Op: was it really stricter drunk driving laws that were responsible for the reduction in drunk driving related deaths or are more cars being used that have safety restraints, re-enforced crash compartments and airbags have something to do with it too?

Careful with loose conclusions.

I don´t care who has an "arsenal" if they are a law abiding, responsible citizen.

The knee jerkers want to stop things and all they know how to do is wander in circles, chanting incoherently.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder got over three hundred Mexican citizens murdered by forcing firearms dealers to sell weapons to Mexico´s most murderous drug cartels.

Does anyone at the New York Times have the courage to ask why?

Why no questions about "Fast & Furious?"

Why is Eric Holder hiding behind "Executive Privilege" in refusing to answer the most basic questions?

I don´t need lectures on "courage" from the dishonest cowards at the New York Times.

Has anyone heard the leftist express remorse about or even acknowledge how may innocent babies they murder each year?
They are clearly schizoid and incapable of rational thought.
Their compelling desire is to steal money from the working capable and use those funds to control the functioning popultion.

With the kind indulgence of staff, please let me amend my OP: tougher drunk driving laws AND safer vehicles worked together to reduce deaths per 100,000, #1. We need both safer guns and better trained gun owners.

Tim McVeigh didn´t use a gun.

Mr. Kristof, allow me to introduce you to John Lott.

You are welcome.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Nuff said.

Ridiculous. Kristoff never makes much of a point but he´s way off on this one too. They think they can ban guns. They think that will make "gun crime" go away and, therefore, all crime. Nonsense. In the countries where they´ve effectively banned guns their violent crime and murder rates either stayed the same or climbed. In our country, when more states adopted looser gun controls, the crime rate has been steadily declining.

Instead of tougher gun laws and regulations, we need to focus on making gun ownership easier. Instead of a right, gun owmership should be a requirement...except for anyone who works in customer service, especially flight attendants. Imagine how much nicer those folks would be to their customers!

The huge, pardon the animal, elephant in this room is the REAL reason for the Second Amendment. It is to provide the citizenry an EQUAL strength to resist an overpowering government. Pure and simple.

Nicky, follow me out here behind this woodshed for your throttling. When I´m done with that, the real learning will commence. Your pretending to be an adult days are over.

What to do with whiny kindergartners?

Why do all these gun control advocates fail to refer to the laws that NYC, Chicago, and Washington,D.C. have and their rates of gun violence?

I am sorry but the original poster completely misses the point. Guns are meant to kill. That is exactly why they were invented and why they are needed. The 2nd amendment prevents governments or tyrants from being the only people who have them besides criminals. A well armed general populace will not long be victimized by a Sadam Hussein or by someone´s idea of Sharia Law.
We do not need safer guns. We desperately need safer people. We have had safer people and safer times in this country. It requires a Christian people who are willing to regulate their own behavior in accordance with the Bible. The Bible plainly teaches that we must not murder. We do need as a nation to return to those beliefs.
We also need to stop allowing our chldren to be indoctrinated into a culture of violence by the movies, the TV and video games. If you raise people to enjoy and appreciate mindless violence, then they will likely commit it.
Yes, we need safer people. And, yes we need to fight to preserve the 2nd amendment.

wow. Nicholas Kristof...dumb guy. The number of people killed by cars so dwarfs the number killed by guns.

That would take the courage to see that all citizens are armed.
The Swiss do it.
I would be happy if my law abiding neighbor DID have an arsenal. I know I could be safe there when the flit hits the shan.
Guns don´t kill, people kill.

Typical Bleeding-heart liberal obsesses about the symptoms, totally losing sight of the disease. In other news ....
- sarcasm off

Great. Now my NY state permit will be recognized in every state instead of just some. Is that how this will work? I don´t have to take a driver´s test in each state to drive there. Before Nicholas or anyone else who really doesn´t understand any of the 20,000+ Federal, state and local gun laws, starts designing NEW ones they ought to talk to a few LEGAL gun owners. I´d suggest they talk to a few illegal gun owners, but that won´t happen unless their car breaks down in the wrong part of town. Where can I place a bet on the odds that Nicholas Kristof can tell anyone what you have to do to legally own a handgun in NY state? I´m not joking when I say murder by baseball bat is a bigger annual problem. BTW Nicholas do YOU have the courage to tell any woman anywhere that she should trust her life and any children she has to a restraining order written on a piece of paper. NO gun for her, right Nicholas? Every rape or murder in most big cities is on the heads of liberals who made it impossible for those victims to protect themselves. Their solution, make more victims, but never THEM.

As several have already pointed out, the ´OP´ is wrong on nearly every count.

Besides... 2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people the keep (to own and have) and bear (take with them wherever they go) arms, shall not be infringed (curtailed, messed with, damaged or changed).

How can that really, honestly be misconstrued?

By the way, Wikipedia´s article on this Amendment is pathetic. The actual text of the Amendment was not readily available. It may have been snuck in somewhere a few pages down, but I didn´t see it and gave them up for a more straight-forward, accurate, quicker and honest source.

Over 5000, that´s the number of highway deaths last year directly correlated to cell phones and texting. The dispicable dems never fail to demagouge their pet issues.

same old lib lies adof hittler said exactly the same thing american libs are no different

Are we aborting the wrong ones? I am not talking about the shooter, I talking about his parents. They screwed up and created a monster. Are they not responsible? To what extend is society responsible?

Ahhhh... peaceful, idyllic Norway...
a socialist haven of serendipitous joys...

Hmmmm...
Was it not just a year (or two) ago... ?
Now... how many humans did the Norwegian gunner slay... ?
I think it was 70 plus... right... ?

If only we had the kind of laws they have in Norway...
No, wait... I mean...
In Switzerland...
where everyone must own a gun...
and our teachers could therefore have killed the gunman...
with fewer lives lost.
Ahhh... Switzerland... neutral haven.

Meanwhile, speaking of criminals engaged in gun violence... time to check those NFL scores...

There they go again!

Maybe they meant bare arms and it was a "typo"...

It´s not courage, Kristof, it´s stupidity. When are you assclowns going to realize that "gun-free zones" are psycho-killer magnets?

From what little is currently known about the Sandy Hook massacre, none of the writer´s proposed regulations would have prevented it. Liberals are apparently so hypnotized by the very idea of an "assault weapon" and their reflexive urge to ban it that they do not seem to be able to reason clearly. Can anyone seriously suppose that premeditated spree killers such as the Columbine, Joker and Sandy Hook murderers would have abandoned their plans because a particular tool was unavailable? It is true that "assault weapons" were involved in all these cases, but it is equally true that the killers had armed themselves with other weapons such as handguns and shotguns. Thus everyone knows, or ought to know, that a ban on "assault weapons" can be nothing but a first step on a slippery slope leading to a ban on private ownership of firearms of any kind. The logic is inexorable. Someone intent upon a massacre will always find a means to accomplish it. The worst school mass murder in U.S. history was the Bath school massacre of 1927, which did not involve firearms at all.

Regulations and bans are a familiar part of liberal feel good fantasy ideology, which strives to abolish all risk, not just that entailed by private gun ownership. Left to their own devices, liberals and Leftists would eventually ban or regulate everything up to and including the very stones in the earth. There is a seamless continuum between Bloomberg´s ban on large soft drinks and his desire to ban firearms.

The tools of violence are but the means, not the causes of violence. Political energy misdirected against the means misses the much more important and difficult question of the causes.

The reason drunk driving deaths have decreased is Ted Kennedy is playing his harp. Every time there is a tragedy of some kind politicians of all stripes attempt to exploit it. Mourn the dead and stop campaigning.

They would do better to ban "gun-free zones"

All They only accomplish two things 1) give people a false sense of security while 2) give evil people dozens of unarmed victims in one tight, secure place.

The courage to stop this? We don´t have the ability to stop this if we are going to be distracted by false flags. Gun availability was incidental to the real problem this kid had. By all accounts he was intelligent - he would have figured out another way.

It wasn´t lost on me that no guns were used on 9/11/01.

We need ´safer guns´? That has to be one of the dumbest statements I´ve ever heard. In fact, it sounds as if it were made by someone who has no weapons training at all.

Folks, you can´t make life completely safe. You can´t protect everyone, all the time....or even some of the time.

Personally, I´d like to see children trained in proper weapons use from an early age. This would include teaching them the math and science behind how the weapon works and how to hit your target. It would also teach them discipline and responsibility. I didn´t mention safety, because in EVERY firearms training program, SAFETY is paramount. WHy? Because these are weapons and there´s nothing safe about them but the person wielding the weapon.

The courage to stop this is lacking because it would require liberals to admit that they were wrong when they insisted on closing the insane asylms. Gun control is not the answer. The real problem is not being addressed.

One gets the sense that these NYT nudnicks write this kind of drivel because they want their colleagues to say "great job" and "courageous, man" as they pass in the hallway--pathetic and nauseating. Here´s an idea, Nick: start a movement to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and get it done--then you can get all the bad guns confiscated. Good luck with that.

Let me just point out a game being played here. Mr. Kristof tells us that 30,000 people are killed by guns each year and about half of those are suicides. Then a little farther down in the article he suggests that, with regulation, we can eliminate one third those deaths, saving 10,000 lives. Is he saying that if suicidal people are not able to get guns they will not commit suicide?

Notice also that, while he tells us how many people died as a result of suicide, he doesn´t tell us how many died at the hands of law enforcement or armed homeowners defending their family or property.

10,000 is a nice emotional number, but it is not based on fact or information. It is nothing more than demagoguery, propped up by hyperbole.

#6 Safer guns is a oxymoron. I own a Diane Feinstein approved model "semi-automatic" 9mm with SEVEN, count them SEVEN safeties. The lead in the bullets serves only to add mass to the projectile if I can throw it.

When you wonder about the ´commitment´ of the US Senate to decrease gun deaths, remember this story. Around 1991 I participated in the production of a gun safety video for people with firearms in their home. It gave a general education about weapons and the vital rules for the safe handling of every kind of weapon. All kinds of examples, video, stills, questions, reviews, etc. It was very effective and was used by several law enforcement agencies, ranges, gun stores, etc.

I sent a description and contact information to every Senator´s office explaining we would like to make it available to government departments, and any other way the information could reach a wider audience. I received TWO replies. One from then senator John Ashcroft and one from senator McCain. Both were form letters saying they were ´concerned´ with gun issues. I don´t think this new concern about guns will be any different. It will be about power over you or money to them.

Besides the non-gun murders and suicides we know about in the US, there was the Sarin gas subway attack in Tokyo ("killing thirteen people, severely injuring fifty and causing temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand others"--Wikipedia), the British doctor who quietly killed 172 patients (morphine overdoses), the frequent incidents of Muslims murdering Christians in various countries (machetes and other non-gun weapons), and so on.

Suicides? Heavens, there are more methods of committing suicide than can be counted on both hands and those of your friends! According to the World Health Organization, Lithuania has the highest number of suicides in the world at 31.6 per 100,000, with South Korea a very close second at 31.2. The US ranks 38th, with 12 per 100,000.

The same rationale applies to both murder and suicide and is supported by overwhelming evidence: if you really want to commit either of these acts you will do it no matter what weapons are banned.

I am appalled at the comments here. As for those who quote the Second Amendment...how many of you want a full arsenal of guns given to 2 year olds? What is that? You mean you are willing to restrict the ´right´ of 2 year olds to have guns? Why? Oh, because they are not capable of handling them responsibly? Well, there are other people also who aren´t capable of handling guns responsibly. Why can´t we amend the laws to recognize this simple fact?

People with mental illness tend to obsess on a particular type of weapon. Their psychotic thinking may say, "Get a gun...." Many, if not most, would not consider that they have options. Most people thinking about suicide have one method in mind. If they are thinking about a gun and discover they don´t have bullets, they are unlikely to consider a knife instead. If we as a society can make it more difficult for those with serious mental illness to access a gun, then we can save lives - their lives, and those of others as well.

#41, the there are thousands of restrictions already in place, and one of them worked as Lanza tried to buy a gun on his own 1 week prior but was denied because he didn´t meet the law requirements.

The common theme on most of these mass murders is metal health, and the push from the ACLU to limit state´s ability on this issue.

And the weapons he stole from his mother´s home after killing her FIRST were then used to shoot his way in to the school (which had safety measures in-place).

"Courage" for a liberal is always taking away liberty and ignoring the Constitution.

Awesome strawman there with reference to 2 year olds.

One does not have a Constitutional right
to a telephone.
One does have a Constitutional right
to a keep and bear arms.
So where is my ´Bama-Glock?

I have an arsenal in my basement such as OP describes. It is no threat to anyone who means me no harm.
Gee. Why would anyone want to disarm citizens who do not commit crimes? It does not take much imagination to figure out why. Ask a German Jew or a Russian peasant.

Hey, let´s make drugs illegal too! Whaddya think? End of problem?

You can store a nuke at my house with a 100% guarantee that I wont use it.

I have a car, and rest assured that I have no intention of running anyone down.

I have a drawer full of knives, and I have no intention of using them on people.

Its not the guns .... it´s the owners.

Trust nothing from Harvard. Research, graduates, faculty, etc.

Anything but focus on mental illness. The school was a gun-free zone. The guy in China used a knife.

I find it interesting that when something bad happens, no matter what it is, the Left want to find out the root cause to prevent it from happening (or to assign blame).

EXCEPT in the case of the use of guns. The Left cares not a whit about the poor troubled person who went on the killing spree; it´s the gun´s fault. No need to look further. Banning guns will cure all our ills.

I´m sick to my stomach about what´s going to happen.

When will the power-mad statists of the Donk Party realize they are just making things worse? When they seize all the power they can find, persecute the Church, print money, override the Tenth Amendment, announce they don´t feel constrained by the Constitution, how can they expect anyone to trust them? Bearing arms is about not trusting the government and who in their right mind would trust the Donks? They are power mad. It is obvious to everyone but them.

Decades ago we decided to dismantle our mental health system of hospitals that kept those who needed help with coping and functioning. We literally kicked them out to the curb. That is why you see them wandering the streets and living under bridges.

So now that we have done this many of them have access to weapons. So now we´ve decided the Right to Bear Arms needs to be abridged because of this fateful decision so long ago??

I don´t think so!!!!

Driving is a privilege. The right to keep and bear arms is just that---a right.

We need to get back to real families and stop making parents afraid to confront their children. Morality and decency have been mocked for far too long.

Kids watch all kinds of violence and debauchery on television and as part of their video games. They all have an unreal quality about them. Parents need to take charge and set rules for gaming and simple issues such as clothing choices and curfews. Bringing back the all-American dad would be a great start.

Two things I notice. The glorious leaders who want to take away our guns all have body guards who carry guns. Will they disarm their protection? Second, these mass killers are emotionally unstable and have been permitted to walk among us on meds that don´t work or they don´t take. They will find a way to wreak havoc whether they have guns or not.

Did the writer of this great book explain why where there is conceal carry there is less crime and where these massacres happen is where you have guns banned. The real truth that new york has such strong gun control laws is one mayor was getting to many of his gang members killed and he wanted to make it safer for them.