To reduce violence, solve issues with people not guns

December 4, 2015
gun over american flag

gun over american flag


While President Barack Obama cites Climate Change as our nation’s greatest threat, he rationalizes the San Bernardino massacre as a gun issue initially discounting the terrorist implications.

His insistent conclusion that the guns are the problem should be placed in this context: Guns are involved in approximately 10,000 deaths a year. Contrasted with this, automobile accidents are involved in approximately 30,000 deaths a year.

Given, as Obama states, guns are responsible for the deaths then it follows automobiles are also responsible for the deaths.

This is not an equivocation of the facts. The comparison places the matter in context.

Therefore, following Obama’s rationale, it is not the people using the guns, or the people driving the automobiles that are responsible,  it’s the guns and the autos.

So, one must get rid of or reduce the guns and the automobiles to decrease the number of deaths.

The fallacy here in Obama’s thinking is as follows: It is the people using the guns and automobiles that cause the deaths.

To truly and realistically reduce death incidents means solving the people problem using the guns and automobiles if there is to be a true reduction of deaths.

Guns are not the issue. Obama is wrong.  People using guns is the issue!

Otis Page is a resident of Arroyo Grande. He is not a member of the NRA and he does not own a gun. However, he does drive a car.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I agree. We should all be issued a Ford Pinto, a Gremlin, or a Yugo. People can paint them however they want, add dingleball dashboard covers, chain link steering wheel, whatever they want. But you know, those fast cars just aren’t safe, they aren’t needed, and quite frankly, who needs a doucher in a Dodge Charger thinking they are high rolling tailgating and road raging on SLO county roadways? Car restriction is THE way to go.

Background checks are a must too. We can’t have people who can’t pass a psychological test driving around.

So YES, impound all the cars in the US, re-issue the above 3 models of cars to the registered owners, and we can be assured no one but those drivers of those cars will be terrorizing the roads!!

If you check the research, firearm related deaths have been falling since 1993. The Media knows this but ignores it because death sells news.

“To reduce violence, solve issues with people not guns”

Good luck on that one, Otis.

This is a religious war, one that began centuries ago with a sort of jealousy over Jesus being hailed as King of the Jews, and so on. The extremist Muslims are now emerging to stake their claim that their God, Allah, is the only true God by killing the nonbelievers.

Note that every attack is a true surprise and not one scenario is ever duplicated. Nothing on earth can stop them if they are so willing to die in the process. Bomb making supplies continue to be readily available in the US and nothing gets done to stop it, much less effectively securing our borders. It’s too late to restrict gun sales now, so make a point to avoid crowded gatherings and you’ll be just fine.

If only Republicans exercised their freedom of think as much as they do their freedom to bear arms.

Yeah, the country would be so much better if we just took everyone’s freedoms away and did things our way.

What you mean, is the ‘Republican Way’.

American Fascism….McCarthy 2.0 .

Except a few of us ‘liberals’, ‘progressives’, ‘socialists’,

may present an alternative .

Your fascist ‘freedom’ is dictatorship.

This article is missive and trite. It is much more complex than contemplated. Even so, the theory is short sighted and frankly WRONG. No regular citizen should have an AK 47. WHY should they ????

I think I should have an AK 47 if the jihadist shooting at me has one.

While I accept your right to your opinion that the theory is wrong, why shouldn’t a regular citizen be allowed to own an AK47?

The civilian version of the AK47 is no different than any of these rifles from a basic firearm perspective:

1. Ruger Ranch Rifle (Mini 14 or Mini 30)

2. M1 Garand or M1 Carbine or M1A

3. AR-15 or AR-10

4. Benelli R1

5. Many many more just like these…

Granted, I will admit that the AK47 has a scary sounding name (thanks to years of middle eastern terror with this rifle), but functionally it’s no different than any of the many semi-automatic rifles listed above.

Please understand:


Gun Control’s true meaning is in the name. Right in front of you. Been there this whole time: CONTROL. Control and compliance. Constantly pepper the populace with compliance “training” through measures, bans, fees, fines, and “control” laws.

Until most of us understand why most laws and regulations are passed, we have no hope. Unfortunately, all it takes for the government to get compliance now-a-days is to mention public health, or some benefit to “society” – as intangible as it may be. Doesn’t matter, so many people are so well conditioned now.

Following every mass shooting in the United States, politicians and anti-Second Amendment advocates cite the Australian example of gun control.

However, studies show the law did not end violence, although it did reduce suicide by gun.

Since the passage of the law there have been a number of mass murders in Australia. Following the Port Arthur massacre which prompted the government to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens, the following incidents occurred:

12 people where killed by three serial murderers in Snowtown.

An arsonist murdered 15 backpackers in Childers, Queensland.

A student went on a shooting spree killing two in Melbourne.

An arson attack killed 10 in Churchill, Victoria.

A man beat to death five people of the Lin family in North Epping, New South Wales.

11 people were burned to death by a nurse in Sydney.

A man shot to death his wife and three children in Lockhart, South Wales.

A woman in Cairns, Queensland stabbed to death eight children.

“When gun control advocates say they want Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States,” writes the historian Varad Mehta.