with more restrictive gun licensing laws show fewer deaths by firearms and a lower gun ownership rate.

    Background checks work. In most restrictive background checks performed in developed countries individuals must prove that they do not belong to any “prohibited group,” such as the mentally ill, criminals, children or those at high risk of committing violent crime, such as individuals with a police record of threatening the life of another.

    Here’s the bottom line. With these provisions, most US active shooters would have been denied the purchase of a firearm.

    The above will not affect the minds of those, who counter to all logic and statistics, want to believe that when every fool in the street carries a gun, the American people are safer.

    Congratulations to the gun manufacturers for the best marketing (i.e. brain washing) program in U.S. history.


  5. Reader Danny has just written that the licensing of guns is responsible for gun violence.

    Previously, he indicated:

    The problem is “the cops.”
    The problem is “some nationalities” who are violent.
    The problem is crazy people.

    The problem is not the easy availability guns to every gun nut in America.

    This is a perfect demonstration of what sensible people must try to deal with.

    Thank you, Danny, for your enlightening comments.


    1. And I suppose you are sensible?

      Yet you would have rather die in a bathroom stall shaking for your life and waiting the cops (that would never come) for 3 hours.

      I guess now we know that it’s also OK foe Muslims to threaten to kill blacks and women (marten did), these people have your back.

      What a world….


      1. By arming everyone, you arm bad people. The same is true internationally. Most of ISIS’s weaponry comes from the U.S.

        And by the way, here is a message to all bigots: Most of the mass murders in the U.S. have been committed by white Christians.


  6. If all the liberal thinking Americans would just give up their fierarms, that would take at least half the available guns/ rifles off the streets.
    Probably 50% or more, instant reduction.
    Those who don’t /won’t ,can’t blame other people , NRA, government,conservatives,bigots,etc.
    It’s a start.


    1. Unfortunately, it never seems to be “us” who shoot people (because “we” are the good guys).

      It always is “they” (the bad guys) who cause the trouble.

      One little problem. No one knows how to tell the “good guys” from the “bad guys.”

      If you know of a workable system, don’t keep it a secret.


      1. I’ll agree with all your points.
        The man said if there were no guns there would be less killing. My problem is that the good guys gun causes problems so don’t let him have them.
        Those who believe that, turn them in.
        If you get rid of the half that should cut the problem in half.
        Your point that it’s not the good guys that are the problem, so taking away guns from ALL of them does nothing in my opinion.


          1. We know that the bad guys are not going to give up their guns.
            You and I know that taking away guns from Americans is not going to happen. They won’t give them up. And they shouldn’t .

            There is enough history to show that an unarmed people are dead people. How many German Jews would have got into those train cars or walked over to a ditch to be shot , had they been able to defend themselves?
            Numerous others.

            Apparently that was a problem in the founding of this country.
            Banning guns will be like banning alcohol ,it’s a fantasy.

            Most who would shoot people would maybe have second thoughts if their intended victims could shoot back. I’d guess the would deter some.
            Looting and arson which goes along with the lifestyle should be a shoot to kill crime. No fault sentence.

            Continue if I hear from you.


  7. TomKi
    “Most who would shoot people would maybe have second thoughts if their intended victims could shoot back. I’d guess the would deter some.”

    Yes, that is what the NRA claims. One small problem: It doesn’t work. I live in Chicago. There are more guns here than anywhere. No one seems to have second thoughts.

    Letting everyone carry guns, with little supervision, is crazy. Any boob in America can buy a gun, without any inspection, whatsoever.

    America has more guns than any major nation; also more gun killings.

    To keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result is madness.

    “Guns for everyone” simply is not working. Don’t you get it?

    And please no hallucinations about using your guns to protect yourself from the might of the U.S. military Are you kidding me, or are you kidding yourself?


    1. Let’s get something straight. You might be the smartest person you know but I assure you your not the smartest one I know.
      Yes I’m fully aware and I get it.. “Guns for everyone” came from you not me.
      I took this on as a debate, thinking who knows ,WE might come up with an idea. If it’s “I’m smart your not” then what’s the point.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s