US: Gun violence researchers becoming an endangered species?

[webfact]

Gun violence researchers becoming an endangered species?
By MIKE STOBBE

NEW YORK (AP) — Amid the bloodbaths of 21st-century America, you might think that there would be a lot of research into the causes of gun violence, and which policies work best against it.

You would be wrong.

Gun interests, wary of any possible limits on weaponry, have successfully lobbied for limitations on government research and funding, and private sources have not filled the breach. So funding for basic gun violence research and data collection remains minuscule — the annual sum total for all gun violence research projects appears to be well under $5 million. A grant for a single study in areas like autism, cancer or HIV can be more than twice that much.

There are public health students who want to better understand rising gun-related suicide rates, recent explosions in firearm murders in many U.S. cities, and mass murders like the one this month at an Oregon community college, where a lone gunman killed nine people.

But many young researchers are staying away from the field. Some believe there's little hope Congress will do anything substantive to reduce gun violence, regardless of what scientists find. And the work is stressful — many who study gun violence report receiving angry emails and death threats from believers in unrestricted gun ownership.

Currently, guns rank among the top five killers of people ages 1 to 64, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Deaths from gunfire have been holding steady at about 32,000 a year, with nearly half of them occurring in the South. But while the rates for gun murders and unintentional shooting deaths have been falling, firearm suicides — which account for 60 percent of gun deaths — have been rising. And nonfatal shooting injuries have reached their highest level since 1995.

U.S. health researchers began to take a hard look at gun violence about 30 years ago, when firearm homicide rates were climbing to what were described as epidemic proportions.

"The line is: 'If it's not a public health issue, why are so many people dying?'" said Philip Cook, a Duke University economist who in the 1970s began studying the impact of guns on society.

The CDC, the federal government's lead agency for the detection and prevention of health threats, took an early leading role in fostering more research into violence. But beginning in the 1980s, the National Rifle Association tried to discredit CDC-funded studies, accusing the agency and the researchers the agency funded of incompetence and falsifying data.

NRA officials in Washington did not respond to repeated AP requests for comment for this story.

In 1996, lawmakers sympathetic to the NRA took the $2.6 million CDC had budgeted for firearm injury research and earmarked it for traumatic brain injury. Congressional Republicans also included language directing that no CDC injury research funding could go to research that might be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.

Exactly what that language meant wasn't clear. But CDC officials, aware of how vulnerable their injury research center was becoming, ultimately adopted a conservative interpretation. The agency ceased to be the main engine driving gun violence research.

With the CDC largely out of the picture, gun violence researchers turned to other sources. But there wasn't much. The field withered, with limited funding and not much new blood. In the last decade, funding for gun violence grew so tight that Dr. Garen Wintemute, a long-time gun violence researcher at the University of California at Davis, spent more than $1 million of his own money to keep different gun violence research projects going.

Much of the research that has been done has had to be relatively simple — based on small surveys or on what limited data has been collected on guns and on gun-related injuries and deaths.

As state and federal officials debate gun laws or violence prevention programs, it's often not clear how well they'll work. To answer such questions, researchers ideally would like to know the exact number, type, and distribution of guns, as well as who owns them and where people got them. They'd like to know how and where they're stored, and to track use of gun safety courses.

That's all key data for determining actual risk and what actions best reduce risk.

Researchers have wondered if there will be a turning point that might cause more people to advocate for research.

Then came the December 2012 carnage in Newtown, Connecticut, where a an armed 20-year-old man entered an elementary school and used a semiautomatic rifle to slay 20 first graders and six adult school staff members before killing himself. It was the deadliest mass slaying at a school in U.S. history.

The White House directed the CDC to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. The actions included a call for Congress to provide $10 million to the CDC for gun violence research. The prestigious Institute of Medicine convened a special committee of experts to develop a research agenda.

But Congress did not budget money to the CDC for gun violence research. It didn't strip away the legislative language that had chilled CDC activity on guns, either. The research agenda was not formally adopted by anybody.

Some young researchers are put off by the frustration of working in a field where their findings would likely be politicized, and have little impact. Worried about ensuring a flow of funding, even those most intrigued by gun violence must spend a lot of time working on other topics.

Meanwhile, the longtime leaders in gun violence research aren't getting any younger; many are in their 60s and 70s.

Some, worried that the field may soon shrink through attrition, are working hard to recruit successors.

Dr. Michael Levas, a young researcher in Milwaukee, is drawn to the area of gun violence, and fascinated by its potential, but he won't commit to it.

"If the climate was right and the funding was there, it would make sense to focus on gun violence prevention," he said. "But right now, it would be a dead end."


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-10-12

[MZurf]

As long as the madmen are setting the agenda in the asylum there will never be any progress. President Obama, it's time you took away their guns, and from their cold, dead hands if necessary!

[OMGImInPattaya]

What's to study, you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger you're likely to injure or kill them. Don't need a study to tell you that.

The Gates Foundation has 50 billion dollars, if "gun violence" is a big problem, perhaps they can set aside a couple million for a study.

[Credo]

What's to study, you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger you're likely to injure or kill them. Don't need a study to tell you that.

The Gates Foundation has 50 billion dollars, if "gun violence" is a big problem, perhaps they can set aside a couple million for a study.

Perhaps a gov't which cares about the well-being of its citizens would fund this research. The research could reveal who is at risk for gun violence. Up to now, we haven't seen too many that are fighting for the welfare of the country.

[Boon Mee]

Gun Violence Researchers should focus their attention on the whack-jobs that legally purchase guns with no effective background checks.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Boon Mee

[In Town]

I think there is bipartisan consensus on this issue. Republicans (and many Democrats) don't want to focus on guns, as they know that is a vote loser. At the same time Democrats don't want to focus on the actual proximate causes of mass shootings and possibly much of the increase in suicide, the decision taken in the 70s and 80s (by Democrats) to deinstitutionalize the the mentally ill, and the proliferation of violent video games and movies (produced by Democrats) that simultaneously glorify violence, and desensitize impressionable and mentally unbalanced youth to the consequences of violence.

Edited October 12, 2015 by In Town

[ggt]

In other words...if the researchers could get a handsome salary for telling the world what they already know...then they would be willing to put some numbers together for a report...

[chilli42]

OK guns are bad. Topping the list (by a factor of 20) for murder weapons are hands/feet, followed by knives and blunt edge weapons (published this year by the FBI). Take the guns away (266 deaths in the last year) and you still have a massive problem.The issue is less about guns and more about hate and violence. Is Ametica willing to confront the ugly truth about their society?

[OMGImInPattaya]

What's to study, you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger you're likely to injure or kill them. Don't need a study to tell you that.

The Gates Foundation has 50 billion dollars, if "gun violence" is a big problem, perhaps they can set aside a couple million for a study.

Perhaps a gov't which cares about the well-being of its citizens would fund this research. The research could reveal who is at risk for gun violence. Up to now, we haven't seen too many that are fighting for the welfare of the country.

What research...that if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you might injure or kill them? I think we already know that.

[bazza40]

Pretty simple, it's called benchmarking. Measure American society against a society which instituted gun control in response to mass shootings. Since gun control came to Australia, there have been no mass shootings. QED.

What little research there has been shows putting more guns in the hands of citizens in response to illicit firearms does not reduce gun-related deaths, it increases them.

If you want a comic's take on the issue of gun control, check out Jim Jefferies on Youtube. Bound to enrage the supporters of the Second Amendment.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Pretty simple, it's called benchmarking. Measure American society against a society which instituted gun control in response to mass shootings. Since gun control came to Australia, there have been no mass shootings. QED.

What little research there has been shows putting more guns in the hands of citizens in response to illicit firearms does not reduce gun-related deaths, it increases them.

If you want a comic's take on the issue of gun control, check out Jim Jefferies on Youtube. Bound to enrage the supporters of the Second Amendment.

That research already exists and shows the US at number 7 among "advanced" countries.

I think what you want is "anti-gun" research and no, we don't need the government to fund such nonsense.

[stevenl]

What's to study, you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger you're likely to injure or kill them. Don't need a study to tell you that.

The Gates Foundation has 50 billion dollars, if "gun violence" is a big problem, perhaps they can set aside a couple million for a study.

"As state and federal officials debate gun laws or violence prevention programs, it's often not clear how well they'll work. To answer such questions, researchers ideally would like to know the exact number, type, and distribution of guns, as well as who owns them and where people got them. They'd like to know how and where they're stored, and to track use of gun safety courses.

That's all key data for determining actual risk and what actions best reduce risk."

[In Town]

Oddly,

While the U.S. has had more mass shootings in terms of raw numbers than other countries, at least three European countries—Switzerland, Norway and Finland—had higher rates of mass-shooting deaths per capita, according to researchers Jaclyn Schildkraut of the State University of New York in Oswego and H. Jaymi Elsass of Texas State University.

One of the problems with these studies is the focus on mass "shootings". Its not surprising that countries where firearms are available have more "shootings" than countries where firearms are not available (like Australia), but focus on "killings" instead of "shooting reveals a different story. Here is a list since the Port Arthur murders, which led to the banning of all firearms in Australia:

• Port Arthur massacre - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21 before being caught by police the next day following an overnight siege.
• Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
• Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
• Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7 February 2009.^[5]
• Lin family murders - On July 2009, Lian Bin "Robert" Xie killed his sister, her husband and three members of their family (5 persons from the Lin family) with a hammer. The faces of the victims were so disfigured that forensics had to be used to identify them. The motivation for the family massacre were partly because Lin had criticised Xie for not having a job.
• 2011 Hectorville siege - A shooting that took place on 29 April 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, shot four people on a neighbouring property (three of whom died), and also wounded two police officers, before being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour siege.^[6]
• Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire - 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18 November 2011.^[7]
• Hunt family murders - Geoff Hunt killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself on September 9, 2014.^[8]
• Cairns stabbings - A woman stabbed 8 children to death on 19 December 2014. 7 of them were her own.^[9]

^{It does seem that mental illnes, which has yet to be successfully outlawed, is a contributing factor here. Unless you want to ban hammers and matches.}

[In Town]

We should also remember the mentally disturbed Germanwings pilot Lubitz locked the pilot out of the cockpit and intentionally crashed the plane into the French Alps, killing all 150 passengers and crew on board.

[Linky]

What's to study, you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger you're likely to injure or kill them. Don't need a study to tell you that.

The Gates Foundation has 50 billion dollars, if "gun violence" is a big problem, perhaps they can set aside a couple million for a study.

Could study what demographic of people are most at risk of religious zealotry and most likely to use a gun to further their cause. Though I'm sure you are ok with Islamic extremists having guns simply because they can.

Could study the percentage of and type of mental illness of people are most likely to go pull the trigger.

Could study the demographic of thoe with guns that leave easy access to children finding them laying around the home for a deadly game of cowboys and indians.

Could be any number of things.

Are you afraid you fall into a high risk category and your beloved killing machine being taken away?

If you fit into a no risk category off you go with a gun. If you fo fit into a high risk category then why on earth do you think you should be able to endanger innocent lives by owning one, or many.

But no, let the lunatics have the guns. Bury your head in the sand. All is good, no problem.

I would have thought any right thinking person would not want guns in the hands of crazies. Maybe I just dont understand the American way. Same as Thainess.

[Boon Mee]

Pretty simple, it's called benchmarking. Measure American society against a society which instituted gun control in response to mass shootings. Since gun control came to Australia, there have been no mass shootings. QED.

No 'mass' shootings although we've seen recently the ineffectivness of a complete ban, eh?

A Muslin there in OZ just proved the case there's no such thing as a gun ban.

[OMGImInPattaya]

What's to study, you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger you're likely to injure or kill them. Don't need a study to tell you that.

The Gates Foundation has 50 billion dollars, if "gun violence" is a big problem, perhaps they can set aside a couple million for a study.

"As state and federal officials debate gun laws or violence prevention programs, it's often not clear how well they'll work. To answer such questions, researchers ideally would like to know the exact number, type, and distribution of guns, as well as who owns them and where people got them. They'd like to know how and where they're stored, and to track use of gun safety courses.

That's all key data for determining actual risk and what actions best reduce risk."

If such a study is so important, I'm sure Bill and Malinda will cut you a check...if not, I guess it's not as pressing a problem as African kids with malaria. Edited October 12, 2015 by OMGImInPattaya

[OMGImInPattaya]

What's to study, you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger you're likely to injure or kill them. Don't need a study to tell you that.

The Gates Foundation has 50 billion dollars, if "gun violence" is a big problem, perhaps they can set aside a couple million for a study.

Could study what demographic of people are most at risk of religious zealotry and most likely to use a gun to further their cause. Though I'm sure you are ok with Islamic extremists having guns simply because they can.

Could study the percentage of and type of mental illness of people are most likely to go pull the trigger.

Could study the demographic of thoe with guns that leave easy access to children finding them laying around the home for a deadly game of cowboys and indians.

Could be any number of things.

Are you afraid you fall into a high risk category and your beloved killing machine being taken away?

If you fit into a no risk category off you go with a gun. If you fo fit into a high risk category then why on earth do you think you should be able to endanger innocent lives by owning one, or many.

But no, let the lunatics have the guns. Bury your head in the sand. All is good, no problem.

I would have thought any right thinking person would not want guns in the hands of crazies. Maybe I just dont understand the American way. Same as Thainess.

The only category I fall under is an American citizen protected by the Second Amendment from anti-gun fanatics like you.

[Chicog]

Pretty simple, it's called benchmarking. Measure American society against a society which instituted gun control in response to mass shootings. Since gun control came to Australia, there have been no mass shootings. QED.

No 'mass' shootings although we've seen recently the ineffectivness of a complete ban, eh?

A Muslin there in OZ just proved the case there's no such thing as a gun ban.

No, he proved that there is no such thing as a 100% effective gun ban.

But 99.9% is better then 0.

Maybe you should trying doing the maths.

[chuckd]

This thread is about the lack of researchers doing work on gun control and statistics.

This could be a good career change for all you Aussies, Brits and other Euros that are such self proclaimed experts on gun culture in the US.

Go to the US, apply for a US government grant and live the good life researching a subject you can't seem to live without.

Enjoy.

[bazza40]

I would have thought any right thinking person would not want guns in the hands of crazies. Maybe I just dont understand the American way. Same as Thainess.

The only category I fall under is an American citizen protected by the Second Amendment from anti-gun fanatics like you.

Yeah right, there's no such thing as a pro-gun fanatic.

[bazza40]

This thread is about the lack of researchers doing work on gun control and statistics.

This could be a good career change for all you Aussies, Brits and other Euros that are such self proclaimed experts on gun culture in the US.

Go to the US, apply for a US government grant and live the good life researching a subject you can't seem to live without.

Enjoy.

As an Australian, I've had a firearm licence for 30 years. Gave it up when I no longer hunted. Strict controls on type of firearm I could own. Usually had 2 -3 firearms at any time, traded in and out of them depending on what I was targeting in feral species.

Was gobsmacked by an American I met in Philadelphia some years ago, who proudly informed me he had 23 firearms in his household. When I asked why, he said it was to defend himself from those Commie bastards. Substitute terrorists or anything else you fancy. Thought our gun laws were unconstitutional. A parrot cry I encountered quite often.

I have no interest whatsoever in visiting the US again, chuckd. To me, you are a violent, paranoid nation where gun massacres have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. IMHO, the pro-gun constituency of America is indistinguishable from ISIS. The pity of it is, voices of reason are drowned out by a gun lobby which would prefer to see children killed rather than surrender a blatant anachronism.

[OMGImInPattaya]

This thread is about the lack of researchers doing work on gun control and statistics.

This could be a good career change for all you Aussies, Brits and other Euros that are such self proclaimed experts on gun culture in the US.

Go to the US, apply for a US government grant and live the good life researching a subject you can't seem to live without.

Enjoy.

As an Australian, I've had a firearm licence for 30 years. Gave it up when I no longer hunted. Strict controls on type of firearm I could own. Usually had 2 -3 firearms at any time, traded in and out of them depending on what I was targeting in feral species.

Was gobsmacked by an American I met in Philadelphia some years ago, who proudly informed me he had 23 firearms in his household. When I asked why, he said it was to defend himself from those Commie bastards. Substitute terrorists or anything else you fancy. Thought our gun laws were unconstitutional. A parrot cry I encountered quite often.

I have no interest whatsoever in visiting the US again, chuckd. To me, you are a violent, paranoid nation where gun massacres have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. IMHO, the pro-gun constituency of America is indistinguishable from ISIS. The pity of it is, voices of reason are drowned out by a gun lobby which would prefer to see children killed rather than surrender a blatant anachronism.

If it wasn't for "gun crazy" Americans you Aussies would all be speaking Japanese. Left to yourselves, it looks like you'll be speaking Arabic soon.

[bazza40]

This thread is about the lack of researchers doing work on gun control and statistics.

This could be a good career change for all you Aussies, Brits and other Euros that are such self proclaimed experts on gun culture in the US.

Go to the US, apply for a US government grant and live the good life researching a subject you can't seem to live without.

Enjoy.

As an Australian, I've had a firearm licence for 30 years. Gave it up when I no longer hunted. Strict controls on type of firearm I could own. Usually had 2 -3 firearms at any time, traded in and out of them depending on what I was targeting in feral species.

Was gobsmacked by an American I met in Philadelphia some years ago, who proudly informed me he had 23 firearms in his household. When I asked why, he said it was to defend himself from those Commie bastards. Substitute terrorists or anything else you fancy. Thought our gun laws were unconstitutional. A parrot cry I encountered quite often.

I have no interest whatsoever in visiting the US again, chuckd. To me, you are a violent, paranoid nation where gun massacres have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. IMHO, the pro-gun constituency of America is indistinguishable from ISIS. The pity of it is, voices of reason are drowned out by a gun lobby which would prefer to see children killed rather than surrender a blatant anachronism.

If it wasn't for "gun crazy" Americans you Aussies would all be speaking Japanese. Left to yourselves, it looks like you'll be speaking Arabic soon.

More likely Chinese - who already own most American debt. What are you going to do when they call it in - shoot them all?

[Credo]

What's to study, you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger you're likely to injure or kill them. Don't need a study to tell you that.

The Gates Foundation has 50 billion dollars, if "gun violence" is a big problem, perhaps they can set aside a couple million for a study.

Perhaps a gov't which cares about the well-being of its citizens would fund this research. The research could reveal who is at risk for gun violence. Up to now, we haven't seen too many that are fighting for the welfare of the country.

What research...that if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you might injure or kill them? I think we already know that.

What isn't known and what needs to be studied is who is at the greatest risk of needlessly killing others. The people who own a gun for self protection aren't the biggest problem. The ones who use a gun to shoot up a school or workplace is what needs research.

Who are they? What age do they do this? What factors trigger this type of behavior?

Like a lot of groups, they will be able to find trends and that could protect a lot of people from the senseless killings. It could also ensure that those who are law abiding citizens can own and keep their guns.

Ignorance is not the best way to deal with what is a real problem.

[williamgeorgeallen]

Pretty simple, it's called benchmarking. Measure American society against a society which instituted gun control in response to mass shootings. Since gun control came to Australia, there have been no mass shootings. QED.

What little research there has been shows putting more guns in the hands of citizens in response to illicit firearms does not reduce gun-related deaths, it increases them.

If you want a comic's take on the issue of gun control, check out Jim Jefferies on Youtube. Bound to enrage the supporters of the Second Amendment.

it is not quite that simple. nz has fairly high ownership rates of firearms and low firearm crime so it is not just the ownership of the firearms thats the problem. also it is hard to regulate firearms now with over 300 million of them in the states (probably far more) how would you go about getting rid of them? some organised groups have said they will fight to keep their guns. would be messy trying to confiscate them.

tricky to point out the obvious.

[ozyjon]

'' if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you might injure or kill them ''

WRONG - NOT SO

People keep forgetting it's the bullet that ultimately does the fatality,,,,

how about - sell as many guns as you want but sell the bullets, oh lets

say, from a police station, fingerprints, id, paperwork, in some places

on earth it's easier to get a box of bullets than cough medicine, but

there will always be criminals involved and money.

[OMGImInPattaya]

This thread is about the lack of researchers doing work on gun control and statistics.

This could be a good career change for all you Aussies, Brits and other Euros that are such self proclaimed experts on gun culture in the US.

Go to the US, apply for a US government grant and live the good life researching a subject you can't seem to live without.

Enjoy.

As an Australian, I've had a firearm licence for 30 years. Gave it up when I no longer hunted. Strict controls on type of firearm I could own. Usually had 2 -3 firearms at any time, traded in and out of them depending on what I was targeting in feral species.

Was gobsmacked by an American I met in Philadelphia some years ago, who proudly informed me he had 23 firearms in his household. When I asked why, he said it was to defend himself from those Commie bastards. Substitute terrorists or anything else you fancy. Thought our gun laws were unconstitutional. A parrot cry I encountered quite often.

I have no interest whatsoever in visiting the US again, chuckd. To me, you are a violent, paranoid nation where gun massacres have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. IMHO, the pro-gun constituency of America is indistinguishable from ISIS. The pity of it is, voices of reason are drowned out by a gun lobby which would prefer to see children killed rather than surrender a blatant anachronism.

If it wasn't for "gun crazy" Americans you Aussies would all be speaking Japanese. Left to yourselves, it looks like you'll be speaking Arabic soon.

More likely Chinese - who already own most American debt. What are you going to do when they call it in - shoot them all?

We've already got the iPads, phones, computers, and all the other crap the Chinese have spent the past couple of decades slaving away for a few dollars a day to make for us...they have a pile of paper. I know which pile I'd rather have.

[chuckd]

This thread is about the lack of researchers doing work on gun control and statistics.

This could be a good career change for all you Aussies, Brits and other Euros that are such self proclaimed experts on gun culture in the US.

Go to the US, apply for a US government grant and live the good life researching a subject you can't seem to live without.

Enjoy.

As an Australian, I've had a firearm licence for 30 years. Gave it up when I no longer hunted. Strict controls on type of firearm I could own. Usually had 2 -3 firearms at any time, traded in and out of them depending on what I was targeting in feral species.

Was gobsmacked by an American I met in Philadelphia some years ago, who proudly informed me he had 23 firearms in his household. When I asked why, he said it was to defend himself from those Commie bastards. Substitute terrorists or anything else you fancy. Thought our gun laws were unconstitutional. A parrot cry I encountered quite often.

I have no interest whatsoever in visiting the US again, chuckd. To me, you are a violent, paranoid nation where gun massacres have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. IMHO, the pro-gun constituency of America is indistinguishable from ISIS. The pity of it is, voices of reason are drowned out by a gun lobby which would prefer to see children killed rather than surrender a blatant anachronism.

Just for the record, I lost an older brother on Guadalcanal defending your island against a possible Japanese invasion in 1942.

My signature says it all.

[stevenl]

This thread is about the lack of researchers doing work on gun control and statistics.

This could be a good career change for all you Aussies, Brits and other Euros that are such self proclaimed experts on gun culture in the US.

Go to the US, apply for a US government grant and live the good life researching a subject you can't seem to live without.

Enjoy.

As an Australian, I've had a firearm licence for 30 years. Gave it up when I no longer hunted. Strict controls on type of firearm I could own. Usually had 2 -3 firearms at any time, traded in and out of them depending on what I was targeting in feral species.

Was gobsmacked by an American I met in Philadelphia some years ago, who proudly informed me he had 23 firearms in his household. When I asked why, he said it was to defend himself from those Commie bastards. Substitute terrorists or anything else you fancy. Thought our gun laws were unconstitutional. A parrot cry I encountered quite often.

I have no interest whatsoever in visiting the US again, chuckd. To me, you are a violent, paranoid nation where gun massacres have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. IMHO, the pro-gun constituency of America is indistinguishable from ISIS. The pity of it is, voices of reason are drowned out by a gun lobby which would prefer to see children killed rather than surrender a blatant anachronism.

Just for the record, I lost an older brother on Guadalcanal defending your island against a possible Japanese invasion in 1942.

My signature says it all.

So?