And the middle-aged shooter in Vegas?
190
No-one should be able to own a military assault weapon! Look what 6 minutes did in Florida! We should have a nationwide march of young people with the message...Enough! Time to Act! We need the same gun laws as England, Canada, Switzerland, Australia...take your pick!
157
NO ONE should have a AR-15. NO ONE.
171
Oh, say Mr. Douthat, you of the conservative moralism, the good Catholic, can you please remind us what your Jesus Christ would say about guns and killing and the poor wretches of this world?
131
Let us pray, as many have suggested. From The Bible:
"Thou shalt not kill."
Amen.
72
Douthat's latest opinion is quite the opposite of what he implies is needed: his piece is watered down and contingent and hair-splitting and nearly impossible to decipher. America has WAY too many guns in circulation and in the hands of people with bad intentions!!! Michael Reed, Vicksburg, Mich.
64
I am a transgender woman who owns an AR-15 assault rifle. Since I'm not a nut or a drug dealer I think I almost definitely will never kill a human being with my AR-15.
I'm fact, I've never shot a living thing at all. I just love target shooting and exercising a right that most people don't have.
I'm not really a fan of big brother government that supposedly is so great that you can give up all weapons and put 100% faith in the state. Now I'm not talking about being able to rebel, that's preposterous. I'd get killed by a drone in 10 minutes if I tried to rebel with an AR against the government.
I wont give up my AR because I think every American should have the right to decide to leave society and live off grid. I live in the mountains, and having an AR is a great comfort when the wolves are around and a bear is attacking your Jeep. Also as a transgender woman in the woods I'd rather have an AR if I met some backwoods rapist then some bolt action rifle or muzzleloader. I may be gay but I won't be involved in a scene out of Deliverance without a shootout to the death.
Of course, most Americans live in a city where the only animals that are menacing are yipping dogs and the only people shooting at you are the cops.
As a backwoods transgender queer, I love my AR. As a sane person who isn't a sociopath, I believe in background checks and preventing crazy peeps from getting guns. Am I going to give up my assault weapon? No. Maybe for $20,000 in cash, lol I am an American.
42
Ummm, Ross, tell me again, how old was Stephen Paddock?
72
It's the weaponry, stupid.
The constitutional framers could never have foreseen that the 2nd amendment would cover weapons capable of killing scores of human beings in a minute. They had muskets which they loaded with home-made ammo.
So, no brainer: ban all assault weapons. Confiscate or buy back all those already in circulation. Ban all magazines. Control the amounts of ammo the way pills should be controlled.
Enact gun control on all other weapons. Teenagers shouldn't be able to buy guns. People with mental problems shouldn't be able to buy guns. So, mentally troubled teenagers especially should not be able to get access to guns, through gun shows, gun shops or deluded parents.
There has never been a drive-by stabbing. It's obvious that assault weapons of war have created the mass shootings that have taken the rights to life, liberty and happiness from the rest of us so 2nd amendment fanatics can roll around in their misinterpreted right to be stupid about bearing "arms".
Will the right to hidden carry a flamethrower be next?
72
With 5% of humanity, Americans own 48% of the guns owned by civilians on Planet Earth. Thus America is the perfect country for young white men with AR-15's. There are likely far more young white men with AR-15's whom we have never heard of nor ever will hear about.
While there may not be any enslaved black Africans nor free brown Natives nor British Empire military looming and lurking as a young white men with AR-15 worthy threat, according to Trump there are marauding hordes of malign criminal terrorists Mexicans, Muslims, Africans, Arabs and Asians waiting to invade and occupy America.
Better a young white man with an AR-15 than a young white man with a bomb like Timothy McVeigh. Or an old white man with a criminal cause of armed followers with AR-15's like Cliven Bundy. America is no place for any young black men with an AR-15.
Of the 33,000+ Americans who die from gunshots every year about 2/3rds are suicides. And 80% are white men who usually use hand guns. This is no country for young white men with handguns.
10
Your thought experiment solves nothing; in 10 minutes, a 64 year old Steve Paddock, managed to kill 58 people and injure another 851, in Las Vegas, on October 1st, 2017. Do you even remember this happening?
78
Is it vulgar empiricism that shows overwhelmingly that the more guns that you have in a society or community, the more deaths you have by guns? Look it up. Really! Look it up!
You know what's vulgar Ross? The president of the United States and his enablers are some of the most vulgar people that this nation has known.
You know what is also obscene; more obscene than any pornographic content that you think is so morally debasing?
The willful ignorance of people like you to ignore the facts at all costs. Whether the cost is of a desperate woman with a coat hanger or beautiful young and innocent students.
How dare you even mention "responsibility." It is completely irresponsible to advocate for the availability of access to semi automatic weapons. And it is irresponsible to allow people to have any kind of gun without some kind of registration, training, and licensing, just like we do with automobiles.
Ross, I feel like your columns are often nothing more than rhetorical exercises. This is not the time and place for that. There is too much at stake. You know it and I think you are better than that.
78
Try selling this bill of goods to the survivors of the shooting on 2/14, Mr. Douthat. Try listening to Emma Gonzalez' speech from yesterday. Do you really think ANYONE should own an AR-15? Your supposedly "reasoned" thoughts are downright ludicrous. There is something deeply wrong with this country and you don't even see what is right in front of your face.
77
Sadly, another rationalization for unwitting conservative "I have a right" digression. As so many have noted, it's the rifle stupid. The Australians figured it out, the Japanese rules require a year's worth of background checks and quarterly follow up, and the USA blithely moves on to the next butchery. Mr. Douthat, do you have children? Grandchildren? Maybe a niece or nephew? Are you really waiting around for a 30 yr old with an AR-15 to blow a hole in your argument?
48
"Young" men, Ross?
Paddock was 64.
Men of any age.
46
>
Dear Ross,
This is all your GOP's doing, and most of it prior to DJT.
28
I would agree with you that the "empiricism" of another 17 slaughtered kids is pretty vulgar.
But unfortunately, the NRA and other assorted second amendment fetishists and gun fanatics have proven over and over that they much prefer that occasional small sacrifice so that one day in the future, that apocryphal, law abiding, lonely rural farmer can finally put that AR-15 to the use it was intended, to smoke some bad guy that he just knew one day would show up at his doorstep.
35
All this yap about gun rights is nonsense. Let us speak of gun responsibility. Oops, grown-up talk like that is frowned upon in American today.
32
In Israel a good amount of the population carries firearms. Most of my friends and I carry firearms here in crime infested South Florida.
Why are there no mass shootings, let almost none by licensed carriers?
Don't rush into knee jerk reaction solutions.
8
Talk about off the rails. Following his logic, maybe at 45 you can own a full machine gun then at 60 anti-tank and howitzer.s Douthat misses the point by a long country mile. Then what about the Los Vegas shooter? What do we say then?
39
Why does anyone need a semi-automatic rifle?
45
Truly, Conservatives can justify anything in their minds.
Guns have one purpose and one purpose alone and that is to kill. To rip through a body doing as much damage as possible until the being loses life.
You can't terminate a bundle of cells with no consciousness or feeling but it's okay to let a projectile ravage a living thing...
Okay. You go ahead. And my suggestion to you is you'd better hope there is no God, Mr. Douthat because is there is, you're going to have some serious explaining to do between pedophile priests and guns.
42
You lost me with AR15. That gun or weapon of mass destruction, has no place in civilian hands. Period. Even Ronald Reagan banned assault rifles. Time to ban them again.
50
And why would a 30-year-old need a AR-15 semi-automatic rifle?
45
The Las Vegas shooter was in his 50s.
19
I'm conservative myself and the article strikes me kind of silly. The Vegas gunner was in his 60s, the gunner who almost kill a Republican senator on a golf course was also in his 60s. Why would one ever needed the semiautomatic pistol nothing to say about assault type military rifle? I have a grandson and I dread the day he goes to school.
21
In light of the Parkland, Florida massacre—yet another school shooting—as well as previous US mass killings in venues such as outdoor concerts, shopping malls, theaters, churches, parks, etc., citizens’ safety has been compromised, and consequently, citizens have become less free. The Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is encroaching on the Declaration of Independence’s “unalienable rights” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness— rights denied to 17 victims in Florida.
31
There is no personal protection requirement that cannot be met with a pump action shotgun with a three shot magazine. If you’d be embarrassed to walk around with such a long gun slung over your shoulder, you should be equally embarrassed to hide a pistol under your coat. Amd anyone who says he “needs” a handgun or a semiautomatic of any size is lying to someone - most likely to himself.
27
There is no philosophical or rational reason for conservatives to join the gun nuts in opposing gun safety legislation. There is no equivalence to abortion or pornography. It is a wedge issue that only serves to fatten Republican voter roles. Its the world against you guys. When conservatives join the paranoid wackos that think the second amendment is more important than the right to vote, they lose all semblance of being serious thinkers.
16
This country sends our youth to die and be maimed in perpetual war but doesn't care when they are murdered with military weapons at home. American Youth, refuse to serve ! The people sending you to war don't care about you.
19
This is a big, big PUBLIC SAFETY problem . The Democrats outlawed the submachine gun.The Democrats regulated the tobacco industry. Food and automobiles are much safer today than fifty years ago due to government regulations. So why can’t the government regulate firearms? The answer is follow the money ( legalized bribery) to the NRA.
I'm 89 and I have been using semiautomatic weapons since I was 12. I was once a NRA member. I recently gave my guns away. I don't hunt any more, so why would I need them? I'm guessing that more than 80% of NRA members do not own assault weapons. Those that do make a lot of noise, but they don’t represent the majority of responsible voters. I’m hoping the Democrats have the integrity and courage to take on the NRA and gun nuts to stop this shameful slaughter of innocent human beings.
Unfortunately, nothing significant is going change until the Democrats have control of the government again in 2020. But in the meantime let’s start playing chess now and take off our sparing gloves and put on brass knuckles.
22
Want to shoot an assault rifle? Join the Army or the Marines. Want to be an ORIGINALIST a la ultra conservative Supreme Court justices? The founders were talking about muskets and flintlock pistols. You can have those arms. Only.
Weapons of mass destruction (assault rifles)? Un uh. No way. Read the constitution and weep. ORIGINALISM!
21
Ridiculous. Insanity knows no age limits. Ho old was the Las Vegas shooter? AR-15s and similar weapons of mass murder have no business doing anything in the hands of anyone who is not on active military duty.
17
"semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger"
Stephen Paddock appreciates your kind consideration.
20
The fault of mass-child murders and headline grabbing massacres like Las Vegas can be lain at the foot of George W. Bush and his congress of 2004. They allowed the ban on assault rifles to lapse by deliberate inaction on their part.
In the ensuing 14 years the sale of military assault rifles have multiplied and they are available to purchase by every inadequate male in our country. The NRA was able to buy Donald Trump for a mere $30 dollars. These funds are ill-gotten from royalties from gun manufacturers.
Twice as much has been spent by the NRA to bribe all Congressmen for their disgraceful failure to protect the American public. Some of these creeps are retiring on their blood-soaked lucre. So much money is how they sleep very well at night and sleepwalk through Capital Hill. America's wake-up call was missed.
Meanwhile, Douthat uses the vile behaviors of gun owners as a thinly veiled platter for his diatribes against a women's right to control her own health.
13
This is assuming that all those over 30 are now deemed responsible and sane enough to purchase killing machines, which is what these guns are. What nonsense.
9
Hm. A military assault weapon at age 30. Why not, then, a howitzer at 35, a tank at 40, and a nuclear bomb at 45???
21
all talk no action - next up for carnage ....? next ....? next...? next ...? etc.
9
Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida, received approximately $3 million dollars in contributions from the NRA. Governor Scott received millions as well.
Not a chance gun laws will change in Florida. If anything, they will be relaxed even more. You know, to help prevent more massacres in the future. It's disgusting.
16
We need a multi-pronged approach to fixing this problem...
better mental healthcare. Open conversation about...it should not be stigmatized...anyone can have a mental health issue at various points in life, just as they could a physical health issue...
Change laws. No private citizen should have ANY reason or right for an AR-15, a bumpstock, etc. Period. No Reason for it!!
We need to change focus to protecting OUR 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Assembly...freedom to assemble without a reasonable fear of being a mass murder victim, and all because of our LAX laws.
Hollywood is also to blame for fetishizing violence. Take the recent movie 'Den of Thieves' (which I certainly would have NO interest in seeing). Movie is supposedly 'about' a bank robbery. But if you see the billboard or trailer for the movie, you don't see or hear much about a 'bank robbery'. Instead, the overall theme of the movie is Assault...Violence....Weapons...Shooting...Tough Guys....Muscles...Testosterone.... THIS is what Hollywood calls 'entertainment'? And btw, I don't care if they say 'this is what the people want'....for they are FEEDING the DEADLY ILLNESS this country has. Hollywood is also guilty for being focused on $$ instead of the mental and physical health of our country.
5
Ross, your proposal is too modest...
Enough is enough...
No reason to own anything more than something that...
> Fires one bullet per trigger squeeze - no matter for how long
> Holds less than ten bullets per load - and no re-loadable magazine...For anyone arguing otherwise, show me a single situation where a citizen being able to load a second magazine quickly helped - rather than hurt - the situation
> Launches any sort of projectile more clever than a simple "bullet" shape - and certainly not things that fragment, deform, or are made from anything other than a short list of metals...At this point, if had my way - even lead would be out
The idea that 30-year-olds are more sensible than 18-year-olds is laughable...Even if it were true - take it one step further, and refine permissible ownership by gender-correlated violence tendencies...
Wouldn't have wanted to run across either Samantha Powers or Valerie Jarrett in an unlit alley (or Michelle or Melania, for that matter) - but not because any of these folks would clock me in the jaw or eye-socket...
Enough is enough...
On this one, the socialist actually nailed it...
http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1521584
"Sometimes quantity has a quality all its own"
There're a lot of quote-skeptics out there on this one - but...
Ross, it fits our surprisingly mutual narrative superbly...
Scalia may argue otherwise, from beyond the grave...
The constitution reflected the arms of the time, from before he was born...
3
The few rural Europeans who keep weapons have them for hunting and sport, not fear that the Carabinieri or Gendarme won't arrive in time. This idea reflects a frontier mentality, that Geronimo or Billy the Kid and his gang are going to invade your farm. The west was won and order imposed, for better or worse, so that won't happen. And if you think you can stop the US Government when it "Imposes Illegitimately" I want you to imagine your personal firearm, AR-15 or not, against an A-10 Warthog or a Tank. Crime in rural areas of the US is very low, and the places where it is actually alarmingly high, like Baltimore need fewer guns, not more. Suicides, mostly by gun, however, are startlingly high in Wyoming (44 per 100K) and other gun happy states vs New York (8.4 per 100K). The thing you think is defending you against a phantom threat is, in fact, the danger. You are not Liam Neeson, and they are not coming for you.
18
Pro-gun v Anti-gun?
Rubbish! That's a disingenuous framing of the issue.
AR-15's and the like aren't "guns". They're military-inspired assault weapons, good in combat, much less so in civilized society.
21
“Hunting rifles at 18” and bazookas and shoulder fire missles at.....65? Such nonsense. Physicans and public health should oppose anything other than hunting rifles at any age. And one of the leading causes of death for men over 45?? Suicide by firearm. It is not just kids we need to protect.
10
Staggering the ages at which various types of firearms can be purchased and possessed - to reflect the natural maturation process - is a great idea.
Both sides would have to demonstrate a willingness to compromise.
The author is quite correct to analogize the firearms debate with the abortion debate - where our side is supported by reason and/or God, and your side are a bunch of lunatic fascists or killers.
As a result, neither side will give an inch.
Douthat would be more honest if he pointed out that the while the GOP and its evangelical supporters preach right to life for unborn children, those kids better take cover once they're born because the NRA trumps their right to life, pun intended.
14
To all who cry that there is nothing that we can do about the AR15 and military grade assault weapons, I have three questions.
1. How many people were killed by a Thompson sub-machine gun on Feb. 14, 1929?
2. How many people were killed by a Thompson between Columbine and Feb. 14, 2018?
3. Why?
9
Unbelievable. Reading this piece, I am lost for words. A chronology of the rite of passage for owning guns whose sole function is to kill and maim. Oh America!!
13
So when will you Americans quit arguing about everyone having guns and start having a serious conversation about everyone having universal health coverage? Seems you all like the idea of being able to kill each other, but can't stomach the idea that visiting the doctor is not a "god-given" right.
13
I think that before you own a firearm other than a single shot weapon you should be required to go out, hunt, shoot, and butcher an animal. Get an Idea about how finite the decision is to pull the trigger is.
After you take a successful shot you come upon a carcass that is warm, and dead. No resurrection due to remorse.
Sink into someones head that there is not reset button with bullets.
If you are too sensitive to kill an animal, maybe you shouldn't own a weapon capable of killing people.
2
"And the claim, often urged on anti-abortion writers like myself, that guns and abortion should both be opposed on “life” grounds seems like a category error, since every abortion kills but guns sit harmless in millions of households and many deter violence or turn back evil men."
This column is so unhelpful it borders on malfeasance. Such a false comparison. Fewer pregnancies come with birth control. Fewer gun deaths come with fewer guns. Sane people everywhere share the same goal. Everyone wants less death. The important thing is finding common sense ways of accomplishing it. Those ways abound.
"Semiautomatic pistols, at 25. And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger."
Are you kidding? This is your answer? People pay attention to what's written in NYT. This is completely irresponsible.
13
Using age as an indicator for buying guns, with the ultimate prize of a semi-automatic at 30 yrs? What an absurd argument. Steven Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter was 64 yrs. How would this have stopped him?
Perhaps the real mental illness we should consider is American's paranoia and our overwhelming obsession in owning guns.
10
You are suffering from belief in the same mythology that far too many of your fellow citizens share.
I do not own a gun. The reason I do not own a gun is not because of some nebulous morality. I do not own a gun because I am safer not owning a gun. The evidence that I am safer not owning a gun is so staggering that it is simply not debatable. And I am at least incrementally safer because you do not own a gun.
13
Since you admire the "moral picture" that supports the use of guns to resist the state "when it imposes illegitimately," I think it's fair to assume you would have support armed resistance to laws that are ulitimately determined to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
Somehow I doubt it and that makes me think your high-minded adulation of the gun proponent moral picture is closer to the fetishization of guns and violence that you purportedly decry.
4
You know, you can be opposed to *both* abortion and guns. Both are designed to kill. Be more pro-life, not less.
4
No normal person needs an AR-15. Period. No normal person needs cop-killer bullets or large ammunition magazines. These are designed to kill cops and other people like schoolchildren and theater-goers.
6
Oh, come on Russ. You're on the right track but copping out. Let 18 yr olds buy hunting rifles of shotguns. Period. Everything after that are toys. Toys that cause death and destruction.
You want to hunt, hunt. Beyond that, criminalize all guns.
2
The Las Vegas shooter was over 30. AR15 should only be used in warfare, not sold to individuals. You don't kill a deer or rabbit with an AR-15.
Congress and the NRA are responsible for the all the mass shootings. How they can look at their children and say it's OK to sale these guns. It's all about money not the lives of children.
6
As a country, we should be deeply ashamed of our inaction on gun control. A comment recently in the NY Times from Australia got it right. "America today has its head in the sand - the whole world is shocked by what you’ve become."
6
First, the NRA interpretation, of the 2nd ammendment, which they have sold to Americans as an absolute right to gun ownership, (any type, and, with concealed carry, anywhere) is just a lie to serve the gun profiteers.
Every court case, including several Supreme Court cases interpreted the 2nd ammendment as NOT intended to confir an individual right to ownership - they looked at the first words reference to militias.
Only eight years ago, in the Heller case, did the high court, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OVER 200 YEARS, decide that individuals have a 2nd ammendment right to keep guns for self defense.
But, even super-conservative Justice Scalia wrote this in the ruling:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…"
So, bring on the sensible safely restrictions!
Scalia stood with sanity, NOT THE CRAZY NRA.
Last, the MYTH about the overriding need for a gun for self defense. Law enforcement reports show that almost no one actually uses a gun for self defense each year. These cases are rare. You're MORE at risk of harm just by owing a gun. So, for your safety, NOT owning a gun is the smart choice.
But, I'm not against sane people, with proven skills, who register their guns and carry insurance (sound familiar car owners?) owning guns. I have friends who own them and hunters ABSOLUTELY are fine.
The NRA nuts are the problem.
They need to go.
5
No one of any age needs an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. The police don't want citizens to have them, and you can protect your home and loved ones short of a weapon of mass destruction.
4
Guns don’t kill people but they sure do make it easier. AR-15s have one purpose only - to kill other human beings en mass. When will my child’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit be reasonably balanced with another’s right to feed and protect his self. Why should my child have to be locked in a colorful ‘prison’ all day (aka school) so any misfit can walk around waving a weapon?
6
Mr Douthat's argument fails the test of experience. Las Vegas!
5
Perhaps Douthat's proposed age restriction on assault weapons purchases would shave a few mass killings from our appalling total. But what about the 30,000 or so other gun deaths a year? This is the disgusting reality that the pro-gun lobby considers the acceptable collateral damage for maintaining its so-called freedom. There are simply too many guns out there -- more guns=more tragedy.
2
It is so much more than the particular firearm. Thanks to the NRA, the government is prohibited from keeping many records relating to guns. Thanks to the NRA, in many states, there is no requirement at all to register guns. Go into any gun range and anyone can buy body armor. Online, anyone with a credit card can buy thousands of rounds of ammunition --- and there is no record, the police are not informed etc. etc. I can find out if there is someone living near me who is a sex offender. I cannot find out if a neighbor is stockpiling lots and lots of guns and lots and lots of ammunition. That reasonable regulations are even an issue is insane.
6
A Modest Proposal: Why not simply create at state levels “well regulated militias?” Rigorous mandatory firearms and safety training, mental health screening, requirements for safe storage of weapons would all be necessary to own or possess automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Add in a stiff enrollment fee/tax. Possession of these without militia membership would be a felony. The rest of us can made do with revolvers, double barrel shotguns, and bolt action rifles.
I speak as a former Army and Federal officer who got his first shotgun when he was 11 and first pistol when he was 16. I’ve owned and carried everything from a M-16 to a Walther PPK to a Colt 1911 .45. If you are a civilian, I’ve concluded, you are delusional if you think you need anything beyond a revolver, a shotgun, or a bolt action rifle for hunting or home protection.
2
“But now that the massacre in Florida has made mass murder the week’s pressing subject...”
“The week’s pressing subject”, Ross? Therein lies the problem. Instead of having a national policy debate, it is relegated to the week or even a shorter news cycle.
Would it be too much to ask to extend this longer than the Sunday newspaper and get to the underlying reason why so many children are being killed in their schools in every location in America?
Extend the argument, Ross. Americans might have a longer attention span than you think.
4
How about gun owners join gun clubs and have fun doing target practice with friends and leave their guns there. I won't even picket them like they do reproductive health centers. No one at any age should have a semiautomatic weapon. Come on, seriously?
5
Sorry, I stopped reading mid way through. What rot!
NO liberal is calling for a ban on guns any where near as draconian as conservative calls for bans on abortion or restrictions on voting rights.
Liberal "zeal" is provoked anytime 550 people are killed and wounded in a single mass shooting. Or anytime 6 year olds are dismembered by high powered weapons fire.
The question is: what is it in the conservative psyche that refuses to provoke the same zeal over the same events? What is this sickness called conservatism when, on this gun issue, even attempts to remove environment polluting lead from bullets is viewed as a violation of constitutional rights?
What is this sickness called conservatism when, on this gun issue, even the placing of chemical taggers in ammonium fertilizer is viewed as a violation of constitutional rights.
What sickness motivates a president to sign a bill to make it EASIER for the mentally ill to obtain guns?
Or to ban the government for researching the causes and effects of gun violence?
Douthat was on a porn kick last week. Right now the state of Utah wants to declare pornography a state health emergency.
Only to the conservative mind would the First Amendment be considered a health emergency but not the Second Amendment.
8
Guns are a daily-verified horror. They will not protect you. They will not prevent tyranny or invasion. They will kill people, probably people you know, over and over again. If they didn't exist, what sane person would argue that individual citizens living together needed extreme lethal power to have a free society?
A vigorous minority works to overturn Roe v Wade. Where is the vigorous minority working to overturn our ridiculous interpretation of the 2nd amendment, or the amendment itself?
5
"And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger." Like the Las Vegas shooter? Brilliant.
4
Sandy Hook shooter Anthony Lanza's gun was purchased by his mother. A white adult woman. So much for age limits preventing shootings.
2
Adults should be allowed to continue to buy and own guns so they can enjoy hunting and target shooting: however, the only guns people should be allowed to own are guns that shoot one bullet at a time before they have to be reloaded by hand.
2
The only amendment conservatives care about is the 2nd. The rest they'd overturn as fast as you could fire an AR15 round.
4
Are you out of your mind, Douthat? Such rationalization! The fewer people who have guns, the less shooting and killing. It's as simple as that. Even hunting rifles aren't necessary except for the very tiny % of the population who live in the wilderness. As to pistols in the house, it's clear that far more people are killed by and within the families that own them than are intruders. Maniacs who live in paranoid self-preservation "communities" certainly shouldn't have guns.... I've lived in big cities through decades of high crime and haven't needed a gun - though if I had one, I probably would have used it.
2
Pro life - pro guns ... wow; where is the integrity?
4
Finally something wise about the topic.
My wife and I travel all around this country, camping and hiking on public lands. In the past 6 years we have spent 2 1/2 of them in this way. Traveled 55000 miles.
Most of those areas we go are where people voted for Trump. We see guns all of the time, hunters abound. We see places that have become more or less designated for target shooting.
We don't worry about people with guns. They are all around us, visible, and we don't worry. I worry much more every time I take a bike ride while at home about people high on marijuana or alcohol or distracted by their cell phones.
From reading comments on NYT and WaPo it is clear that many people simply are not around guns, and so their views are shaped by their lack of experience with them. To them, there is no reason to have a gun because it is simply a machine designed to "kill people." For them it is easy to say "ban guns!" No cost to them, no invasion of their culture.
As a life-long liberal, I am dismayed at the names people who have guns as part of their lives in rural areas are called by other (so-called) liberals. There is a complete lack of understanding of other ways of life, and an arrogant superiority toward people in rural areas who own guns.
I like Douthat's idea. Where are more like them? Liberals, get off your high horse and go see for yourself how safe you really are in the midst of a gun culture. Work with people in those cultures instead of against them.
2
Why would anyone, at any age, need a semi-automatic rifle?
4
Liberals - including your colleague Nicholas Kristof, have for many years made proposals of this kind. Very few people in our society oppose responsible gun ownership. One of these suggests that there you should have to demonstrate competence with the use of weapons prior to obtaining them. Another suggests that studies should be made to make guns safer. Good luck with your own proposal, Johnny-come-lately. The absolutists at the NRA will bribe corrupt Republican legislators to stop it, as in the past.
4
How about NO automatic/semiautomatic weapons for anyone at any age? You don't need much research to see what an impact that would have on the numbers of victims slaughtered.
5
I guess the only thing that I could say to this column is "you have my thoughts and prayers". Do with that what you will but it certainly won't lead to anything that's worthwhile.
1
One of my favorite scenes in "No Country for Old Men" is when the old sheriff is lectured by the even older sheriff when he complains about how much more violent it seems that it was in the old days:
"What you got ain't nothing new. This country is hard on people. You can't stop what's coming. It ain't all waiting on you. That's vanity."
So, to President Trump, the NRA, and politicians bought-and-paid-for by the NRA, I say, "You can't stop what's coming. It ain't all waiting on you. That's vanity."
The coin is in the air. Call it.
5
"As a gun owner, I've never hurt anyone. It's not fair to restrict my civil liberties due to the actions of the irresponsible ones"
You've probably heard something like that. Some people will find that argument compelling.
Now substitute "drunk driver" for "gun owner." Does that argument sound valid?
2
Your argument teeters on a false premise, one of which I think you are fully aware: "The pro-gun moral vision, meanwhile, links arms and the citizen, treating self-defense as an essential civic good, a means of maintaining Americans as free people rather than wards (or prisoners) of the state." For 99% of gun-owners, I suspect, there is no moral vision, just pleasure from the power that is triggered from shooting. For many the pleasure happens in a range, for most in the wilds of nature, but for a most significant few, on humans in public places.
To correct your argument through paraphrasing: There is a pro-gun lobby that links arms with money, treating politicians as essentially bribable, a means of maintaining Americans an enslaved people rather than free from the fear of would-be gun-owning murderers.
So please stop, Mr. Douthat, your dissembling. Lives have been lost because of decades of such palaver.
4
The proposal is incrementalism at best. But I suspect that it would result in a decline in gun-related homicides. If that data bore that eventuality out, then we would be closer to “getting to Australia” which, based on data published by The Times linking the number guns and our astounding rate of gun-related deaths, should be the ultimate goal.
You’re making up a straw man when you say guns and abortion are being categorized together. Even a five year old could tell the difference and doesn’t need your explanation that all guns don’t kill. It’s just a different version of saying guns don’t kill but people do. The argument is against lax gun laws that take away so many lives that could have been saved with better gun laws and folks like you who don’t seem to think that those “lives” matter, or do think that the right to own a gun under any circumstances is more important than these lives that are being lost.
5
"Let 18-year-olds own hunting rifles. Make revolvers available at 21. Semiautomatic pistols, at 25. And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger."
In typical form, another Republican argument that devolves into madness and inanity by lulling us with seeming common sense. But never fear. We arrive at the fourth sentence and we're again in church, where the fantasy and idolatry are once again dogma. Welcome to conservative America's sociopathy.
2
I can also understand someone in rural areas would want "A" gun. What I don't understand is why anyone needs to have an arsenal? Why does anyone need an assault weapon? When you start rationalizing the need to amass weapons of war, there is something wrong. In the 1920's machine guns were outlawed. Modern assault weapons are as dangerous if not more so. Where do most of the murders occur in America? Why the inner cities. Inner cities where no one except residents of inner cities care how many people die. Does a person in Dubuque need an AR15 to protect themselves from the gun holder in Chicago? And if you store your firearm properly, how much does it benefit you in the many, many home invasions that happen only in the minds of the gun owners? Finally if weapons of war are acceptable in the hands of citizens, why can't I buy a grenade launcher to protect myself from the millions of assault weapons? The argument is the same. And let's face it, sooner or later an assault weapon won't provide the same secure feeling or thrill they do now. And now "everyone has an assault weapon". They're becoming old school. Time for the next generation AR15 2.0. And I'd like to point out to the Trump base that no walls, no deportation, no immigration ban will protect you from people like......you.
5
RD and his fellow conservatives will have to come to terms with their anti-government rhetoric, which fuels the irrational fears of government breathing down one's neck. They are connected, and therefore it is not just the NRA and it's money and influence. Just stop lying would be a great start, (Do not think, for just a moment, about how liberals need to do this; stay focused on conservatives). WE HAVE BIG GOVERNMENT AND IT WORKS! This will not change. Be ready now for all the conservative arguments that assert we should cut government programs for the poor because of lack of money. Try to remember that we just passed big tax cuts. This is one example of not lying. Apply it to rational gun control and understand the rabid response to this is years of conditioning brought on by conservative brainwashing. And then simply stop lying and tell the truth. Make school safe again, instead of making a generation of young adults trembling in fear, which, BTW, you desire on some level for the purposes of crowd control, (Again, just for a moment, stop thinking of what liberals need to do in this case).
4
Using this article as a caveat let's say there are two moral iisues here AR-15 ownership and abortion. I pose this question to anyone who owns or aspires to own an assault rifle or a semi-automatic handgun. Is your your right to own those weapons so totally justifiable that you are willing for someone else to own them who will use them to kill innocents? On abortion compared to semi-automatic weapons, I have the option to chose life over abortion while allowing a woman to make her own choice. There is not a whole lot of difference between preventing a life, birth control and aborting an embryo in its early stages. I do not have the option of preventing an individual from killing innocents with weapons made for war. I am not opposed to gun ownership. I am opposed to semi-automatic weapons in the hands of mass murderers.
3
Only a person who deeply fears the truth would stoop to calling empiricism "vulgar." This is the kind of language people use when they don't want to investigate something (climate change, gun violence) out of fear of what they'll find: inconvenient truths.
But I'll grant this: when it comes to guns in America, the empirical facts truly are vulgar: more guns than any other nation (nearly 300 million), and a rate of mass shootings that is about 50 times the global average. I can see why a person who has been complicit in promoting (or tolerating) the insane policies that have brought us here might not want to bring up these "vulgar" facts.
Instead, they might prefer to muse upon how gun deaths are somehow the fault of law enforcement agencies that cannot cope with a problem that no other civilized nation confronts: one gun per citizen. Or of educators who are spending entirely too much time teaching their students, and not enough time arming themselves. Or of mental health professionals who just can't seem to diagnose all the crazies before they reach for that gun (never mind that it's sitting less than an arm's length away).
I'll also grant this: empiricism isn't everything. The students of Broward County have been making a mighty noise since their friends were gunned down. Not by citing statistics, but by showing us the faces of the many who are suffering at the hands of the few who benefit from gun sales, and the all money they inject into politics. God be with them.
5
NO. No one should ever be able to own the AR-15 or any other automatic or semi-automatic war machine designed strictly for killing the most amount of people in the shortest time.
Period.
4
His proposal makes some sense, but how do you overcome the "slippery slope" argument of the NRA and like-minded paranoids?
There was the shooting of an an armed black man in Minnesota, who informed a police officer after a tail light stop that he had a licensed handgun. He was killed. It was recorded by his girlfriend. I don't remember what his age was but it was his race that got him killed. The type of gun or age of the shooter might be irrelevant. The NRA mantra is, "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." If the good guy with a gun is of color, he may become the dead guy with a gun if a racist member of the NRA is anywhere near him. Please note that the presence of a gun is the common denominator in all shootings.
4
Most liberals get the home defense argument, and DON'T want to take everybody's guns away. That is a far cry form allowing teenagers to by military offensive weapons with large clips of ammo that would never be used in hunting (no real hunter would allow it).
It is the extreme, toxic NRA shills for the Gun Industry that drives all this. It is a business model based on carnage. THAT extreme is what nurtures the extremes on the left. There is common sense in the middle, but there is no money for congressmen and gun manufacturers in any compromise.
4
Guns don't kill people.
My guns never killed anyone.
Fatherless boys kill people.
Welfare and Progressive/Feminist attitudes (anything goes; dads don't matter, etc.) encourage, reward, and exacerbate single motherhood/fatherlessness.
Progressives have replaced God-based moral absolutes (i.e. don't murder) with "If it feels good, do it."
The self-esteem movement replaced "Sticks and stones..." with the teaching that we have a right to go thru life free from hurt feelings and failure, leaving folks clueless when teased or confronted with difficult situations.
Democrats are the reason for the killing season.
1
Wow. 310 million guns in this country. 47% of households have guns. Most shootings are by someone the victim knows. And a graduated licensing program is the best we can come up with? Sounds like a "moral bridge" to nowhere.
3
Mr. Douthat equates gun violence and abortions, arguing that both kill “people.” And what are his solutions?
1) Enlist the Government to establish stricter rules criminalizing any woman who finds herself pregnant, realizes she can’t raise the child, and chooses to abort the fetus.
2) Restrict the power of the Government so that it can guide, but not outlaw, Americans who buy guns to defend themselves and maintain their independence from the State, as intended by the Founding Fathers.
Yup. Tighten the bonds restricting the lives of women, but make sure a thirty-year-old guy maintains his Second Amendment right to purchase and play with an AR-15.
This is a typically male-centered Republican analysis and proposal. Thanks so much Mr. Douthat.
For the record, most of the blood spilled in the US as a result of gunfire doesn’t flow from well-publicized mass shootings ... it drips and pools and spreads from gun suicides and the murders of women by their intimate and armed partners.
8
Just as most guns sit innocent even during the worse shooting frenzies, your comparison to abortion should be with the scapels or abortion methods used and how many of them sit unused most of the time.
Perhaps comparing process(and reasoning involved) of abortion with the process of a mass gun shooting, (and the reasoning involved)or even process of attempted or successful homicide would be more to the mark.
1
The logic of your pro gun position breaks down when applied to assault weapons, which are not guns for self defense but weapons of war and mass murder. Such weapons did not exist when the 2d Amendment was written and could not have been envisioned. The hard truth that you fail to address is this—the USA is th only developed country in the world that endures mass shootings on a regular basis and that is because the USA is the only developed country in the world that has not banned assault weapons for private purchase. Perhaps if you and the pro gun members of Congress were forced to look at the carnage caused by these weapons you would get the message. After a shooting our hearts break as we see beautiful photographs of the victims. We do not see what it looked like when bullets fired from an assault weapon tore through their flesh and ripped them to shreds as they died in fear and agony. The teenagers in Florida did see, and they are speaking out. Please listen to them.
1
" . . . and many [guns] deter violence or turn back evil men." Really? Just how many would-be burglars, rapists, murderers have been thwarted because an intended victim brandished a gun and made them put up their hands? (Yes, it happens all the time in Hollywood.) The answer is we don't know because the NRA-backed Republicans in Congress have blocked federal funding for research into gun violence for the past 22 years. Perhaps the best way forward is to let results settle the argument. Following the example of a conservative government in Australia, try this: create a voluntary program to buy back all privately owned semiautomatic weapons and high-powered rifles; ban private sales of such weapons; require individual registration and extensive background checks; require would-be buyers to present a clear need for each new purchase. In Australia, over ten years it reduced gun killings by 60 per cent and gun suicides even more without any increase in non-gun killings or suicides. That's a lot of lives saved. Give it five to ten years and see if it works here.
6
Your gun/abortion comparison is ridiculous. Abortion is a medical treatment performed by a qualified doctor (at least until women are forced into back alleys).
Owning a shotgun or pistol for protection of your home or livestock is a reasonable precaution, particularly in rural areas. Carrying an AR-15 with a 100 bullet capacity down a city street is insane on any level. Being able to buy a gun or ammunition without a background check and license is insane on any level. Having thousands (if not millions) or unregistered guns available for theft is insane.
The purpose of a gun is to kill. Owning a killing weapon is an awesome responsibility. This is not 1776. These are not muzzle loading, single shot, inaccurate rifles.
Oh, and for the record, abortion was legal and accepted in our early Republic.
6
How soon we forget. Was Las Vegas a result of youthful impetuousness?
5
Equating age with responsible behavior has to rank among the most warped of arguments in justifying machine gun ownership.
2
Here's a clue, Ross. A society awash in guns will necessarily be a society awash in gun violence.
It's not rocket science. And anybody who tells you otherwise is selling something.
3
Americans will have to find a way to feel powerful without owning an semi assault rifle. Oh it will be hard. However, most people on the planet have managed to muddle through without the ability to cut first graders into unrecognizable pulp.
4
Ross... you missed the "mark" here. The problem is that the semi and other weapons used in to massacre the young children in Sandy Hook were purchased by his mother. Believe the Las Vegas shooter would have been able to purchase a Semi as he was over 30 years old. Limiting purchase to semi's by age is not the solution. The solution is simple. Ban Semi's just like we did with true automatics back in 1986. Will it stop events like Parkland from occurring? No. Would it limit the carnage and give Americans a fighting chance when faced with a rifle. Yes!
2
We are to blame for the bloody violent deaths and fear placed in every school aged child today. Deaths easily prevented in a country as well to do as ours. All completely senseless. Allow citizens the rifle our forefathers intended. Do not allow any citizen of any age and any mental fitness the general sale of WMD, period. All other guns need to be on a national registry. We will watch you, you gun owners. Our kids will not play in your homes, and we will keep tabs on your anger management. There is no middle ground; there is no compromise when beautiful children never get the chance to grow up because of guns.
2
I’ve listened (podcast) and read your thoughts on this issue this week. The analysis you offer is not my experience (a left center person who always tries to ask those carrying firearms in public, why they do...and I listen) of the day. The need to have a firearm is not unreasonable to me and I know the majority of gun owners exercise judgement and care. Yet there is a fetishim about the power of a gun to assert one’s will that is obvious and dangerous in much of the most avid gun culture. It seeks maximal effect with military style rifles and bump stocks. I mirrors a paramilitary preoccupation in too many law enforcement situations (needed in some...few). Honest conservatives need to say that aloud and work to remove those weapons/tools generally. Earnest liberals seem more than willing to do something short of ideal.
Let’s be honest, we’ve allowed this political wedge with quite reasonable options to leave people, especially our children, vulnerable to murder.
1
Banning assault rifles like the AR-15 would have little impact. The 2016 FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) shows that rifles—including assault rifles—were used in about 2.5 percent of the 15,070 murders committed that year. Most of the rifles used in the murders weren’t assault rifles, so you would not reduce murders by 2.5 percent by banning assault rifles. The actual reduction would be much closer to zero, since murders denied assault rifles would use other types of firearms or other types of weapons. The killer in the most deadly school shooting—Virginia Tech—used handguns.
According to the 2016 UCR:
• Handguns were used in 7,105 murders.
• Knives were used in 1,604 murders.
• Unarmed killers strangled, beat, kicked or stomped 652 victims to death.
• Blunt instruments were used in 472 murders.
• Rifles (including assault rifles) were used in 374 murders.
• Shotgun were used in 262 murders.
I don’t own a gun. I’m not opposed to banning assault rifles or handguns, although I would prefer we first repeal the Second Amendment. But no gun law that has a chance of passing will make much difference. We need to work on ridding U.S. society of its homicidal impulses.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/...
2
"And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger."
Why stop there? At 40, rocket propelled grenades join the list. At 50, surface to air missiles. And at 65, your very own thermonuclear bomb, to truly celebrate retirement with a bang. Maybe that would have given Stephen Paddock (64 years old when he slaughtered the crowds in Las Vegas) a reason to delay a little longer.
7
I have a very shrewd 15 month old grandchild. He observes and emulates everything we do. He knew how to swipe and unlock a cell phone, and start hitting app icons 3 months ago, despite not being able to play with one--but oh, is he quick to grab if left within his reach.
If you are a "responsible" gun owner and keep your gun(s) locked up and away from the kids, are you really sure your kids don't know exactly where you hide the key and where you store those guns? Think again. If you're irresponsible, have you been showing off your gun to your child, how to load and arm it? Just because, you know, guns are fun and hey, the kids need to learn "gun safety." An oxymoron if ever there were one.
It's really stunning to me that my daughter will now have to ask her child's playmates if there are guns in their home before she will allow him to play there not under her supervision. This is the world we've created.
9
I appreciate that you are trying to find some elusive middle ground but there is absolutely no reason that a private individual should own an AR-15 period. That is not a weapon of self defense and your distance to the police is irrelevant. There is a great distance between the right to own a gun and the right to own semi-automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, armor piercing bullets etc. and conflating the two does not help.
9
Restricting the purchase of guns by age is way beyond 'closing the barn door.' There are firearms in this country than people. They are available without regulation from gun shows, private sales, on the black market, etc. If you want a gun, you can get one.
As for youth and assault weapons - Adam Lanza used an AR-15 to slaughter 20 little children and six grownups who tried to protect them. The weapon belonged to his mother. She believed 'gun therapy' would help socialize her awkward son. In the end, she was the first one he killed.
4
OK, conservatives, let's talk compromise.
How about similar regulations for the constitutional rights, abortion and gun ownership? It would, of course, vary state to state.
3 day waiting period and 2 visits with a doctor before you can proceed with your gun purchase? Check.
Invasive ultrasound before you can proceed? Check.
Listening to anti-gun propaganda and seeing pictures of shooting victims as part of the process? Check.
Requiring surgicenter standards for gun shops? Check.
No mail orders. check.
No remote communication/telemedicine, it all has to be in person. Check.
And my favorite, there can be the same number of gun sale sites and hours as there are medical clinics that perform abortions. (I do believe that would be 1 in Mississippi.)
(For those who exclaim that all those regulations are for women's health, I can assure you that we would all be much more healthy if they applied to gun sales and not to women.)
9
Ross Douthat's solution for "responsible" gun ownership (third para. from the end) is a function not of intelligence, necessity or mental competence, but of how often you are required to reload.
3
An Op Ed piece in "the paper of record" after yet another American mass murder in a school is a bit like a soufflé recipe that skips the part about the eggs. NRA-funded politicians claim that Newtown, Parkland and other uniquely American Tragedies are a function of the mental illness of the person shooting the assault weapon, not the weapon being shot. The illness is an all-American one. It's source may be in a mis-reading (or the incessant reading) of the Second Amendment, but it's protagonist is the NRA.
In the state of Tennessee, it is legal now for students to carry concealed firearms on state-affiliated campuses. At the university where I teach there is an unknowable number of handguns in our classrooms daily. And Tennessee is only one of many states with such biased laws, favoring the rights of the few who fetishize gun ownership, over the rights of the many who simply wish to remain relatively safe in an unsafe world. Were one caught with a bottle of distilled spirits on campus, criminal charges would likely follow; as long as your Glock remains out of sight, you're good. The NRA of 2018 has virtually nothing in common with the NRA of 1871 (when it was founded to promote marksmanship). Through its lobbing and funding a plurality of political futures the NRA underwrites the deaths of far more American citizens each year than ISIS and al-Qaeda combinded. Why then would the NRA not be treated just as we treat terrorists? How are they not a threat to domestic tranquility?
4
Ross does not bring up the venality of Congress in accepting money from munitions and gun makers instead of common sense. Not to mention pure laziness in letting the gun lobby write their legislation.
And then there is an instinctive draw for many toward owning weaponry that has been pandered to in cop movies and cowboy shows for generations, and in video games today. The next best thing to being a superhero?? Superheroes don’t use guns.
4
Ross Douthat rightly emphasizes the use of moral intuition in making judgements about gun control. But he dumps that intuition when he later implies that abortion is on the same moral plane as Sandy Hook. I’ve suffered miscarriages and raised a child. The sorrow associated with the fetuses that didn’t make 10 weeks is nothing compared to the horror I feel when my kid proposes buying a motorcycle or trying paragliding. Simple visceral truths are the foundation for my moral intuition. Mr. Douthat’s religion is the foundation for his. So while he’s discovering such reverence for the 2nd Amendment, he might dwell a little longer on the implications of the 1st.
1
This is an emotive and incoherent piece. Your article(1) illustrates the pitfalls of Andrews's reliance on 'moral authority' as a mode of argument and (2) contains policy proposals which are useless for addressing the problem at hand--i.e., mass shootings in America.
In (1), your effort to segment gun ownership is arbitrary--it is backed up only by what you think are suitable age cutoffs for maturity. Utilitarianism might be a spineless mode of argument but using fuzzy claims about what constitutes moral authority is just as bad and a misuse of Andrews's argument.
As for (2), boys in America have owned guns for centuries, and guns have always been ubiquitous in America, but it is only in the last few decades that mass shootings have become a phenomenon. While attempting to restrict gun ownership--a method destined to fail--might correct some ancillary features of mass shootings (the fact that they are usually perpetrated with semiautomatic weapons), it will not address their cause and will not prevent future massacres from being carried out. Might it therefore be useful to investigate other features of American society which are new, such as the widespread abuse of prescription drugs (heavily linked to perpetrators of school shootings)? I am sure it will be easier to direct anger towards wicked pharmaceutical companies and corrupt doctors rather than engage in another useless culture-war debate between two sides who will talk past each other rather than compromise.
1
Millions of guns sit harmlessly in millions of homes. Until a toddler or a despondent teenager finds it and uses it to kill or injure himself or others.
Hunting, yes. Home defense, especially in remote rural areas of the country, sure. Target practice, of course. But the AR-15 has one and only one purpose -- it's designed to kill the most number of human beings in the least amount of time, with the least amount of sharpshooting skill.
4
Twenty or thirty years ago, I thought that gun registration and background checks would be enough. Now, as the NRA rejects even common sense solutions, I, too, have become more intransigent. I would ban all assault weapons now. Failure to surrender your gun and ammunition would be a felony. Private sales would be banned. Carry permits would be limited to police and maybe retired police. You would have to pass a safety test, a "shoot don't shoot class", and would be required to renew your license like a driver's license. You should be required to carry insurance and provide proof of insurance to cover damage and injuries. A background check and a mental health evaluation would also be required. And a conviction of any crime would be grounds to lose your license.
6
"If you asked me to defend only one of these moral pictures I would defend the pro-gun vision."
It is mind-boggling to me that someone as obviously intelligent, thoughtful, well-educated, urban, urbane and who makes his living by weighing arguments for and against almost every subject under the sun could come down on the pro-gun side of this argument. I guess that helps explain why this issue is so intractable.
1
Why is wanting to reduce guns deaths in America a "liberal" agenda? Shouldn't it be a human agenda? School shootings and other mass murders rightly get a lot of coverage, but death by gun occurs daily in America, from domestic violence, anger gone literally ballistic, and suicide. I just don't get the resistance to regulating the use of guns the way we regulate the use of automobiles. And why not go ahead with the CDC study of gun violence? We all might learn something. It's insane.
2
Too many categories and still too easy straw gun purchases. Keep it simple and constitutional. To own a gun you have to belong to a "well regulated militia".
2
Douthat's suggestion - once the howls of incredulity die down - might work if it were associated with the clear meaning of the Second Amendment as written. In other words, yes, allow adults of a certain age to "keep and bear arms", but under lock and key in a local armory where the "militia" (or National Guard) train. Pretending that youthful lunatics could be disarmed by law is like pretending that kids are prevented from smoking and drinking by law, but with much worse consequences for everyone around them. Of course Douthat's suggestion is more likely than mine to garner some professions of support, but only BECAUSE most supporting it would know if couldn't work.
1
Your argument appears to be a case of "bloodless moralism". This is simple; no one outside of the military needs an AR-15 or any weapon like it. No one.
2
Why exactly do 30 year olds need AR-15’s and high-capacity magazines? Perhaps I missed that in point in your argument.
2
No one needs an AR-15 or bump stock. Their purely military purpose is mass murder.
If we have a moral imperative for freedom to use these mass killing machines, then there is clearly no ethical reason to ban individual access to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
3
The author seem unaware that virtually all rifles—including hunting rifles—are semiautomatic. The semi-automatic AR-15 is no more lethal than other semiautomatic rifles. Like all firearms, the AR-15 owes its lethality to the high-velocity round it fires. It’s the ammunition, not the rife, that determines lethality. Reducing the velocity of the bullet would reduce the lethality of the AR-15.
The AR-15 looks menacing because it is the civilian version of the military’s fully automatic M-16. But what makes the M-16 an ideal combat weapon is that it has virtually no recoil. It is easy to train recruits to fire the M-16 because it doesn’t “kick” like the M-1 rifle of World War II, which kicked like a mule. Soldiers don’t flinch when they squeeze the trigger on an M-16. The AR-15 only look “macho.”
People think assault-type rifles should be banned because their only purpose is to kill people. But the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure Americans possess arms suitable the battlefield. We need to repeal or modify the Second Amendment.
1
I am originally from Russia, but grew up and spend most of my adult life in the USA. I have studied American history and politics and most definitely think of myself as an American but I must say I struggle to understand the value of the 2nd amendment and I am definitely in shock that sensible gun control and assault weapon bans are still not in place even after all the mass shootings that I saw on the news, starting from Columbine when I fist moved here in 1999 to the current one in Parkland.
This might be a tough pill for Americans to swallow, but you really could use a lesson about gun control from Russia. To own a gun in Russia you need to pass a national background check, get a permit from either the police force or the military, and get a psychiatric evaluation of your mental health, and you cannot get assault weapons (I think).
Americans like to think of Russia as a backward place, and in many ways it is, but I must say that if you ask me to recall the last time Russia had a mass shooting really none come to mind. In addition, similar to the US Russia also has a very large hunting culture, but they use hunting rifles and not assault weapons because, you know, assault weapons are designed to kill as many soldiers as possible in the shortest time possible in time of war. The simple fact that I have to point that out makes me sound crazy.
3
Lets have a series of articles where guns have deterred "violence or turned back evil men." And I don't mean by police or military, I mean by ordinary citizens "protecting their homes and families." I think you would have to search long and hard to find any. I once owned guns for bird hunting and skeet and trap shooting and one of my daughters still does. I even kept gun powder and lead shot at home to load my own shotgun shells. But one thing I never did was keep a loaded gun anywhere in my house.
3
You defend the pro-gun position by claiming that "the fullness of citizenship includes the capacity to protect and defend, to step in when the state fails and resist when it imposes illegitimately." I get the part about the need for personal protection when law enforcement cannot get there in time but justifying guns as a means to resist an illegitimate state? Last I checked we were living in the 21st century where illegitimate states (e.g. Syria) are not going to be deterred from massacring their own citizens with tanks, aircraft etc. no matter how many semi-automatic or automatic rifles they have.
1
Ross, you do not need an AR-15 to protect your home against an invader.
And if the government decides to come for you, an AR-15 might as well be a paper airplane.
American conservatives, who seem to have no problem with unlimited surveillance, mass imprisonment, and criminalizing drug use, only seem to give a hoot about 'liberty' when someone threatens to curtail their right to own deadly military-grade weaponry in unlimited numbers and firepower.
This is not a 'both sides' argument anymore. The 'left' (which apparently is 90% of the country, on this issue) wants something done to curtail gun violence. The right wants to preserve this nightmarish status quo. From where I'm standing, it's pretty clear where the moral rot has set in.
4
When the American constitution was written muzzle loading guns were common and took 30 seconds to load. The Brown Bess, a common military rifle was accurate to about 25 yards. The minie ball and rifled rifles were still muzzle loading but massively more lethal to 400 yards.
Within 20 years major armies adopted breech loading rifles with magazines. Hiram Maxim then perfected the machine gun and John Garand a semi automatic rifle used by the American army. The Germans introduced the first assault rifles with large capacity magazines but few reached the Mauser armed German soldier.
We go from single shot smooth bore muzzle loader to assault rifle in 150 years. An evolution of death making the founders could not have foreseen any more than they could have conceived of a fighter plane.
Original intent would allow only muzzle loaders in the hands of the public for hunting and self defense. Military level weapons would be restricted and stored in armories to be used by the "well regulated militia". The founders would think it insane to see the second amendment to be used to justify public possession of weapons that kill 58 people with 900 shots fired in 10 minutes.
The NRA is now America's Death Machine
1
It's not that hard to fix a lot of this, and without imposing Mr. DOuthat's conservative faith in everybody.
1. Universal background checks, with state and Federal databases fully coordinated.
2. Violent felons and the criminally insane are not allowed to possess guns. Wife-beaters are not allowed to possess guns. People who are repeatedly hauled into court, repeatedly red flagged by family and friends, repeatedly put into therapy, have their guns taken away.
3. Universal licensure, with a graduated system of what you can have. Mandatory training, refreshers, and tests.
And so on. Easy-peasey. And never going to happen with Republcans controlling Congress.
By the way, did you notice that for all the talk-talk about "culture," Ross Douthat had not a single solitary peep to offer about far-right apocalyptic nuttery, or all the gun ranges where you can hand your kid an Uzi, or all the "combat handgunning," classes, or the endless books by retired Special Forces types that glorify violence?
1
Guns should be registered and gun owners licensed, period, no exceptions.
1
The roots of the American obsession with guns and violence are found in the settler colonialism that founds our nation. Examine colonial America's clear objective of clearing the land of Native Americans (at which time the need for armed citizen militias arose) and later the need for citizen militias to repress slaves, hunt down runaway slaves, and suppress slave revolts. The psychological thread runs from that time to this day. It won't be severed unless we look at our history and realize, "We have seen the enemy and he is us."
Why are the advocates of common sense gun control accused by the pro-gun lobby of wanting to scrap the 2nd Amendment and take away every citizen's gun? Because it eliminates the grounds for rational discussion.
It is that kind of NRA-fed Republican paranoia, factually untrue, that makes it impossible to have a reasoned debate in Congress about specific measures to reduce gun violence. Meanwhile, polls indicate, reasonable measures are widely supported among the American population at large and even among the majority of gun owners.
1
Douthat views the current screaming match in the aftermath of the Parkland mass killing as " one [side] pro-gun and one [side] anti-gun." No, Ross, it has finally become pro-gun vs. pro-children.
4
The big thing Ross misses in his not totally unreasonable discussion, is that no conservative can vote in favor of even the slightest amount of common sense gun law, since that person will be listed by the NRA as not having a 100% voting record against gun control. That means, the person loses the election.
We need common sense voting by our elected officials regardless of how it might affect their electability. Put the country first, before your political ambitions.
1
The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. The courts have applied this fact time and time again to curtailing some sort of literal translation of the Constitution that all can own or use whatever they want. We don't see people walking down the street with bazookas strapped to their back, nor do we allow firearms everywhere. ( airports and the like ) So, there are restrictions and the Congress has acted before to curtail peoples' so called absolute ( what they think ) rights. They have also done the reverse. ( like republicans did last year in allowing the mentally ill have no restrictions in getting firearms ) Logic and sensibility would dictate that you do not need any weapon that fires off a 1000 bullets ( that pierce armor ) a minute and you do not need the magazines that hold 100's of those bullets at a time. ( effectively allowing someone to fire off a million bullets before even the fastest response time by authorities. But logic and common sense are not applicable to the politics of this situation, nor to the outsized hold that the NRA has on members of Congress. ( since even a majority of their members poll consistently in the high 80's for sensible controls ) This is not a right or left issue but one of life and death. ( inclusive of time after time ~ children )
1
Reading Ross Douthat is always an education. As a "card carrying" liberal and "recovering" Catholic, i generally disagree with everything he says while at the same time appreciating the grace and erudition of the way he says it. I am sometimes caught off guard to find myself agreeing with him, and for three quarters of this article i thought today was going to be one of those times. But he lost me with the statement that "(S)emi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger". What possible moral vision could encompass the civilian sale of weapons designed solely and specifically to kill as many people as possible, whatever the buyer's age? I agree that moral arguments generally should not operate (solely) on empirical grounds, however, it is empirically the case that if this young man (or any man) had not been able to acquire this specific type of weapon most, possibly all, of the 17 human beings now dead would be alive. What is it about this that seems so difficult to understand?
3
Interesting thoughts. The owning, and use, of guns has become ubiquitous in American society, seemingly a 'rightful' demand that weapons be available to anybody requesting it, forgetting that any 'right' must carry the obligation to be responsible about it. It is as if this country is not recognized as civilized enough to follow the rule of law, and recognizing that the government nowadays is not, if we can keep it democratic, out there to get us, and remove free expression and a free press or the healthy independence of the different branches of it, to guarantee some degree of justice and peace in society. We do not need an amendment for independent militias nor citizens to arm themselves with military style weapons, just in case. That is a cowboy mentality we had when we were conquering the wild west, and where the guns where the only vehicle for self-defense. The 'John Wayne' complex is absurd nowadays, a macho man image of a make-believe hero that, in real life, never saw the light of day to defend the country. In brief, the unrestricted availability of guns in these United States must stop. Whether we have the will to stop the carnage or not, that is the question. For that to occur, republican prostitutes for the N.R.A. need not apply. We need a body of experts (scientist, educators, parents, real politicians instead of hacks) to dictate the terms for a safer use of guns. We want freedom to do as we please, but not license to abuse it. And that requires discipline.
1
"Perhaps the self-arming of citizens could be similarly staggered. Let 18-year-olds own hunting rifles. Make revolvers available at 21. Semiautomatic pistols, at 25. And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger."
Age of the Las Vegas shooter: 64.
Highest rates of firearm suicide deaths: 65+
Hey, I'll take this deal. We can't get anything done on gun control, and if this is what conservatives want, then great, I'll take it. It's way better than nothing.
Now that the terms are established, how long do we have to wait for conservatives to pass this legislation? My guess: forever. But please, pass it and surprise me!
Age is no indication of maturity so setting an age that someone could own an assault weapon is ridiculous. The Second Amendment states "a well regulated militia" which to me means the United States military and police departments which are regulated.
1
The fatal flaw in the gun ownership as badge of self-reliant citizenship argument is this: it does not address the difference between civilian and military weapons. When dad kept a bolt action deer rifle, a shotgun and a revolver, no one cared -- as long as he didn't carry the pistol around someplace that was illegal. (And gee, the US government did not become tyrannical in all those decades it had us way outgunned!) What is new and dangerous is that anyone can obtain what is indisputably and anti-personnel weapon explicitly designed for military use. Tge AR-15 is simply a commercial version of the M16. For the same reason that we cannot buy machine guns, rocket launchers or hand grenades, we should not be allowed to buy these people-killing rifles.
1
I think the crucial distinction between the (absurdly overstated by Douthat) “anti-gun” view and the “pro-gun” view is that the anti-gun view doesn’t kill people. Until we are all perfect models of self-control, might it not be better to err on the side of caution? And as others have stated, NO ONE needs or should have an AR-15. It’s obscene.
1
Ross,
I have been making this tiered argument here in the comments sections and in letters to the Editor (not printed) for years.
The reason for this is simple. SCIENCE has shown that young people's long term consequence section of their brains is not fully developed until they are in their mid 20's.
Therefore, there is good science to suggest that a "reasonable" restriction onto a Constitutional Right is warranted for these young people.
As to the folks out there that do not think it is a right, the court has already made that decision. If you do not like it them change the Constitution. Until that time work on ideas that will try to stop some, even if not all, the shootings.
So Ross, did your idea come about spontaneously or have you been reading my comments?
I like the fact that a conservative is writing in favor of some type of sense. The central feature of "sense" to me is that the writer is talking about sensible gun controls. The fact the a conservative is even having a conversation that looks like this seems like a breakthrough.
With that said I see no purpose for anyone in regular every day life needing to own an AR-15. A gun of like that serves 0 purpose. It will not save lives, it is not for hunting. Its sole purpose is to kill as many people as quickly as possible. Perhaps it could also be used to provide cover in a combat situation. Thats it.
I do not see this country as a place that a weapon like this would ever be needed. I don't really care how scared a person might be. We are not in a war zone where warlords run the country. Sure a gun like this could be fun to fire at the range once or twice but anyone that owns one of these guns and acts like it is a gun that has a valuable purpose in our society is a nut case.
3
Your arguments are pretzel-like in their circularity. The NRA is funded by gun manufacturers who will never accept halfway measures. The Republicans are clinging to a shrinking political base for dear life. The rest of the world looks on in wonder.
Short of repealing the second amendment, one day the Supreme court might effectively narrow it to its original meaning, you know that thing about militias. That would be a good start. Next, I wish Michael Bloomberg or some other billionaire would buy a gun company and use technology to make these things safer. Most sane gun owners would support safer guns and like seat belts and air bags did for cars eventually the market would change.
1
Treat guns like cars.
Require a license, issued after training and a test.
Require insurance.
Register each gun.
Mandatory safety features (magazine size, assault weapons, etc.)
If anyone says their second amendment rights are being infringed, take them to the nearest highway to show them that those rules have not harmed a thriving car culture.
1
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" in the U.S. Constitution refers to rifled and smooth bore muskets that yielded no more than 3 shots per minute by a highly trained infantryman. Given the common sense of the Founding Fathers, it is hard to believe they would have supported general ownership of rifles that fire more than 100 rounds per minute.
in what country, on what planet, does owning and using a semi-automatic weapon constitute a 'right' of citizenship? That these kinds of arguments can still be offered ('And semi-automatic rifles could be sold to 30-year olds but no one younger') by serious cultural commentators in serious news organisations just proves the extent of our madness as a culture, a society, a country.
1
"I am not a gun owner but I can imagine many situations and political dispensations in which a morally responsible citizen should own a weapon;"
Funny, I can only think of one situation; if you happen to live in an incredibly high crime area.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect liberty—not by giving individuals guns for defense against criminals and tyrants—but to ensure that the military power rested in the hands of the people. The founders believed the best way to protect the people against the king's soldiers was for the people to be the king's soldiers. A militia of citizens could not be used by the government to oppress those same citizens.
In recent years, our perception of how the 2nd amendment protects our liberty has shifted. In part this is because the original purpose of the amendment is obsolete with today's professional armies and advanced weapons. To fill the void, we've shifted to believing that the purpose of the amendment is to grant individuals the right to use deadly force to protect their persons, property, and liberty from perceived threats. The 2nd amendment is now seen as securing a fundamental right to use deadly force in self defense or in rebellion against an oppressive government.
In most other countries the idea that individuals have a fundamental right to use deadly force against perceived threats to person, property, or liberty—whether those threats are from other individuals or from their democratically elected government—is seen as crazy. The right to use such force is strictly regulated to prevent chaos and murder. In the US, chaos and murder are instead seen as "the price of freedom." It's far too high a price—and rather than buying us freedom, it buys us death.
1
The subject of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia". Make membership in armed forces, National Guard, law enforcement or some form of militia regulated by local government mandatory for gun ownership. Do as the Founders intended, not what promotes sales for the NRA's sponsors. End of problem.
2
Let me re-write two important paragraphs for you, Ross, since you seem to have dismissed the anti-gun position as one based on hysteria:
"The anti-gun moral vision, meanwhile, links arms and the citizen, treating the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as an essential civic good, a means of maintaining Americans as free people rather than prisoners of the NRA.
The anti-gun vision is linked, of course, to practical concerns--opposition to gun ownership is higher in areas where people tend to congregate in large public spaces like schools, churches, movie theaters, nightclubs, and street festivals, making self-defense inconvenient if not impossible. But it's essentially a moral-political picture in which the fullness of citizenship includes the right to protect and defend, to step up when the state fails and to resist when it ignores the will of the majority of Americans."
There. That's better.
1
Stephen Paddock was 64. So I'm sure he was clearly exercising responsible gun ownership that only comes with maturity and age when he shot up the concert in Las Vegas. What's happening in our schools is a senseless tragedy. Sadly it is only part of the picture.
1
When the Second Amendment was enacted in 1791, guns were radically different than today. The common firearm was a single shot revolver or rifle. Repeating weapons existed, but were not in common use. Even skilled marksmen could not take more than 3 accurate shots per minute. The perils of daily life were different. Guns were used to hunt for food and protect the isolated population from wild animals, or human violence in the absence of organized police or army.
So, by the most literal interpretation, the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear smooth barrel, unsighted, hand loaded weapons requiring gunpowder, ball cartridge and cartridge paper. Also, this right of the people relates to the existence of a “well-regulated militia”. There are somewhere between 1 and 1.5 million Federal state and local law enforcement officers in the US. Today’s firearms technology was not considered by the Founding Fathers and not covered by the Second Amendment. Today the rate of fire for a repeating weapon with large cap magazine is about 30 rounds a minute – higher than 227 years ago.
We don't need evidence that the 'hands off' approach doesn't work. Why not something like driver/vehicle license programs.
Finally, how many more gun disasters before Congress acts on gun control? Do we really need to continue the chicken or egg discussion on whether guns kill people? Why has a single-issue organization like the NRA paralyzed Congress on this?
1
Please review basic American history. The Second Amendment was approved in 1791, the same year the original "standing army" was allowed and created by the US Government. Until then, the hate of the British Army caused many to fear large standing armies and depend exclusively on militias, regulated by the towns and states where they existed. So the approval of the Second Amendment knew they needed to have "a well regulated militia" and that the participants needed to maintain their own firearms. They never foresaw or intended this amendment to be so twisted as to allow even mental patients to have access to modern weapons like an AR-15. (Obama created rules that people with mental illness to the point they are disabled and receive Supplemental Social Security benefits could not buy weapons, Trump and the GOP removed that).
1
"... since every abortion kills but guns sit harmless in millions of households and many deter violence or turn back evil men." Ross Douthat would be hard-pressed to support his claim that "many" guns, not including guns in the hands of on-duty police officers, "turn back evil men." Much male aggression is outer directed and for millennia, celebrated. Hunting except to obtain food is predatory. Some males "hunt" women in a predatory fashion. Equating abortion and guns is illogical. Abortion in the first trimester involves a woman's decision not to continue to gestate a new human life in her body. The traditionally "sin" oriented religious view of out of wedlock pregnancy stems from male dominance over women and women's offspring. While there are many self-respecting reasons for a woman not to choose to terminate a pregnancy, in an aggression-friendly, testosterone fueled world, a woman's terminating an unwanted pregnancy might be preferable to gestating a child for nine months and then raising that child among "moral values" based stigma, working while someone else raises one's child, or "surrendering" one's born child to religiously based or profit based adoption. Women seeking egalitarian partnerships with males often still find themselves on the defense. The photo accompanying Ross's op-ed piece speaks volumes of reality. Nice move on Ross's part linking abortion with guns. Of course, there are guns and there are guns.
The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. The courts have applied this fact time and time again to curtailing some sort of literal translation of the Constitution that all can own or use whatever they want.
We don't see people walking down the street with bazookas strapped to their back, nor do we allow firearms everywhere. ( airports and the like )
So, there are restrictions and the Congress has acted before to curtail peoples' so called absolute ( what they think ) rights. They have also done the reverse. ( like republicans did last year in allowing the mentally ill have no restrictions in getting firearms )
Logic and sensibility would dictate that you do not need any weapon that fires off a 1000 bullets ( that pierce armor ) a minute and you do not need the magazines that hold 100's of those bullets at a time. ( effectively allowing someone to fire off a million bullets before even the fastest response time by authorities.
But logic and common sense are not applicable to the politics of this situation, nor to the outsized hold that the NRA has on members of Congress. ( since even a majority of their members poll consistently in the high 80's for sensible controls )
This is not a right or left issue but one of life and death.
( inclusive of time after time ~ children )
1
At least Douthat doesn't fall into the all too familiar trap of claiming the Left believes this and this only, while the Right believes that and that only. That divide is what the "officials" in our tribally-divided government believe. The rest of are closer to believing a decent portion of this while also believing a decent slice of that. Douthat has proposed an idea that seems imminently sensible. Does he think anyone in Washington -- or maybe more importantly Fairfax, Va. -- will give his idea anything more than a backhand to the mouth?
The only way this will ever change is to get money out of politics. Money is what is distorting Congress, making it so elected officials represent their mega-donors, not citizens. The NRA is just leveraging opportunity.
1
Gun control is the only solution.
This passage from Wikipedia about Britain and guns.
“In the United Kingdom, access by the general public to firearms is tightly controlled by law. .which is much more restrictive than the minimum rules required by the European Firearms Directive, but it is less restrictive in Northern Ireland. The country has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world.[1] There were 0.05 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in the five years to 2011 (15 to 38 people per annum). Gun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year 2011.[2] There is some concern over the availability of illegal firearms.[3][4][5] Office for National Statistics figures show 7,866 offences in which firearms were involved in the year ending March 2015, 2% up on the previous year and the first increase in 10 years. Of these, 19 were fatalities, 10 fewer than the previous year and the lowest since records began in 1969.[6] There was a further rise to 8,399 in the year ending March 2016, the highest number in four years, but significantly lower than the all-time high of 24,094 in 2003/04. Twenty-six resulted in fatal injuries.
Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 with the exception of Northern Ireland. Dunblane was the UK's first and only school shooting...”
Gun control is the only solution.
41
Ross, abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with gun control. Why would you not consider the moral aborance of having so many guns? Morality my eye.
34
The NRA is stuck on stupid. Of course it is people, not the weapon, that make the decision to kill but the point is, it's easier to commit mass murder with a highly efficient, high capacity rifle like the AR. When I first fired the M-16 in Air Force boot camp years ago, my first thought was "man, this is an efficient killing machine" and I was just using the semi-automatic setting. When it comes to firearms, we cannot ban them out right, but we should do some extreme vetting on who can own them, how they are marketed, and who sells and buys the ammo.
17
A solution.
Americans over the age of 21, not convicted of a felony, or a mental illness, can own all the guns of any type they desire; however they must be stored at Federally operated gun storage facilities and may not be removed.
The following firearms are not required to be stored in the Federal Firearms Repository:
1. Single-shot rifles with barrels no shorter than 16” and calibers less than 50. No ammunition introduced after 2000 is permitted.
2. Single or two-shot shotguns with barrels no shorter than 18”.
3. Antique firearms not capable of using metallic cartridges.
4. Demilled military firearms rendered incapable of firing live ammunition.
5. Non-cartridge black powder antique or replica firearms; these weapons may not be carried concealed.
We have plenty of shuttered military facilities and former industrial plants that could be easily converted to Federal Firearms Depositories with a variety of shooting ranges. The facilities would be open everyday so gun owners could enjoy their firearms by paying a modest fee to cover the costs of operating the facility. Private concerns, including the National Rifle Association, could also be licensed to operate in the same way.
9
Lets start with this:
Gun Violence despite the sensationalism of the Left has essentially been in a free fall since the 90's
Mass shootings are primarily a MENTAL HEALTH issue.
The Mental Health system in this country is a national disgrace
What we need is dollars to fix that NOT tax cuts for Billionaires and Mega Corporations!
You could ban and confiscate every AR in America tomorrow and unfortunately sometime in the very near future some troubled individual would find a way to get his name on the front page of the NY Times.
The Times and the Post and CNN and all the other media outlets would make sure his name was spelled correctly and that he got his full 15 minutes.
2
It's ironic that the original St. Valentine's Day Massacre of 1929 (89 years ago), which involved two Thompson sub-machine guns and killed only seven people, was considered one of the deadliest days of mob violence. Four professional gangsters orchestrated the killing. Even though the victims were violent criminals the incident sparked enough outrage to contribute to the end of Prohibition.
Maybe we can turn the tide fully against the NRA's madness with this current St. Valentines Day Massacre in which over twice the number of people were killed, all innocent victims in this case, with a single gun by an undersize teenager.
13
Ok how about this? Let's remove training, licensing and insurance requirements for all drivers over 25. And while we are at it, let's institute a stand your ground law that excuses accidents for everyone. How does that sound?
22
Oh please, get real. There is NO place for the AR-15 in a civilian population, and there is no reason to believe that 30 year olds are not going to resell guns or provide them to others. Stop trying to placate the NRA with these ridiculous suggestions that do nothing to address the real issues. We had a ban on assault weapons for 10 years and our democracy survived, as did the Second Amendment. First step-- ban these killing machines that have no purpose besides mass murder. Private citizens don't get surface to air missiles or tanks either. It's a no-brainer.
54
Beware of the Blob. Ross, mate, you are in a bubble. That gap you say is "too wide to be easily bridged by incrementalism" isn't really.
Politicians and pundits and think tankers and policy makers may stake out positions and dig in their heels. That is how they (you) get published.
But for most people, the argument isn't so hard to settle. Gun owners don't want their kids to get shot either. And liberals don't expect everyone to give up shooting sports.
It's the extremes that make the papers. But most people can agree on better background checks, keeping guns safely out of the hands of kids and people with violent tendencies, and limiting war weapons to gun clubs and shooting ranges.
One more thing: liability insurance. If you hurt me, I'll sue you for medical costs and compensation. I'll expect a big payout.
20
Question for Ross Douthat: Why should ANYONE (except military personnel), at ANY age, have the right to own an AR-15, which is essentially a mass murder machine?
40
Discussing guns and abortion in this column, Ross Douthat explicitly characterizes women’s wanting to control their reproductive lives as “selfish individualism.” Then he approvingly mentions gun owners’ desire to resist illegitimate impositions of power by the state.
My question to Ross is this: Is it legitimate for the state to force women to give birth against their will, imposing your Catholic beliefs on Jews like me whose religion holds that personhood begins at birth and abortion isn’t murder?
30
So: ageism!!!
No. the problem is not the need to protect oneself and one's family. the problem is our society's abdication of the need to provide safety for its citizens.
60 years ago my parents were talking to an official of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. He was talking about "colored" neighborhoods and he said, and I quote: "We don't send the police in there. We don't care if they kill each other."
We have not been willing to devote sufficient resources to the development of responsible adults/families/ and children as well as not being willing to pay for necessary safety measures. The economic opportunities of high school graduates have collapsed into not much. Their educations are also poorly funded and poorly designed. We abandoned our kids and then we wonder why our civil discourse is dissolving. We need healthy families:
NOW that means family planning because it's economically impossible to raise kids safely and well unless you are wealthy. Come down off the RC moral platitudes: birth control is essential in our modern world. Unplanned children are at much much much greater risk of abuse and neglect: leading to mental illness, addiction and criminal behavior. Give it up Ross: admit that we don't support children and families and the cheapest way to do this is birth control!!!
2
Ross, please thread the needle here.
The common denominator in all the problems you make your living off of opining about — is men! Violence, pornography, harassment, unwanted pregnancy.
Why no mention of this?
OK, so guns don't kill people. Men do.
Domestic violence — mostly male perpetrated.
Sexual harassment — men again.
Hunting — men mostly.
Wars? Men.
You can fill in the blanks on all the other subjects. Without "boys acting like boys" would any of these problems exist?
Let's ban all gun sales to men.
We will never have any systems in place to screen out those who shouldn't have guns at all. But we have had systems in place to prevent all women from accessing over the counter morning after pills. Why? Because it was thought girls wouldn't use it properly.
And not for nothing, but women generally support what is good for men, and a lot of what women support is good for men and bad for women.
Do it, Ross. Focus on what's wrong with men.
12
The hunting culture of rural areas is not worth saving if the cost is mass murder everywhere else. What sort of moral calculus is that? i don't hunt so this seems obvious to me. But It is impossible to separate rural habits from urban habits in the US today. It is also impossible to confiscate the hundreds of millions of weapons laying around the country so let's just end this debate right now. We are not going to pry the guns from the cold dead hands of Mr. Heston or anyone else.
The people slaughtered in night clubs, in movie theaters, at concerts, at church or in schools are the cost of this gun loving culture. It is acceptable and reasonable to the gun owners, makers, and sellers in this country. Their fun is more important than these deaths. That's just the way it is. I personally find it morally repugnant, but the NRA and its members are content with this trade off. Go figure.
Shame, shun, and harass the gun nuts. There is no other solution and even that probably won't work. Oh well. Too bad, so sad.
12
Of course, the man who killed an wounded all those innocent people in Las Vegas was 64. Under Douthat's regime, he was fine having all those guns, all that ammunition, and killing all those people. Douthat is in love of the hypothetical situation where a person may need a weapon (I grew up in the country and we never needed one for self defense) and the death that is stalking our entire country. If this argument is the best he can muster in the face of the slaughter of children, he is the one who is morally vacant.
24
Well! We have a "However!"
Tiny chinks are beginning to appear in some conservatives' blind moral absolutism on guns.
4
It's hard to imagine a discussion of gun ownership and access to AR-15s without taking into account the role of the NRA but, save for a glancing aside, Mr. Douthat manages this feat. It's not simply a question of political positions or philosophy when 1) the NRA's resources are behind the argument for unlimited gun ownership; 2) the corpses of children keep piling up. Reason and humanity cry out for an end to this slaughter. Mr. Douthat's column amounts to navel-gazing. He's wasting everyone's time when his conclusion is that civilians over the age of 30 should be allowed to own a weapon designed to murder the greatest number in the shortest amount of time.
15
Heller was a jurisprudentially and intellectually flawed 5/4 decision on the Second Amendment alleged right to bear arms.
It’s not good law. Some day the case will be overruled and America will join the rest of civilized nations in the West and ban private gun ownership or severly restrict it.
12
On the one hand, this column by Ross Douthat represents an admirable compromise and recognition of the truth of gun fetishization in America. But let's not forget the capitalist element either: like recent advertisements on TV for Cabela's "Second Amendment Promotion" in which buyers are encouraged to go out and buy guns in celebration of the ability to do so. Yay. Buy an AR-15 because the Constitution says you can. Wave the flag at the cash register.
On the other hand, the vapidity of arguments like "we need guns for self defense" undermines whatever positives are in this column. Guns lead to more crime and death, not less.
Bottom line is that Douthat and those like him are willing to sacrifice schoolchildren for their "principles" that keep America flooded with guns, unlike all other developed nations. The gun fetish is not an isolated phenomenon linked to the "anomie" of young males. The gun fetish is lifelong and obviously affects middle age, as made clear by the gun fetishist who slaughtered the concertgoers in Las Vegas.
It gets harder and harder for "conservatives" to justify gun culture in America, but they don't stop trying. Maybe after a few dozen more school slaughters, maybe a few mass murders of preschool children, and they might start to admit that America has a gun problem. Pathetically, "conservatives" devoted to "life" seem to believe that owning an AR-15 is necessary to prove you're a real man and red-blooded American.
7
"the fullness of adult citizenship is not bestowed at once"
Does this statement suggest that the right to own a gun is 'bestowed' by the State? The Second Amendment says it the opposite way: the right to gun ownership is already extant and the State cannot infringe it.
Seems like your thinking is backwards.
1
This column, as well as the whole gun-rights argument, is based on a legerdemain that tries to link owning guns to high-minded citizenship.
It's not the 18th century. Today, owning guns--or owning a private arsenal, as is often the case--is no more an expression of citizenship and the foundational "right to liberty" than owning a collection of periwigs. Worse, to argue, as gun rights defenders do, that owning guns is some kind of insurance against government overstep, is a truly pathetic example of unchecked male fantasy. To all noble citizens (mostly men) with arsenals: Wake up, fellows. The government, should it so choose, could blow away you, your family, your home and your guns in under a minute.
Here's another reality: Say I'm a very quiet, sane American male on the outside. But say one day I decide one day, while no one is paying attention, that I want to become a sniper. I can google, "What's the best gun for a sniper?" Or say I'm unhappy on a given day with the way things are going and, because I think it will make me feel better, I will murder a lot of people on my way out. All I have to do to become part of the coterie of "citizens" Ross celebrates is google, "What's the best AR-15"? Either of these questions instantaneously results in 10 charming choices, any one of which I can have in my possession within 24 hours.
Morality, you say? American gun rights as the foundation of American citizenship, you say? Sorry, but this is a bridge too far.
43
At this point we cannot even get basic common sense gun control measures put in place, due primarily to NRA dollars and fear of being primaried from the right. However, and I say this as a rural gun owner, serious background checks and a ban on high capacity magazines will not significantly impact legal gun ownership and will do much to reduce these tragically senseless mass killings. The ability for an untrained individual to put 30-60-90 rounds into a room full of people needs to be restricted. It is simply too easy for a deranged person to do so. We restrict the right to own fully automatic weapons for the same reason. The NRA must be defeated on at least these simple common sense measures.
22
You made one true statement, that being you don't own a gun. Reading your
solution as age based was the proof. .
I do not belong to the NRA and I despise their organization. Likewise, I have no assault weapons and never will have.
Gun safety and the responsible use of firearms is taught, whether one is ten or twenty years of age. In boot camp in the Navy, fully one third of the Company I was in were removed from the firing line for safety violations. These were all teenagers for the most part. Those of us from rural areas having been raised with guns, performed well. Those who had no previous exposure to guns, not so much.
But guns kill people, particularly those guns designed exclusively for that purpose. They have no place in the civilian world. If you need more than ten shots to hit your target, you don't need a larger capacity magazine, you need more time on the practice range.
Owning a firearm is a responsibility just like owning an automobile. If you are careless with either, there needs to be a penalty involved. Too often, we hear of loaded firearms left within reach of toddlers or preteen children resulting in a bad outcome. The irresponsible adult needs to be confronted with his/her failure to protect the child.
Gun control will come be it one state at a time. I welcome it. Responsible gun owners are being tainted by the extreme views of whom I think are the minority among those of us who own guns. They don't speak for me.
20
“I have encountered many communities where “gun culture” seems healthy and responsible rather than a bloodthirsty cult.”
This was a more valid statement prior to the gun industry subsuming the NRA in the late 1970’s. Most NRA members are for sensible gun laws. The industry and the hierarchy of the NRA see any gun law as antithetical to their mission; profit.
4
The rich and powerful who moo the loudest for common people to lose access to guns live their lives behind armed guards and live in exclusive places behind walls ans more people with guns.
Now we understand why you never say, ''Just live like we do.''
Sorry, but ALL the places that no one with a brain ever wants to go live are all places where the government controls all the guns - and controls all the people.
I'll take my chances living free. Sorry, progressives.
A little empiricism would help here. The shooter in Las Vegas was over 60, and the shooter in San Bernadino was over 50, so this isn't really the answer. One needs to address both the propensity to violence and the capacity to engage in it. The latter is addressed by reducing the lethality of weapons available to the public--size of magazines, assault weapons--and the number of weapons that a person can accumulate. None of these restrictions would interfere with the right to bear arms.
10
This is not a moral question as Douthat asserts - it is a pragmatic question; a question of statistics.
The number of school shootings in our country dwarfs those in countries around the world. To suggest that this statistic is the result of something other than the easy access to army-grade guns is an unsupportable point of view.
Gun-control advocates don't want stricter gun control for moral reasons. We want it because we don't want our children to get shot, and making it harder for people to get guns will improve our family's chances of not getting shot.
13
I have a hard time trusting in Douthat's “moral intuition" if, when forced to choose between a gun culture and a no-gun culture, he'd default to guns. If forced into a binary choice, the right one is obvious.
I appreciate the willingness for incremental change, but his age-based restriction regime is truly weak stuff. Sure, it plays to the current outrage about recent school shootings, but fails to address the larger issue: the benefit of free ownership of weapons of mass murder do not outweigh the damage done to our society. You don’t have to be shot to be have been harmed by what happened to Florida. Children and parents in the other 49 states are all experiencing some degree of PTSD on the horrible news alone.
Douthat would legalize AR-15s for 30 year-olds. Would he legalize machine guns for 40-somethings and RPGs for those over 50? How old do I have to be to have artillery? It's just for target practice -- what's the harm?
8
I totally agree with Douthat's reasoning. In fact, someday, when we have much more powerful weapons than an AR-15, weapons that can pulverize a person with a single shot, those should definitely not be available to anyone under 38.
9
The notion that Americans need guns to defend themselves against the government is ludicrous. While that may have been true between 1776 and 1783, when the government was 3,000 miles away, it has completely lost its reality. I find it curious that the very same people who dredge up the archaism that "a few good men" armed with AR15s can stave off the American military are the same people who call the American armed forces the greatest fighting machine in the history of the world. Is that one of the situations you can imagine, Ross, when it would be a moral duty to own an AR15? Lottsa luck.
7
We don’t need some convoluted scheme, what’s really needs to be done is simple: No civilian needs a semi-automatic weapon, end of story. Any need for hunting, target shooting, or defense, can be met by a single-action weapon. If need be, let civilians apply to local law enforcement for a rigorously evaluated needs based exception.
10
I grew up with guns in rural Fresno in the 50's. Our home had a nice built in gun case. Guns were for hunting, target shooting and if needed in an extreme situation, home defense. As America became more urbanized, fewer of us bought guns. As a result the firearms industry moved away from bolt action deer rifles and trap and skeet shotguns to assault rifles and hi-cap semi-auto pistols. The marketing changed too. The AR-15 knock off used at Newtown was advertised as "Get your man card reissued." Another said " Be a one man fire team" with their product. Promoting this "Ramboism" by the gn companies the NRA and the National Shooting "Sports" Foundation is a big part of the problem
13
The ‘Perhaps the self-arming...’ solution you present utterly fails in providing any reason why anyone in a civilian capacity should be able to own an AR-15, young or not. These weapons are built for mass murder. It’s ridiculous, the Vegas killer wasn’t young. Next time present some evidence how a civilian has ‘defended’ freedom with an AR. What about the rest of us who would rather enjoy our freedom instead of worrying about a heavily armed person ‘defending freedom’?
10
No reason for anyone outside of law enforcement or military to own an assault rifle. Your argument is disappointing and overlooks the two main issues: the insane number of guns in America and the NRA controlling our elected officials.
8
I'm very surprised at the suggestion in your column as I generally find your arguments to be well thought out (whether or not I agree with them). The idea of age staggering gun ownership suggests that the problem is with youth. Stephen Paddock (the Las Vegas shooter) was 64 years old and this is not an isolated example. While I agree that gun ownership should not be banned; that there are legitimate reasons (home protection, hunting) for owning hand guns and hunting rifles, who really needs a semi-automatic rifle? At what age should a citizen be permitted to purchase a grenade launcher or a surface to air missile?
4
Why should semi-automatic weapons be sold to anyone? There's no civilian use whatsoever - people hunt for sport these days not food and even so our forebears managed to survive with single shot rifles. Self-defense? Likewise, blazing away at an intruder with a magazine clip seems absurd. Let's have true, sensible gun laws including none for people with a history of domestic violence, none for mentally ill, no militarized weaponry at all, background checks etc. But alas the NRA and gun sellers are too entrenched in the pockets of the legislatures.
7
Good thinking. After so many decades (really, since Kennedy was shot in Dallas) it's become obvious that a new approach is needed; thanks for taking a stab at it. I wish more thoughtful people would try. The same old arguments aren't getting us anywhere.
Lately I find myself thinking that it's the culture that needs to change. And that can only happen incrementally.
We could, for instance, turn our attention away from "gun control" and back to "handgun control". That would address the worst source of violence while respecting the decent practical and sporting use of long guns. And it would create a common interest between the blue-state anti-gun people and the red-state deer and duck hunting types. It doesn't address last weeks horror but it would move the whole culture in a better direction.
"Perhaps the self-arming of citizens could be similarly staggered. Let 18-year-olds own hunting rifles. Make revolvers available at 21. Semiautomatic pistols, at 25. And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger."
Abdication of responsibility. Great. Here's another idea: bullets shall cost $20 each. Works with cigarettes.
4
Incredibly tone deaf and disinterested attitude, Mr. Douthat.
Please give me a really good reason why anyone should own a weapon that fires and can kill at the rate of 400 - 600 rounds per minute?
This is not about hunting or self-defense (unless you think that someday we all have to fight against the US Army because the government has been taken over by thugs - and maybe you're right with Trump at the helm). No, really, there is NO REASON that anyone should own this type of weapon. No reason for each of us over 30 to own a nuclear weapon, as well. Your argument does not hold.
9
Douthat, you miss the point. It is not a matter of taking guns away, but being sensible. Strong background checks, a license like a driver's license that requires the gun buyer to be an adult, educated and trained in gun safety, and yes, banning assault-type rifles, which are military weapons designed for one thing, to kill.
3
I think Mr. Douthat may be on to something here. But I think we should ALSO tie gun ownership to behavior. I work in an alternative school. Before students are suspended, expelled, or referred to the police, they are given many, many chances. I propose this: any student expelled or with a juvenile conviction for stalking, bullying, weapons, drug selling, or violent act against a person or animal, should have to wait 10 years for a weapons permit of any kind. It is ridiculous that dangerous juvenile offenders have there records magically wiped clean at age 18.
4
Good idea. Although, if my (and other's) suspicion is correct, that most of the gun debate is controlled by the gun industry's lobby, and that like most businesses (especially lethal ones like cigarettes and guns), gun manufacturers want to get kids hooked early, this idea will fail miserably in Congress as well. If Congress were able to look at the issue on moral grounds, then we wouldn't have much of a gun debate anymore.
3
One more gun sold is one more gun in the 'pool' of potential users.
I like your approach to the problem but I think you may be over optimistic (or naive?) to suggest that age restrictions on gun purchases will have any meaningful impact on accessibility .
You defeated the straw man - way to go! As anyone paying any attention knows, the "anti-gun" position has been and remains to have sensible regulations regarding gun ownership and use - a discussion we could actually have. The "pro-gun" position has been and remains no discussion whatsoever unless it involves getting MORE guns into the hands of Americans. There is no equivalency to this "debate" - one side sees a problem and wants to solve it, the other side wants to keep on pretending to be heroic cowboys who are defending us from bad guys (and the smart ones just want their stock prices to keep rising).
6
I have a proposal modeled upon associations of professionals like lawyers and doctors. Advocates of gun ownership frequently praise the "responsible American gun owner." Rather than constantly engaging in political combat with them, which has gotten us nowhere, let us instead ask gun owners to live up to their claim. As with other professional associations, gun owners would be required to take educational courses and pass proficiency examinations prior to obtaining a license that would allow the purchase of a firearm. In order to obtain a license a candidate would have to be recommended by three currently licensed individuals. The recommendations would have to attest to the good character of the candidate and his or her fitness to own a firearm. If, after obtaining a license, the candidate uses a firearm criminally or recklessly, the people who recommended that candidate could have their own licenses to own firearms reviewed. That would ensure that recommendations are not made irresponsibly. Just as no person can practice medicine or law without a license, no unlicensed person could purchase or own a firearm from any source.
Other elements of professional associations, such as continuing education, mandatory insurance, and the establishment of disciplinary procedures, could be adopted. The important thing is that it would be the responsible gun owners who would police their field of expertise.
4
You have not given me one reasonable argument why any body whether 15 years or 80 years should own a military style semi-automatic or automatic gun which intended to kill people. Also I would like Mr. Douthat to she any research that demonstrates usefulness of AR-15s for self defence particularly in rural America. The desire and infatuation of the conservatives has even thing to do with their distrust of the authority and fear of the minority. It about the time the Americans and particularly young Americans learn for Me Too Movement and mobilize every one who is against the madness of gun and show to the politicians who are serving NRA that this will not be allowed to continue.
3
"The reason that mass shootings aren’t leading to legislative action is that we have a chasm between two sweeping moral visions, one pro-gun and one anti-gun, that is now too wide to be easily bridged by incrementalism".
No Ross, its because one side benefits financially from the status quo and refuses to listen to empirical evidence.
There are 300 million guns in circulation concentrated in 40% of American households, many of which are vast arsenals of weaponry. The compulsion to collect guns this way IS a symptom of mental illness. 60% of households don't see the need for gun ownership but this overwhelming majority cannot be heard through the din of misinformation produced by your party.
1
We have these kinds of gun-sprees by AR-15s for one reason and one alone.
Men want them. To do what? Many say to defend their second amendment rights. Others, to defend the ol' homestead.
Please write about what it is about AR-15s and guns that is so appealing to men that the deaths of the Sandy Hook kids, the Orlando nightclub victims, the Las Vegas victims and now these teenagers never even enters into their discussions.
When women demand a right that men don't enjoy, they are told "no."
2
Why don't we let the free market help solve this problem. Simply require anyone owning a gun or buying a gun show proof of insurance that they have a $1M policy that would be paid if they shoot someone that is not armed. Police would also need to have such a policy. Then insurance companies would not likely issue policies to people with mental illness, people who were in a lot of fights in school, people who have physically assaulted spouses or children, people who shoot hunting partners in the face etc, or simply anyone who has already shot someone else. Every gun would need to carry the policy, and put a $100,000 fine or 1 year in jail for anyone who does not comply. Parents would have to take on the responsibility for anyone under 21. Make the policies tax deductible for the first 5 years. The people or families that are victims of the gun violence would be the beneficiaries. It would seem that a safe law abiding person would be charged less than the cost of the gun, or the ammo.
4
You seem to take as a given that our current limits on armaments are precisely the God-given absolute correct ones. That is, semi-automatic rifles are OK but that's the limit. Why not automatic rifles? Why not flame throwers? Your arguments would support those and more as well. And at the same time you argue as though opponents are pushing for a complete ban on all firearms. You would never know it from your article, but the actual debate is focused on what types of armaments should be generally available and, for those that are, what are reasonable restrictions.
Why can't we ban all semi-automatic weapons, period, including all means for adapting ordinary guns to fire at a very rapid rate?
Why can't we require background checks for all guns, period?
Why can't the privilege of gun ownership be revoked, at least for a substantial period of time, for anyone who has a history of violence?
The reason we don't have a reasonable set of limits and rules regarding guns has nothing to do with your high-minded philosophical theories. It's about money, lobbying, and the nutcase blood-soaked guns-everywhere-for-everyone-all-the-time NRA. We need the NRA to be associated, as it should be, with violence, mayhem, blood, and death. It must become an embarrassment to be a member. An "A" NRA grade should be the death knell for any politician. Until then, each massacre will be another reason we need to be afraid, another reason we need to buy more guns, and another NRA triumph.
4
I am a anti gun person, however I live in the city. I can see the need for a gun in other parts of the country. I do not feel like guns should be banned however I do feel that there should be restrictions on who should have one and what types should be sold. In general I feel no one should have a semi automatic gun and there is no need for large magazine's. The argument by gun people that they need this stuff in case they have to fight an aggressive federal government is just nuts. I believe the left gets so nuts over this issue because the right will not even utter the word "GUN" while they act so proud of their NRA ratting and publically take their money.
2
No one should have semi-automatic weapons.
2
How about this for an out of the box solution: For every mass shooting the NRA is fined one million dollars per person killed and 500k for every injury to the victims families for blocking any attempts at regluation. In addition, every legislator who has received donations from the NRA is fined 50K. The numbers are abitrary but whatever it takes to hurt them where it counts. Obviously dead children don't do it.
4
OK. It's an idea. But can anyone tell me why any civilian would ever need an assault rifle at any age?
2
There is no “anti-gun” moral vision in the sense Douthat suggests. There is a gun control moral vision. No serious writers or politicians are calling for the banning of all guns and the confiscation of the 300,000,000 million guns in private hands in the United States, as if that was even remotely possible. It is the pro gun side that is uncompromising, resisting all controls, even efforts to keep guns out of the hands of the insane or those on the no-fly list. To suggest that each side is equally extreme, as Douthat does, is dishonest. But I don’t think intentionally so. It is yet another example of a conservative thinker suffering from the cognitive dissonance of seeing his political philosophy reduced to moral bankruptcy when put in action by a government controlled by the GOP. So the only way out is to believe things about the other side that simply are untrue.
2
There are no circumstances to justify assault weapons in the hands of the general public at any age. These are not "defensive weapons" They are offensive weapons designed to spew out multiple rounds of projectiles in a short instant and inflict multiple casualties. Some may want to quibble that weapons like the AR15 are not an "Assault Weapon" because they are semi-automatic not automatic. The military had selector switches on theirs as automatic fire was not as lethal as semi-automatic in many situations. Have no doubt the AR15 and the like are killing machines and have no place in our society.
1
The difference, Mr. Douthat, between the (simplified but recognizable) summaries you give of pro and anti gun views is that the pro gun view is not rooted in reality, and the anti gun view is. This is now one of those debates about which there are not two defensible points of view. The most cold-blooded critical analysis shows that in fact and in real life, the few home invasions or muggings prevented by a "good guy with a gun" are vastly outweighed by the slaughter, accidental shootings, and suicides that result from our gun culture. On the other hand, the fact is that we have fetishized guns, imagining the second amendment enshrined that fetishization in our founding document. The result of that is that we make continuing, daily blood sacrifice of our children to the god of guns and to the priesthood of the NRA. We have, as a nation, literally said that if the price of gun worship is that we will bury our children, that is a price we are willing to pay. Repeatedly. Over and over. I do not want the "thoughts and prayers" of those who worship gun ownership. I want the second amendment repealed, and I want to celebrate a society in which children can skip active shooter drills in kindergarten. Is that really so much to ask?
4
Why does anyone need or should have a right to AR-15 or any other weapon of mass destruction of that type? If we have to, the other timelines are a compromise. The second amendment is treated as if it were one of the ten commandments. It is and should be subject to interpretation and applications to the present. Mr. Douthat, there are plenty of arguments and statistics that can be presented on both sides. Yet, countries other than ours, who do not tolerate the recurrence of these massive shooting murders restrict gun and weapon purchases. This is about big business, profits over people, and it is unconscionable. Looking forward to when our young vote out all the congressional servants of the NRA.
1
No, Mr. Douthat!
Gun possession, gun carrying, gun carelessness, gun suicides, and gun homicides are as American as apple pie. A 2012 Congressional Analysis report estimated that Americans owned 357 million guns. Finding, identifying, cataloging, licensing, or confiscating hundreds of millions of guns is logistically impossible.
We must resign ourselves to the reality that many millions of Americans have a fundamental need for garden variety gun violence, to kill in rage, commit suicide, and inflict random casualties from carelessness.
Let us not attempt to control the single- or semi-automatic weapons that are appropriate for hunting, and self-defense. Let us focus instead on reducing mass killings by controlling the automatic-fire assault weapons and large-capacity ammo magazines that are commonly used in terrorist attacks and school massacres.
The possession and trade of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines should be strictly regulated, like automobiles. Only qualified (licensed) collectors should possess them. A legal assault weapon should be registered to the owner, and the weapon should be insured unless rendered permanently inoperable. Unregistered assault weapons should be confiscated and destroyed, and possession of an unregistered assault weapon should be punished as a serious offense.. State police or the state national guard should manage the regulation of assault weapons and the licensing of qualified collectors.
3
Look for the basic reason that there is a glut of assault weapons in the country and the world, even. It is in the interest of the military to have a well to do arms industry to assure that the military has plenty of options for innovation How best to accomplish this? Make certain that the arms industry has a huge civilian market as a subsidy for the industry. That is the real root of the mass of AR 15s on the market.
The question isn't about how old someone might need to be in order to buy a gun or even to possess a gun. The question is about the use of any gun to harm another person--and, yes, some types of guns have a vastly greater ability to harm many other persons than do other types of guns. No civilian needs an assault rifle in his/her hands to protect himself/herself.
1
Mr. Douthat's idea for age-based restrictions on gun ownership might work IF (and it's a big if) they were limited to sales of "safe" guns where the users could be assured to be the purchasers with biometric lockouts. Otherwise, we just continue to add sticks of dynamite to an area ripe for conflagration.
1
The focus on ar-15s is misguided. It's simply a type of rifle. There are plenty of equally dangerous other types of rifle. If you wanted to ban fast cars, you wouldn't only call them Ferraris. You should want to ban a large class of rifles whose identifying attributes are surprisingly hard to break down. Look at the legal rifles that are sold in California. They are equally dangerous just modified to get past poorly defined regulations.
Handguns should be a bigger priority. They kill far more people a year. They serve almost no purpose other than self defense and killing people. At least with ar-15s people actually hunt with them. It's very rare to see someone hunting with a handgun with the exception of very large revolvers which are never used for any other purpose than hunting.
The most sensible approach to gun violence, which sadly is the new normal, is to view it as a public health menace, like auto accidents, and deal accordingly with regulations against it. I can understand the rural support for firearms. But the appalling lack of congressional action in this country is national and global disgrace.
1
The Las Vegas shooter was 64. So how does age make a difference? States with strict gun control laws have fewer gun related deaths than states with lax gun laws. How about requiring liability insurance for gun owners? Insurance would be different for different kinds of guns with insurance on semi automatic weapons bing the highest and for hunting rifles the lowest. After all, we want responsible gun ownership.
1
Mr. Douthat is wrong. AR-15s and similar high-powered weapons need to be banned, period. Let hobbyists use them at clubs where the guns stay at the clubs, properly stored. Already, he seems to have forgotten that the Newtown shooter's mother was the buyer of the gun he used in the tragedy. She was well over 30. She may have bought her guns for sport and self-defense, but the only real threat facing her was the person who shared her home. And investigators found a receipt for a gun she was purchasing for her son for Christmas. But on December 13, 2012, she would have been applauded as a good guy with a gun. Finally, regarding that "issue that rouses liberal zeal," if I am a zealot because I never again want a student in the U.S. to be running down a hall trying to outrun a spray of bullets that will rip their body into pieces (that's the hard reality), then I am guilty as charged.
2
The 'sides' of this debate are not as Douthat portrays them. There is no serious effort to 'ban guns' or to 'take your guns away'. If and when efforts to enact reasonable gun control (a ban on high capacity magazines, universal background checks, licensing requirement for gun ownership), the talking points immediately begin - "When you take away guns from law abiding citizens only criminals get guns" - which doesn't make sense since background checks don't 'weed out' law abiding citizens. they make it harder for criminals to get guns. " The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun,' except that the idea is to prevent the bad guys from getting guns in the first place and it has been shown to work again and again in countries around the world.
1
Finding common sense laws such as the ones Douthat proposes has nothing to do with the core issue that paralyzes lawmakers--it's money. The NRA, funded by the firearms industry and not gun owners as it would have us believe, is the "amoral bridge" that keeps gun manufacturers and the 2nd Amendment on separate banks of the unending flow of gun sales. Until that bridge is severed, proposals for common sense restrictions on gun ownership will go nowhere.
1
The culture of guns in tied to the culture of pornography. I read the Maggie Jone's article too in the NYTimes last week, and what struck me was how the children talked about the idea of choking in terms of satisfying sex as seen on many pornography sites. Now, look at those same sites and you also see guns, a lot of guns. Men aiming guns at women and women holding guns aimed at themselves. If you call for a ban of pornography because it has harmed us culturally and personally, you must also consider a ban on guns because it has harmed us culturally and personally. At a minimum we have to consider how we allow our young people to bring together sexual satisfaction with violent satisfaction through the pornographic images of both sex and guns.
"No Country for Young Men With AR-15s"
I agree. I strongly agree. The solution in my view is very reasonable and achievable. The United States has laws throughout the nation that prohibit the purchase and consumption of alcohol by young adults under the age of 21. Those laws, as imperfect as they are, work very well. We accept those laws because they work. They prevent many deaths and injuries due to the abuse of the consumption of alcohol.
We must acknowledge that AR 15 weapons, including all weapons of that class that accept large capacity magazines, should not be sold to anyone under the age of 25. That is a reasonable restriction that could be strongly enforced without imposing any restrictions of the right to own firearms by more mature adults. We should further extend that law to include all types of pistols regardless of whether or not they are revolvers, single shot, or semi-auto pistols and regardless of caliber. That too is reasonable and enforceable.
Gun owners and gun rights advocates will scream bloody murder about my proposal. But that is exactly what the problem is. Bloody murder.
1
Ross,
Nice try and interesting suggestions, but what really needs to happen is that we as a country, need to recognize that there’s a difference between responsible gun ownership for hunting, target shooting, self defense, whatever, and owning AR-15 style assault weapons and high capacity magazines. There’s a reason why fully automatic machine guns are illegal and that same logic should apply to AR-15 style assault weapons. They are ASSAULT weapons, designed and built specifically to KILL PEOPLE. They are the common denominator and weapon of choice in far too many of the mass shootings that we as a country have suffered through.
It’s way past time to make AR-15 style assault weapons and high capacity magazines illegal and to institute a government buy-back program to rid our country and society of this scourge. I will offer my support and vote for any candidate for government office who has the courage to move beyond thoughts and prayers and take a stand for responsible gun control which includes elimination of assault weapons from our land.
3
This sounds too reasonable to take hold. Passions on both sides are such that the space in between is unreachable. Your observation of the essence of the moral dilemma being lost by an entirely predictable regression into the weeds of "bloodless" argument is astute.
In our personal lives we need to give ourselves a good shake once in a while and get out of our own heads. How can we do this collectively without a mass tragedy to spark some kind of correction?
Let US be clear about the facts of gun violence.
The states with the most lax gun laws have the most gun deaths.
Of the nearly 90 gun deaths that occur daily in the United States, many if not most are suicides.
Women and children who live in a house with guns are more likely to be killed by the gun in the house.
For the most part, the guns we have for protection against strangers end up killing ourselves or people we know.
There are things we can do that includes banning assault weapons and making smart gun technology mandatory.
Vote against any politician who takes money from the NRA.
1
Name one law that was passed that doesn't discriminate against the "law abiding" majority. Laws are passed to stop the small percentage of miscreants among us who will do harm to society. So yes most citizens follow the law, but when failure to follow it causes death and destruction to our children especially, the law must be toughened and unequivocal. AR15s should be banned by law. Restrictions on other automatic weapons should be strengthened. For those "Law abiding" weapon owners, led down the path by the NRA who object to laws that are inconvenient are playing Russian Roulette with children's lives everywhere. A very selfish way to live.
This NRA Life Member was shooting by eight, hunting and shooting unsupervised by twelve, and hand-loading as a teen. I shot clip-fed 30-06 semiautomatic rifles and had no desire to own one because they kicked like a mule and there were more practical tools for deer hunting.
I later watched the rise of the fetish around the so-called "assault rifle" accompanied by the move of American youth away from hunting and sport shooting to guns as weapons. This was also accompanied by the decline of paternal authority and presence. Youth are treated as children much later the they were 30 years ago. They go to college demanding the their feelings be protected, still hovered over by their parents. My parents walked out of the house 20 feet to wave goodby when I left for college and visited once a year.
They can't legally drink until 21. It is silly that they can vote at 18.
Maybe it is just an old guys distorted perspective but in this context, the idea of 19 year olds being able to own AR-15 style rifles frighten me.
Regarding the political question of legislating restrictions, this should be done on a state by state basis. A national imposition of such a standard will, like the 1994 ban only heighten the desirability of what is being banned by what to much of the nation seems a far away and alien culture. When the nation is ready for national legislation that will not deepen the polarization, that will be reflected in a majority of state laws.
Here's Mr. Douthat's American: Cowering in the doorway of his hovel, finger on the trigger, lest someone somewhere dare to take something he considers his.
Rights are not inalienable or God-given. Ask any convicted felon in most states in this country. Rights are created by cultures. They can be revised, rescinded, restricted. No one has an inalienable right to anything. Rights reflect decisions made in particular contexts about what should be valued. Contexts change.
The New Republic just published an excellent article on the mentally ill as the scapegoat of the gun lobby. Among the information included: The US "represents half of the world's supply of civilian owned guns"; 3% of Americans own half the guns in this country. Only 19% of gun owners contribute to the NRA. These are most likely the (very few) people who support the status quo where the deaths of children are the price of doing business, the price politicians ask families to pay so they can keep their jobs. The mentally ill are more likely to commit suicide if they have guns than to kill others. They are 16 times more likely to be shot by police than the rest of us. "[O]nly 7.5 percent of all violent crime could be linked to perpetrators’ symptoms of mental illness."
And the purpose of a scapegoat is to allow the sinner to continue to sin. So go forth and keep sinning. It pays.
The 2nd amendment should have been repelled when we switched from militias as the primary defense to our country, to a standing army. The Founders thought a well regulated militia with access to the arms of the day and the oceans would be enough to secure our safety as a nation. For a long time they were right. Things changed, we needed to establish a standing army. They didn't clean up the paperwork. We are left with tragic results. Now with money to be made and liability sealed off, it will take a long time to fix.
3
Here's a basic ethical claim:
"Do not murder…"
It is very, very difficult to deny the fact that the weapon the shooter had easy access to -- and chose to use -- allowed him to murder. To murder in mass.
Is this the whole story? No.
Are there other issues at play? Yes.
Does banning this style weapon preclude gun owners from owning other guns? No.
Would there have been less carnage if the shooter didn't have access to this style gun? Yes.
Can we do something about this particular aspect of mass shootings? Yes.
Have we chosen to? No.
Would banning these weapons make a difference?
We don't know and need to find out.
3
"Make revolvers available at 21. Semiautomatic pistols, at 25. And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger." That's a joke, right ? Passing a law against something doesn't prevent it from happening (how many DWI arrests are there ?). Mr. Douthat's suggestion, we're afraid, would be as effective as attempting to bail water with a sieve: yes, some water would be removed, but not a whole lot. We're not talking about making it more difficult for teenagers to buy cigarettes in order to prevent damage to their health; we're talking about the wholesale slaughter of children. Steps must be taken to totally ban automatic weapons, period.
1
Sure. Stephen Paddock was 64 and there are any number of other guys of others who went "postal' in their fifties, often displaying no outward signs of anything until they just snapped.
Secondly, "moderate" gun restrictions are like moderate conservatives - superficially reasonable, fundamentally useless. There are a about a third of a billion guns in the US; anyone can get one.
Finally, this problem is intractable because a vociferous minority supports unadulterated gun libertarianism up to and including combat weapons and the majority are not motivated to confront them. And despite the headlines this hardly affects anyone; it is a one-in-a million negative lottery.
Small massacres are now a feature of American life and will continue for decades to come with a statistical regularity, with frequency inversely related to size: a 5-fatality event every month, a 15 every six months, a 50 every 2.5 years. Get used to it.
The pro gun advocates are always talking about how guns don't kill people, people kill people. So lets put that to the test: Background checks regulate people, not guns. The minimum we can do is have universal background checks with a waiting period at gun stores and gun shows and private sales. Perhaps the background check should be more robust, and include references or a social media search. Perhaps it should include a survey on how you are going to keep your guns locked away from kids and others. A gun could have a title and registration that is transferred to one gun owner to the next. With this transfer comes the explicit understanding that this person has been vetted and deemed a responsible gun owner due to a solid background check. There should be a spot check system in place so that if you own a gun you a periodically checked to make sure you haven't committed any crimes while owning said gun, or exhibited any violent behavior or belong to extremist groups and that you are in sufficient mental health. Will this change anything in the short term? Probably not. But in the long term, if people need to meet higher standards to own a gun we could hopefully prevent these senseless slaughterings of people at schools and other public places, domestic violence disputes ending in murder, and even suicides, which are a huge source of gun deaths in the US. The onus would be put on the gun owner to be responsible and the gun seller to be discerning.
It's a good start, Mr. Douthat, and I do appreciate when you are honest enough to critique not only the conservative movement, but your own positions. Good that you propose a compromise where the right to gun ownership is linked to age. It's sensible, and obviously a direction that we, and every other modern nation, applies to a large variety of issues. But is it too much to ask that you stick your neck out just a little bit more and think about the specific weapons and accessories that are linked to so many of these mass murders: the AR-15 and its cousins? And how about closing all of those background check loopholes? I am curious to hear your thoughts, and wonder if you will reflexively fall back into the utilitarian position you are pushing back against. But how would we do that? But how could ensure that X just lead to Y? And what about the guns already out there? Etc.
Let's face it, Ross, given mass shootings are now a routine feature of the American landscape, the next shooting never a question of if but rather when, there is no argument for allowing the continued sale of semi-automatic weaponry under any condition. It is an intellectually fatuous exercise. The second amendment has become a suicide pact. Under current conditions, mass shooting will not stop and there will always be more bodies. And the pro-gun faction, with all its rhetoric and sophistry, can only keep stepping over the growing number of bodies for so long. C'mon, Ross, deal with the reality on the ground.
1
One way to curtail gun violence is to limit the supply. Grant the right to sue gun manufacturers. They make a product that facilitates killing on a mass scale and should be held responsible when one of their products kills. No other product has protection like this. Auto makers can be held liable, medical equipment makers - you name it. But gum makers are excepted from liability. That is wrong. One mass shooting should be enough to put a gun manufacturer out of business.
1
The only concept that makes any sense in this essay: “…treating bearing arms as a right but also a responsibility” seems to me the crux of the issue, though of course the devil is in the details.
What’s troubling, and which Douthat makes no mention of, is that in the pro-gun camp even this common sense viewpoint is summarily dismissed as the first step towards the “slippery slope” of disarmament. NRA disinformation cultivates a wrongheaded notion among it’s members that regulation of any kind is an abridgment of American’s constitutional right to own guns.
As a society we won’t be able to reach any agreement about what specific measures may best be employed to curtail mass shootings until the pro-gun camp embraces the idea of sensible regulations as a necessary first step.
Rational gun owners and NRA members please understand that most of your fellow-citizens are not interested in draconian measures — we ask only that you come to the table with our assurance that we want you to keep your guns but show a willingness to consider how all if us can work together to fashion meaningful reform.
Ross, you're distorting the entire issue -- it's not over "gun ownership" -- nobody, even died-in-the-wool liberals like me, is "trying to take away our guns." -- But it should be obvious to all Americans that regulations that keep guns out of the hands of the most dangerous must be implemented. We have enabled a society that allows highly dangerous people to harm us and our children -- and we have every right to take measures to keep us from suffering any more harm!
1
Apart from everything else, my guess is that many gun owners fear the country will descend into a tribal bloodbath, the way things are going, and so they won't be able to depend on the government-- which may be in the hands of their "opposition" -- to protect them.
This is a thin attempt to address the matter, but fails on so many levels.
I am a gun owner and think that attending classes, being licensed to purchase a gun and registering the gun every time it changes hands (just like an automobile) is a far better start. Denying the sale of bumpstocks, denying the sale of military style weapons are also part of the solution.
If Australia can effectively deal with gun safety after ONE mass shooting let's learn from them. What did they do?
"Driving precedes voting precedes drinking, and the right to stand for certain offices is granted only in your thirties." To the preceding quote you should add that minors in this country can die at any age from the senseless use/ownership of guns. That is something no one wants to be bestowed with.
1
You write, "The reason that mass shootings aren’t leading to legislative action is that we have a chasm between two sweeping moral visions, one pro-gun and one anti-gun, that is now too wide to be easily bridged by incrementalism." Um, people who support gun control measures are not anti-gun. This is a disingenuous representation of gun control advocates.
1
In order for American to begin solving this problem it is important that people listen to and are open to "reasonable" arguments from either side, like this one. We need a bipartisan commission that commits to excluding the American Gun Manufacturing Lobby from a seat at the table. Capitalism is not a religion, it is an economic system. It has it pitfalls just like any other. Greed is at the core of this issue. Until American politicians are held accountable to that fact this problem will not be solved and we will be sitting around waiting for the next gun tragedy. Sad!
Mr. Douthat,
While I give you that you tried to 'compromise', what you suggest is not too different from blaming mental disorder for these mass shootings. How many more will have to die before you see that the availability is the biggest problem? Someone goes crazy in any countries: they usually only have knives, not AR-15s to kill tens or hundreds even before realizing what they are doing
3
Gun control should extend to the military and the police force.
1
"I have encountered many communities where “gun culture” seems healthy and responsible rather than a bloodthirsty cult."
Ask those "gun culture" people what they would do if the Second Amendment were repealed and they were required to turn in their guns, then tell me how healthy and responsible their answer is. If the phrase "cold dead hands" or similar is uttered, as is commonly seen from online gun lovers, I'd say they're closer to bloodthirsty cult territory.
1
Semi automatic weapons, made specifically to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time, do not belong in the hands of civilians. End of story!
There used to be a Brady Bill. It should be permanently reinacted. That's a start. No more legal AR-15s.
1
The NRA has turned the USA into the old west. All that is required is just read the second amendment to see what it actually says, even if you ignore the reference to the "well regulated militia", the second amendment never mentions guns! It says you have the right to bare arms! Now arms can be anything from a sling shot to an H bomb. I don't think that even the NRA would argue that all citizens should be able to keep an H bomb in his garage! Rocket launcher anyone? The argument is not really about your right to protect yourself, but rather which weapons you are allowed to own. The supreme court has never said you can have any kind of weapon you want. It's all about where the line is drawn.
1
Maybe if the author had sustained gun bloodshed in his own family he might have a different viewpoint.
I can see the NRA's slogan already: "if you take away 29 year-old's rights to own semi-automatic weapons, someday only the 30 year-olds will have them."
1
Why not reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, and now, out of necessity, combine it with a vigorous buyback program. Then license gun ranges to provide these WMDs for those who insist that firing one is a fun thing to do.
Sure, some bad guys and other assorted crazies would still have them but a crazed 19-year-old wouldn't be able to simply walk into a gun store and buy one.
140
" I'll make a deal with that side though: when they let armed citizens roam the halls and offices of Congress and allow open-carry in the Supreme Court audience, then I will accept guns as a fact of life in my school, market, and neighborhood." -- Sumac
I essentially agree with Sumac. I've long argued that prohibiting guns from Congressional and Supreme Court public activity is a telling prohibition, albeit a reasonable and prudent one. It convincingly demonstrates that the notion of carting weapons to virtually any activity or venue is simply a ridiculous and dangerous idea, and that limitations on doing so are acts of sanity. However, I'm not willing to make the deal Sumac suggests, even though what he clearly has in mind is exposing hypocrisy. For example, for Congress were to permit AR-15 into the gallery, that would be a stupid mistake even if it thereby eliminated charges of hypocrisy.
Forget age- why not just ban all guns for men? Women don't go on mass shooting sprees. After all Ross, if your antii-abortion stance only affects one gender (not yours- what a surprise) and that's moral, it seems more than moral to me to say that men simply cannot make the moral decisions necessary about when to shoot a gun.
1
The "protect yourself from the government" is the single most absurd argument for gun rights. But it's the one folks keep chanting. It's noble and brave in theory, but that's it. There is no single (or collective) civilian owned arsenal that is going to stop the U.S. government. Nor has there ever been an incident in which civilians tried to use their weapons to push back against the U.S. government and actually succeeded. The government isn't going to back down. Their arsenal will always be bigger, and we have no "right" to rebel. If you shoot at the government, they will shoot back and either kill you or put you in jail. This antiquated argument based on a singular moment in our history will be our demise. Unless we disarm the government, we've got no chance. People should be able to own guns, but how in any moral universe should this be more important than children or any innocent life for that matter. I have three small children and every time this happens I ask myself why I continue to live in a country that values my living breathing children so little.
"I have encountered many communities where “gun culture” seems healthy and responsible rather than a bloodthirsty cult." Mr. Douthat, I highly suspect those communities were in Switzerland?
Good thought. But I'd stop at the revolvers. No private citizen needs access to semi-automatic or automatic weapons for anything reasonable. Law enforcement? Sure. The military? Absolutely. But unless you're one of those paranoid nut-jobs that thinks the government is going to someday invade Kansas, armed insurrection is not a good reason to keep those types of weapons in general circulation.
Every time there is a big shooting, the Op Eds go to town, the people protest, and then the NRA and the gun lobby ups the ante and throws even more money in our politicians' pockets and so NOTHING.EVER.HAPPENS. Pay to play in Washington is alive and well.
1
Unfortunately, essays such as this one - along with studies, hearings, commissions, and inaction - are what we have been experiencing for many, many years. Especially after school shootings or shootings of well-known people. Lots of words, lots of political posturing, lots of promises, but little if any action. Is it not time - today, this week, this month, this year, to actually DO SOMETHING? Change the second amendment to fit the times. Get rid of guns, especially automatic weapons. NOW !
Your effort to "have it all" with some absurd idea about this gun at this age, etc etc is beyond me. It bears no resemblance to demonstrated reality and would do nothing whatever to decrease gun violence. This whole false equivalence you endorse balances some theoretical "resist tyranny" which has NEVER OCCURRED in the US, against the gun violence that occurs every single day. Note that I'm not arguing that there is no middle ground to be found between the two sides, only that you have almost laughably failed to find it.
While this gun owner and hunter broadly agrees with your vision, we need to realize that manufacturers are as complicit as the NRA here. They have marketed the AR-15 as a cure-all, even for home defense, a ridiculous role for that gun. They can make them cheaply, too, and the profit margins are big.
You can get a budget AR for $500, less than a quality revolver.
One thing you omit: We need to make these guns—all guns—cost more. Their costs should be based upon type, with semiautomatic handguns and rifles having a $100 surcharge per round beyond 10 the weapon can handle with a standard magazine ($2000 for AR-15s and AKs, $700 for a 17 round pistol). All magazines would have a surcharge of $10 per round. This would apply to new and used mags and weapons. Bumpstocks and all magazine holding more than 30 rounds would be banned.
Full disclosure : I took a tactical shooting class with the AR fetishists. I shoot those guns well, but you cannot even hunt deer legally here with their favored .223 bullet. The crime-obsessed white suburban men in my class, with expensive guns kitted out with optics and silencers, all thought their guns uniquely suited to home defense, while I insisted it to be a field weapon. A battlefield weapon, that is. I outshot them with plain old iron sights, too, but I have been shooting better guns than the AR for decades.
But they feel safe, I reckon, with their black guns.
Arguments concerning gun control and abortion are very similar. Both sides look at the other side’s arguments and see them as illogical and ridiculous. Logic can be applied to any skeleton of an argument and to add flesh and muscle. The only logic that matters is numbers; if you are willing to stomach the 30,000 or so deaths and the regular school massacre, then guns are fine. It is like smoking. Allowing people to smoke when and where they want in the name of freedom killed 400,000 or so a year. Then people decided to reduce it somewhat and the freedom to kill one’s self and those around you was limited even though Big Tobacco opposed it. Any other “logical” argument is a fraud; what’s it going to be?
The vast majority of people who drive over the speed limit don't kill or hurt anyone. Why do we have speed limits?
We do not need research. No AR-15s period.
1
Sorry, not buying it. Where in the second amendment does it make any reference to semi-automatic weapons of mass killings? That is the EXACT purpose of this weapon and it performs extremely well. BTW, perhaps we should get even more exact with your proposed regulation, zero in even more, and stop sales to young WHITE men. Also, what effect would this law have on the Las Vegas shootings? Just ban the sale of these weapons to everyone!
Reporters are asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking "Will anything be done?" they should be asking every member of Congress who has accepted financial support from the NRA, "Why do you support a teenager owning an automatic rifle?"
I have a real problem with “.....capacity to protect and defend, to step in when the state fails and resist when it imposes”. This implies that those who don’t share your political views are somehow illegitimate; that those with guns would be justified in imposing their will and ideas on the rest of us at gunpoint. This has already happened, of course, brought to both Nevada and Oregon courtesy of the Bundy males. I deeply resent this blatant and arrogant dismissal of democracy. I resent the use of guns to threaten and intimidate to impose political agendas. I resent having to sacrifice thousands of lives every year so conservatives can indulge in being the heroes in the movies in their minds. Oh, and here are a few other thoughts: Stephen Paddock, who used modified AR-15s to perpetrate the deadliest mass shooting in our history (well, so far anyway) was 64 years old. Plenty old enough, in your scheme of things, to buy all the arms he wanted quite legally. And while every abortion kills, I simply cannot equate a non-viable fetus with a second grader, toddler, or high school student.
7
Really! Age and gun-worthiness go together??
the real problem is the easy accessibility to guns that Americans 'enjoy.' It's so easy to get a gun in the US never mind the 2nd Amendment arguments. It's only logical that were there no guns there would be no gun murders. Yet gun-wanters and users are more enabled in this country than kids at school. For what??
1
Douthat: "..(.b)ut guns sit harmless in millions of households and many deter violence or turn back evil men."
You could be the next president of the NRA, Ross. It is the same "good guy with a gun" taking out "the bad guy with a gun"dopey argument that Wayne LaPierre, the current NRA president, has been using to sell the idea that this approach is the best one for protecting the American public.
4
No one in the gun debate is talking about banning rifles or pistols. No one. And no one needs an AR-15. Period. That moral statement should be just clear and morally obvious as “thou shalt not kill.”
2
While I usually enjoy your writing, this is Such a disappointing piece and waste of Sunday space that adds nothing to the discussion when bold voices are needed. You merely buy into the false dichotomy of 2nd Amendment abolitionists versus absolutists while the majority of the country has this matter solved. It’s not so much a question of banning all guns as banning these guns—these large capacity military style weapons. As long as they are made readily available by manufacturers, then anyone of any age with any rap sheet with any mental illness can and will get their hands on them.
Mr. Doubt it, you miss the moral starting point in this argument. When you purchase a firearm, you have made a decision that you are willing to kill. Perhaps the thing that you are going to kill is an animal as a hunter, but yet you have made that decision. If your reasoning for purchasing a firearm is for protection, then you have made a choice that you are willing to take the life of another human being. Consequently, this is the moral question, and the moral argument at that point begins with the premise of how we as a society are going to regulate your ability to kill. Unfortunately, at this point, the powers-that-be, believe that there should be no regulation on the ability to kill.
4
You would defend the pro gun moral vision. Based on the fantasy that guns protect the innocent and defeat the government if it over reaches. Trying to squeeze morality into a pro gun stance is impossible. We trade 90 lives a day to sustain the fantasies of gun owners. Shame on you for supporting them.
5
Dilatory blather–Mr. Douthat's column and all our responses to him. Assault rifles in civilian hands must be outlawed. We need a massive buy-back program, then immediate large fines ($10K?) and/or jail time for owning one. I say this as a life-long gun owner, hunter, and sport shooter. It's really quite simple, friends: AR-15s must go.
2
Ross, I despise being assigned the badge of "liberal," which I am, but only to a degree. I am more conservative than I would like to admit in certain areas. We are, all of us, made up of many things. I have lived, however, for 49 years among black people in a black neighborhood. My education on the horrors of living black in America is only in the beginning stages. I will not live long enough to be able to fully "see" the suffering of Africans captured and transported in chains to America. I see, in the fabric of my soul, that "Black Lives Never Mattered." That must change. I see, more and more, that the degradation of women has been, for many men, a huge joke. That must change. I see that Native Americans have been treated without the care we give our pets. We deny their legitimate claims against us. That must change.
Ross, a staggered approach to gun control would be just that: staggering. It would stagger in effectiveness as our citizens, expert in sidestepping rules to get what they want, kill. Our children would merely survive in fear of whomever had circumvented which law to kill which victims on this day. .
Go holistic, Ross. Let our children grow in a holistic universe where wholeness of body, soul and spirit are prized and comprise the law of the land. Repeal, reject, refuse guns. Anywhere. Anyplace. Anytime.
Walk barefoot or in the shoes, the moccasins of the prey in this country. If this is liberalism, so it be if it saves us.
3
We share the same pain. Sadly, the cat has been out of the bag and running amok for some time now - there are more guns than people in America. That makes any fix darn near impossible.
Even so, if what you propose had been the law, this young monster would have had to find a way around it. Maybe a speed bump like that could slow down the next psychopath that's about to crash; maybe its worth a try.
1
It's just too bad that people who have the power to write sensible gun legislation live under the delusion that living with the mass murders like those of 17 high school students and faculty in Parkland, FLA is just the price that we have to pay for freedom. Too bad. Really too bad!
2
Being a Canadian citizen and therefore typical of all other western democracies' citizens (except of course your own) I had hoped that the logical conclusion to this editorial by a conservative "thinker" would be that the AR 15 not be sold to anybody, regardless of their age. Where in your constitution (which Americans by and large worship like the ancients did with marble gods) does it say that men or women have the inherent right to own a gun that can kill as many of your fellow citizens in the least possible duration of time? The rest of the world is aghast of what is going on in your country (having an amoral con artist as a president, a body politic running roughshod over the rights of the common man and the list goes on.) But please remember you once were the nation that went to the moon - if you could do that why can't you do anything about guns that too often kill your fellow citizens?
5
You know what would be good information to have? A nationwide research poll, properly designed and implemented, that would try to determine if there is a correlation between those who describe themselves as "pro life" on abortion, and who also are "pro gun."
I'm betting the correlation is very strong, which would only prove that we are a nation filled with hypocrites.
6
Mr. Douthat, please tell us why the US is the only first world country with these kinds of shooting statistics.
4
It seems to me the Religious Right are more concerned with the survival of the fetus, than the survival of our children.How can anyone justify the sale & ownership of Semi Automatic Rifles & military style weapons.How many Children and young adults must be killed before we improve our regulations of Guns, & restrict the sales of these weapons.This must be a criteria for those that run for office. We must remove those that are beholden to the NRA, rather then the citizens they are sworn to represent.
8
A student said last week: we do not have a guns problem we have a violence problem. Suspending disbelief for the sake of discussion, this formulation focuses on violent behavior, it’s roots and it’s amelioration. We are not going to take away guns; the costs in law enforcement casualties in such a effort negates it’s possibility. But, sorry to say, we are now facing a time when predictive probabilistic models of violent behavior will emerge in the name of public safety. Civil liberties will erode but violence will be curtailed to a measurable degree.
And what of Stephen Paddock age 64, the Las Vegas shooter?
7
Who needs an AR-15 at any age?
13
Since almost every single mass gun murderer has been male, how about we just ban males from owning guns? Problem solved. Women will be safer and there will be no mass gun murders anymore at schools, theaters, churches, concerts.
12
If ever there was a grasp at a straw, this was it.
10
True, but I wish the coach/security guard who sacrificed his life to save at least two students had an AR-15, an Uzi, or an AK-47 to take out the murderer, and still be alive instead of being a dead hero.
2
Under your "solution" the Vegas shooting would still have happened. As would San Bernadino and the recent church shooting.
10
This argument is preposterous. Ross would you have say at age 40 anti-tank guns made available, at age 50 small nuclear devices. You worry about what you see as the viciousness of porn but fail to see the viciousness of guns.
11
SO - Why should anyone be able to own an Instrument of War ???
13
Mr. Douthat, what do you suppose Pope Francis thinks about gun control? Does American exceptionalism condone, nay demand, that virtually unregulated sales of assault weapons is necessary to a free, Democratic society? To couch these cowardly excuses in sanctimonious moratlistic robes is an insult to the American people, not the least of the legions of victims to the violence that is perpertrated on a scale which is unimaginable in any other society on earth. You should be ashamed of yourself.
9
In what fantasy USA do you need guns to resist the illegimate impositions of the government? The love affair of the right with guns is based on a mentally ill demonization of government. Oh, but there are some people who do have good reason to fear our government - young black men. So, I'm with you. Let's make sure that every young black man is well armed, because they really are at risk of being shot down like dogs by the agents of their government.
11
Using this kind of logic at 40 years of age you could own an UZI, age 50 gets you Browning 50mm machine gun, and if you are lucky enough to survive into to your seventh decade you're eligible for your choice of a grenade launcher or mortar. Our infatuation with guns is the psychopathology which appears to define us in the developed world. Perhaps that's the "mental health issue" that the Trump administration should begin to focus on.
183
The Las Vegas shooter was 64. Although Ross' proposal might stem the tide of school shootings, so many of which are by young men. And I appreciate a conservative putting forth a sensible propasal that might appeal to both sides and bridge the gap. Unfortunately, sensible conservatives are themselves on one side of a serious political divide with those on their extreme right.
6
If a common statistic is correct, there are over 300 million guns in America; but that number can’t include all the guns, parts, ammo, and loading equipment and supplies that are off the radar, and it doesn’t include secret collections and arsenals, and all the underground dealers, militias, and other groups.
Further, there isn’t any public mental health system suitable or adequate to this task, and even if there were, we’d have to wait for countless people to be discovered, analyzed, entered in that system, and that info made available to those who might head off another Nikolas Cruz.
Meanwhile, more dangerous people are being created and abetted by our cultures and our media, and every call for new or increased restrictions is answered by more purchases of guns and ammo.
This means that no effort toward restriction can prevent further gun violence, except by fortunate coincidence supported by thus far absent and unusual efforts.
As with other battles within our culture wars, this, too, is rapidly deteriorating toward more and worse violence. My only hope is that somehow, despite every indication to the contrary, common cause will be recognized between moderate gun owners and others, and acted upon. But as we’re failing to find common cause toward answering hunger, homelessness, medical care, and justice sufficient to be taken into the 2018 elections, this looks like another rolling nightmare, gathering mass and speed on the downward slope of our declining empire.
8
This strikes me as a moral argument that starts with the question, not even of "what's the least we can do", but with "what's the least we can even imagine."
What a sudden drop-off from "wondering if there’s a way to adapt a high-minded vision of guns and citizenship to our era." The 'moral bridge' evoked in the last paragraph is needed and would be a great thing, but this proposal isn't even a stepping stone.
8
Don't you imagine, Mr. Douthat, that if we did have a system -- and it would have to be national not state-by-state -- that allowed ownership of guns in increments of increasing deadliness that it would just promote a culture based on these rites-of-passage and actually lead to more guns being bought by precisely the young male demographic that you're hoping to lead towards moderation?
The simplest solution for now would be to regulate guns the way we regulate cars: gun ownership needs to be licensed by the federal government, and the licensing should require training, testing, registration, maintaining liability insurance, and periodically renewing the license. Do this first -- in the process of which no guns have been taken away from anyone -- and then we can move on to the debate about whether or not any civilian needs an assault weapon.
16
As a gun owner and recreational shooter for decades. I agree with the concepts put forth by the author. However, we should put the gun issues into perspective.
There are something like 8 million AR-15 style rifles in private ownership (source CNBC Contessa Brewer). Which means a miniscule proportion are being misused. About 20% of all new gun sales are AR-15 style rifles. Why do people buy them? The bulk of sales are to people who find them fun to shoot recreationally, and, they are reliable, durable, easy to customize. And while it is possible to fire a lot of shots in a short time, the .223 Remington is not a powerful round, as has been misrepresented by some media sources. If the buyers were buying them to shoot people, with 8 million guns in private hands, there would be millions murdered annually.
And while every gun murder is wrong, so are auto accident deaths caused by inexperienced drivers in fast cars. The same 18 year old can buy a 707 horsepower Dodge. A friend's daughter recently bought a high performance Audi. She took him for a ride, and before he knew it, the car was over 100 miles per hour. In the town where I used to live, 11 high schoolers died in two single car accidents involving inexperienced drivers at high speeds. In the same time frame, nobody got shot.
And then there is the opioid epidemic, which is the leading cause of death for people under 50.
Dead is dead. We need to look at the big picture to save lives.
7
That inexperienced driver is far far more regulated than a gun owner. Standards for car safety, driver education, licensing and insurance requirements, highway safety requirements on and on. Auto deaths in this country have greatly decreased when it was treated as a public health issue and small steady changes were introduced.
And lets just be clear about the argument you are making - the majority of people who own AR15s use them responsibly and enjoy them. The deaths of innocent children (and adults) that result from their infrequent misuse, while unfortunate, is an acceptable cost to the pleasure you take in owning one. Personally, I think my children's lives and the lives of kids at Sandy Hook and Parkland are worth more than your recreational pleasure but everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
I wish gun owners and gun lovers would stop comparing cars or knives or machetes.... to automatic weapons. All of these and many other things can kill people. So what? In that respect the NRA's canard that people kill people is true but completely irrelevant. The point is (weak round or not) bullets per second is the only useful factor in these shootings. Give the Florida psycho a machete and he might kill 2 or 3 before people run. An automatic weapon is simply a weapon for mass murder in a non-war setting. Plain and simple. If you want to keep them around for shooting practice and "fun" then they should only be available in shooting ranges as rentals. Absolutely forbidden at home. It's not rocket science.
1
Of course the difference being we as a society actually try to do something about car accidents involving young people and opioid problem.
Not a powerful round? Yeah right! I am sure getting hit by such a round (or "lots" of such rounds) would not cause the slightest problem.
Even conservatives acknowledge the problem of straw purchasers. This proposal would add parents (among others) to that group.
6
I think Mr. Douthat's attempt here to reach some middle ground is exactly what we lack and need in the debate about gun violence. It's very clear that we are not going to ban or severely restrict gun ownership in the United States, and that every effort on the Left's part to do so simply reinforces the hyperventilatory alarmism and recalcitrance of the NRA and its supporters. But perhaps we could try to find some commonsense and empirically sound approaches that are acceptable to most people. The first step would be a review about what is known and what is not concerning gun violence: the characteristics of those who perpetrate it; what weapons and accessories are most commonly used; in which situations and circumstances does it occur; what warning signs were present and missed. Perhaps as a first action we could then come up with some algorithms and practices that could reduce the risk of mass shootings without significantly impeding gun rights. The Left should be willing to accept that the goal is the reduction of gun deaths, not necessarily of gun ownership, and the Right that a measured analysis of gun violence does not pose a threat to the Second Amendment.
3
What garbage.
The pro-gun vision you describe is an adolescent fantasy, held by people who imagine (and in some cases seem to wish for) a "Red Dawn" style apocalypse so they can play army. And the idea that my crazy neighbors with guns are the source and protector of my freedom from the government has it exactly backwards- I look to the government to protect me from crazy neighbors with guns, not the other way around.
But I held out hope for your compromise until I got to your last three paragraphs. Age is all you are willing to concede? Sorry, Ross, there is NO defensible reason for any American who is not in the military to have an AR15 or any gun with similar firepower. No reason at all. They must be banned- no new sales, and then a buyback period after which ownership of the things is illegal. Period.
56
Douthat: "I have encountered many communities where “gun culture” seems healthy and responsible rather than a bloodthirsty cult."
How many communities would that be, Ross?
22
Why does anybody in civil society need a semi-automatic rifle at any age? And more importantly, why are conservatives and politicians who are beholden to the NRA allergic to any common sense gun safety laws? Children are DYING!! And you and your fellow conservatives refuse to do anything!! Anybody who cares about keeping kids safe in schools has had enough.
28
How many angels dancing on a pin? Your arguments are just vapid. Read The Onion!! on this. It makes perfect sense. "there is no way to stop this, says the only nation where this happens regularly". Australia stopped. Every other developed nation has stopped. Every other developed has better health care than we do, too. Ross, keep your "hopes and prayers" and get a clue. Judge them by their actions. Republicans actions hurt citizens.
29
Unless you're in the middle of a Mid-East desert surrounded by ISIS, no one, young or old, needs an AR-15.
Republicans and the NRA know this will fade away and they only need to hide under a blanket of thoughts and prayers and a few copies of the 2nd amendment for a couple of weeks. 17 more dead kids and teachers is just the cost of doing business. It's so despicable there are no words for it.
38
No one--ever--performed the appropriate deeds of the self-arming citizen with an AR-15 (or its ilk). And certainly not because the same tasks couldn't be just as easily carried out by less onerous weapons. The idea that those over 30 can meaningfully execute Second Amendment rights with AR-15s while under-30-year-olds cannot is so utterly preposterous as to defy ink: especially when it seems to forget Las Vegas? There simply is no "non-gun-cult" reason to own such a weapon (although I could imagine licensing shooting ranges to afford the crazies their fun). If watching groups of "over-30-men" hanging out with such weapons strapped over them like para-military groupies in Charlottesville is enough to dissuade their being outlawed...?....then God help us all.
17
Two words: Las Vegas.
19
Ok. Anything that will start to help on guns, ross. But your conservative pro gun mora!ity lesson led me to search my memory -- I don't recall any biblical descriptions of Jesus or st. Paul wearing bandoleros and six shooters (or their historical equivalents). So as usual you start with a faulty, phoney moral foundation. Now of course I realize I introduced facts into the discussion, even tho you began your article by saying moralism shouldn't be fact grounded. But that's just the thing, ross. You are proven to be interested in MORALISM. I am more interested in MORALITY.
14
The legion of naysayers notwithstanding Mr. Douthat, I believe you are on to something.
2
No. Actually, he's not.
1
Schools should be locked. In order to get in, pass through a metal detector.
Same with getting into any target-rich setting.
2
Why stop there? At 35, you could buy grenades. At 40, surface-to-air missiles. At 45, you should be able to buy land mines, and at 50 tactical nuclear weapons.
Some namby-pamby types will say that these weapons are military hardware designed to combat enemies of the country. But if the point of "moral" gun ownership is to defend ourselves when the government can't and "resist when it imposes illegitimately", then as citizens we need to arm ourselves with much more powerful weapons.
Maybe individuals should be allowed to purchase sarin gas at age 55?
29
I am the eldest of 10 children.
Lucky for me, our house had no guns.
12
...age 45, bozooka; age 50, flamethrower; age 55, Abrams tank... Looking forward to old age....
22
Waaay too much high level philosophizing about a simple problem...the glorification of military grade human killing machines (assault rifles) readily available to whomever wants one and can pass some form of background check...As in "you can get yours today if your check can clear".
They will be banned when Americans get tired of their loved ones being randomly slaughtered by them and demand change. Until that time the killing will go on.
11
Forget age restrictions- only WOMEN should be allowed to own guns.
17
But now that the massacre in Florida has made mass murder the week’s pressing subject,
Has it really.? This too will pass. We are a country of advisors to other country on Human Rights.
Isn’t Gun control a Humam Right?
9
The murderer in Las Vegas was in his 50's, with no prior mental health issues. Why does anyone not in the military need an AR-15??
15
Ross, the logical conclusion of your "protect and defend" argument is that we should simply arm everyone. Why should we not allow a five-year old to defend herself from a 30 year old with a semi-automatic?
Your ideology clouds your judgment. How many more children have to die before you wake up from your delusions about guns? A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand?
11
I rarely agree with this columnist, but find myself in odd alignment. I grew up in a state where guns, specifically, rifles and shotguns were common and talked about. The high school parking lot was populated with pick-up truck with gun racks and guns on full display. To my knowledge, nobody gave it a second thought.
Something has happened around guns and gun culture over the last few decades that has lead to an inability to discuss guns. I don't know if it a society that is more polarized, or some other force. But an incremental, age-specific approach to gun ownership may be the best our country can do.
2
Am I missing something, or does the statement by Douthat below mean absolutely nothing? Where is this gun utopia you describe? Miami? Orlando? Littleton, Aurora??
" I have encountered many communities where “gun culture” seems healthy and responsible rather than a bloodthirsty cult."
12
Switzerland? Finland? Most of rural America?
I think it is important for those of us who want to act against gun violence to target the violence itself, not gun ownership. As the Times's published analysis has shown, gun ownership itself is the strongest correlate with gun violence. It will not be politically viable in the US to target gun ownership itself, so the action most likely to actually have an impact would be measures that promote responsibility and accountability among gun owners, restriction of access to especially lethal accessories like bump stocks and high-capacity magazines, and enforce more rigorous follow up of warning signs (which were sadly missed in Florida and Las Vegas). It is satisfying to decry the culture of gun ownership in the US, but is is also the least likely action to actually have any kind of impact.
2
Miami, Orlando, et al. are cities, not “communities”. In a “community” you receive your first gun as one of the marks of beginning to assume the responsibilities and privileges of an adult. You begin to be taught the rules of gun handling and hunting by your father and other adult men before you receive your first gun. The same system applies to learning to drive and getting your first car, and getting your first real job after years of odd jobs raking leaves, mowing yards and shoveling snow.
Admittedly, there are few “communities” now, and few discernible landmarks for advancing to adulthood. Fearing one’s father, mother, or older adult neighbors as the primary guarantee of enforcing a code of conduct is anachronistic.
But such “communities” do still exist. The fact you have not encountered one speaks to the increasing narrowing of American cultural existence.
Obviously, this young man should not have had direct, unsupervised access to an AR-15. He was not the beneficiary of a “community”
of responsible, older adult men on hand to discipline him and curate his development. Men who would step in and remove his guns for safe keeping for his sake and that of the “community” at large.
While I know I didn’t fully appreciate them at the time, I had such communities of men—and women—growing up.
When the older male elephants are poached or culled, the younger males get into trouble. We no longer invest our time in our young people as we once did. This is the price.
1
"And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger."
RD pretends to be a serious thinker, but he's only a parrot for the NRA. I'll never read him again.
26
I've forgotten...how old was the Las Vegas terrorist?
35
Republicans love guns more than people. They receive millions of blood money from the NRA.
17
Why doesn't anyone every talk about the fact that all these shooters are always male?
12
It goes without saying.
Some things male do much more than females, and some things females do much more than males.
I mean, 97% or more of all prostitutes are female.
Actually that seemed to be the point of Ross's article
"but guns sit harmless in millions of households and many deter violence or turn back evil men." That statement is not backed by fact Mr. Doubthat.
16
"but guns sit harmless in millions of households..". to be played with by small children or taken to school by teenagers.
No one seems to be recognizing that these idiotic "shoot-em-up" video games can indoctrinate a kid into violent behaviors and guns because they become anesthetized to the imagery . They act-out the violence without thinking things thru.
4
I am sick and tired of people yielding false equivalences as if they actually made sense. And here goes Douthat. Abortion and guns. Abortion is highly regulated and kills a single fetus per event. Owning AR-15s is virtally unregulated and can kill 10-15 living breathing people with a single clip, and one can handily bring along 10 clips in a si gel backpack. How is that equivalent?
False equivalence is a sign of a lazy mind and a lack of regard for your audience. Thanks, Ross.
30
A plea from Po Murray of the Newtown (CT GVP) Foundation to contact your federal political representatives:
I am a constituent in your district and I made a pledge to NOT VOTE for any candidate who take money from the NRA. The majority of Americans and I support common sense gun policy and we refuse to be held hostage by the NRA and extremists. Please go to http://www.NoNRAMoney.org and sign the pledge to reject NRA support. If not, you know where I stand. #NoNRAMoney.
Please do your part. Please help end the gun madness in America!
12
In terms of the NECESSITY of guns as a matter of checking out-of-control or tyrannical government, I wish to again offer the following historical examples:
-- In 1989 the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed, and Eastern Europe broke free, without a shot being fired.
-- Mahatma Gandhi toppled the then all-powerful British Raj without a shot being fired.
-- To the world's great sorrow, the Warsaw Ghetto was heavily armed and resisted the Nazis, but their guns did them no good.
Popular will - even in non-democratic states! - can be far more potent than acres and acres of battlefield weapons; acres and acres of battlefield weapons can be impotent against overwhelming force.
14
The converse is also true. Obviously our forebears should have just lain down and died when the British came to break up the popular assemblies at Lexington and Concord. Sometimes gun violence is highly effective. In fact, it usually is.
Let's go a step further: Only women can have guns.
11
This idea occurred to me many years ago. I still like it.
The NRA should be sued for the funeral, medical and counseling expenses resulting from each of these domestic terrorist mas gun killings. They are responsible for these incidents. They should at least be made to pay for the out-of-pocket costs which result.
1
since it;s primarily white men who are doing the vast majority of the mass killing, I am 100% ok with taking guns away from white men.
17
i see now ,we can flood the world with weapons outside our borders ..but we should not own any, great thinking
1
Can someone give me a reason why anyone needs an assault rifle? Maybe they're just fun to shoot. But that's not good enough. Ban 'em.
11
Unfortunately the NRA's metamorphosis from defender of hunters to opponents of tyranny is the problem even with your commonsense suggestion. When it comes to the - irrational, absurd - argument that there is NO limit to the weapons the citizenry might need to resist "Washington", black helicopters, the FBI, whatever - there is unfortunately no rational response.
A return to the assault rifle ban does make sense as this is a good way to regulate the militia. However, with each day going by since yet another mass murder with an assault rifle, America turns to normal affairs even after dead children are buried. Imagine if some of them were around in 10 or 20 years solving the problems of the world for the rest of us.
This is what the Marco Rubio's of this world have to answer for. And voters must remove the Marco Rubio's from Congress despite all that money the gun nuts give them.
Rubio refuses to act in any meaningful way. He has an attitude that has been shaped and paid off by the NRA. Marco Rubio is directly responsible for this massacre. Florida citizens, wake up and do your duty to your children!
Tick tick tick.....
8
Sen. Rubio perpetuates the tired, and convenient, argument that mass murderers will always find way so there's nothing we can do to stop them. Funny how this argument never surfaces after a terrorist attack by foreigners. Can you imagine if after 9/11 President Bush had simply offered thoughts and prayers and then said that terrorists will always find a way so there's nothing we can do to stop them? He would have been thrown out of office. Only when the subject is guns does the "We're helpless" argument seem to apply.
1
No guns = no gun deaths. QED.
5
No cars = no car deaths.
Those deaths far exceed gun deaths.
I know, I know, we NEED cars.
Think about it.
How are you going to get there? Aren't there something like 350 million guns circulating in the United States now? Good luck trying to get rid of them.
so how old was the Las Vegas shooter?
5
I come from a gun culture. I've lived in gun cultures all my life. This is most likely the dumbest thing that has ever been written about guns. Besides the obvious laundry list of old men who have committed horrific acts of violence, it is extremely hypocritical. If an armed population is so critical to national defense, does it make sense to disarm a good portion of our most able bodied citizens. Reminds me of this GENIUS parody - https://sharethesafety.org
6
It has been a couple centuries since "an armed population is critical to national defense." When you enlist in the Army, you don't bring your hunting rifle with you.
1
Persons who exercise their Constitutional right to possess firearms usually explain their intended purposes as: (1) the protection of persons and property - in spite of the shocking statistic on lethal accidents resulting indirectly from this practice, or (2) the sport of hunting in accordance within legal statutes, or (3) target shooting. None of those purposes require or even permit (specifically according to hunting restrictions in nearly every state) the use of military-style, long-range, rapid-fire, high muzzle velocity weapons designed for large capacity magazines and easily convertible for automatic fire.
In terms of the perceived need to protect persons and property within our borders, nothing as deadly as an assault weapon is required . . . . . . or if we are willing to accept that necessity, why aren’t mines, mortars and flame-throwers commercially available . . . . yet?
This means that anyone who feels he needs an AR-15 may very well have a few screws loose: Such persons are either gun-fetishists – motivated by violent fantasies, or crackpot private militia members with the average I.Q. of a sponge, who dream of waging war against the "Commie U.S. 'goffermint'," or, at worst - as we have witnessed again and again - proven psychopaths.
12
The idea of age restrictions on gun ownership and they type of gun available to people of different ages makes some sense. However, the preamble - the description of two camps on gun ownership, those in favor and those against, is a serious oversimplification. Many of us who would want to see high capacity semiautomatic weapons banned have no problem with traditional hunting rifles and pistols, especially if licensing and training requirements are attached to their possession. Yes, age limits for gun ownership make sense, but some weapons belong on a battlefield, not in the woods or, worse, in schools and shopping centers. And supporting reasonable restrictions on gun ownership is not taking guns away from all Americans.
10
As one of the op-ed writers on these pages, a conservative, noted: repeal the 2nd Amendment.
8
Or at least enforce the whole amendment. "well regulated militia."
Why does ANYONE need a semi-automatic/automatic rifle? Sorry, but if you truly take pride in gun ownership, and use it for hunting and self-protection, learn how to use one. Become proficient in the use of your handgun, shotgun or rifle so that you don't need to blow the bejesus out of anything.
I've always marveled at a group of police who drill 110 holes into one person, with automatic weapons, who they deemed "threatening". Learn to shoot accurately and when/when not to shoot. And don't shoot to kill.
The availability of weapons and magazines that make mass slaughter so easy is obscene. Perhaps lawmakers in this country should be forced to view graphic crime scene photos of these massacres and imagine one of their loved ones lying there. No amount of NRA money, and compromise of their integrity, would be worth it.
8
It's telling that the comments put forth more comprehensive, workable gun policy suggestions than the article itself...
10
"And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger."
Stephen Paddock was 64.
8
I like the last argument of the piece.
1
So Ross arbitrarily picks “30” as the right age for getting an AR-15... Here’s an idea - what if, like other advanced democracies, we decided that there was no “appropriate” age for a civilian to own and carry around a military grade weapon and legislate accordingly. We could call it the “No Right Age” bill - or NRA for short.
9
Which lawmaker will be the first to stand and say, "Today, I am entering into the record, legislation to amend the constitution of The United States. Specifically, the repeal of the Second Amendment."?
It's what everybody wants(that subscribes to the NYT). You would think there would be about 200 or so, on Capitol Hill. Maybe another thousand state legislators, around the country. Yup, that would get some attention. Maybe Obama could show up and smile and wave. Hillary too, if she's feeling well.
Yeah, I don't think so. I don't think so. So, I ask, exactly how are people without guns, going to do to make people with guns, surrender? Using the law, I presume. Now, the law makers just have to pass a law. Pass another law. And another law.
If laws aren’t stopping these killings, perhaps passing another law won’t work. Maybe, people on psyc meds shouldn’t have guns. Sounds reasonable. Maybe, the problem is the meds. Psyc meds might not be delivering the desired results. What if we banned these drugs? If the AMA can dial back the opiods, why not the crazy pills?
Repeal the 2A? Or cut out the drugs? Which lawmaker will be the first?
2
This is not a discussion of gun control versus abortion but to make the comparison between a zygote and a bullet-riddled adolescent purposely clouds the issue and marks another genuflection to the NRA. The GOP has done the gun lobby’s bidding far too long and needs to be held accountable. “Prayers and condolences” are a coward’s refuge. Air kisses of carnage. Politicians with gun money in their pockets need to be turned upside down and shaken in November.
11
What are these pro-gun people trying to defend themselves from? In isolated rural areas I can accept that it would be rattlesnakes and thieves and rapists because those are real things.
But mostly what I have heard from the ones I personally know who do NOT live in isolated rural areas is that their main fear is black people. Now Mexicans are added to the list. That's the kind of crime they imagine when they imagine their need for all this heavy weaponry for self-defense.
And it's very much linked to the racial bias in the War on Drugs and to why we are so so so much better in this country at locking black drug users and dealers than we are at locking up whites who do the same things in the same relative numbers.
It's pretty clueless and perhaps even cowardly to talk about guns without talking about the amount of racial paranoia in this country and the extent to which that paranoia is feeding organizations like the NRA and the whole gun world as a whole.
There is a not-insignificant overlap for example, between people who love guns and people who call Michelle Obama an "ape in heels" or tolerate hearing that from their friends.
Also, the insulting and verbally violent cultural signals coming from the gun crowd make me worry that I, as a liberal, am far more likely to become a victim of their guns than they are to be victims of these black or Mexican criminals who populate their dreams.
9
How old was Stephen Paddock?
7
Nope-- you should not be allowed to buy assault weapons. No amount of intellectual gymnastics and rationalizations need to apply.
10
Good suggestions Ross.
I would add:
1) 8 week "cool off" period to buy your gun
2) Requirement of 3 references (something this Fl shooter would have had a hard time getting)
3) Magazine capacity limits
2
@AJerome
How about mandatory liability insurance and licencing as well?
Assault is illegal. Shouldn't assault rifles be too?
7
This is not hard. Are you happy or sad? At a certain point you will fight back. Deflecting the anger from high pressure to low helps, but these kids are trapped by an institution that has failed and they know it. U S A education.
Douthat’s argument seems to equate maturation with chronological age. Would that were always the case. Unfortunately, the mentally unbalanced individual may well remain emotionally immature as long as he/she remains untreated.
4
What a gun lover! I am waiting for next Mass School Shooting coming soon! I noticed a strange phenomenon. When you enter any federal government building for anything, you see "No guns" sign, you have to pass the most advanced technology scrutiny machine for guns before entering. The government of the people, by the people and for the people knows how to protect themselves. Who cares about your children!
10
If the New York Times is going offer credible articles/reviews/reports and criticism about weapons then it is imperative that the writers and editors use the correct nomenclature to describe guns, ammunition and other accessories. The first picture has a caption below showing what is described as "High-capacity clips, including the type used for the AR 15..."
NO! That is wrong. An AR "type" rifle does not use "clips". The correct term is "magazine". It is totally different. In World War II the M1 Garrand rifle used 8 shot clips.
Additionally it would be far more accurate to no longer broadly define any semi-automatic rifle as an "AR 15 type". The category of AR 15 weapons is very broad and different weapons have different calibers and other notable differences that affect their capability and performance.
Furthermore there are many other rifles that have the same characteristics as AR type rifles. And many others are semi-automatic and have the capacity to accept high capacity magazines.
For the record also it is necessary to state that the pre-fix AR does NOT mean "automatic rifle" or "assault rifle". The letters AR stand for Armalite Rifle. That was the first model of the rifle designed by Eugene Stoner.
One other note; Yesterday the NYT published a report on the weapons used in mass shootings proporting to show that semi-auto rifles were responsible for the majority of incidents. It turned out that 15 of the weapons used were semi-auto pistols vs 7 rifles.
2
Thanks Poindexter - the argument that we can't discuss guns because we don't understand (or care about) the ins and outs of the technical jargon associated with them is getting really old. The point is that we need to find a way to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of emotionally disturbed 19 year-olds. Please try to keep focused on the problem.
As a physician, I've got to interact with many different age groups and degrees of societal adaptation, and lack of same. I've raised 4 children into adulthood, and observed many of their peers during developmental years. Every country in the world is the same when it comes to sad, depressed, and estranged young people. The difference in the United States is that we arm these unhappy people! With assault rifles that are easy to obtain.
In Pennsylvania, if you are a resident, you can go into Cabella's and in 20 minutes get a background check and walk out with an AR-15 and a pick-up full of cases of ammunition. This isn't right.
We need to limit these guns to shooting ranges, where you can shoot your socks off for hours if you'd like. But you shouldn't have these at home, in your car, or wandering the streets.
All assault rifles should be banned for civilian use outside of a shooting range. The government should buy them back, and outlaw the manufacture of them except for the miltiary, police, and licensed ranges.
It should be a felony to own an AR-15. It should be a felony to own more then a handful of bullets that you need to hunt with or protect your home. High-capacity clips should be outlawed.
Until our cowardly, financed by the NRA elected officials deal with this problem, we will see no progress.
It easier to buy and AR-15 legally now then Sudafed in the drug store! Ridiculous!
517
Assault rifles are almost impossible to obtain. AR 15 is not an assault rifle. That is why it is available. AR stand for Armalite Rifle. The NRA is also not a the powerful contributor the media make it out to be. Five individual billionaires outspent the NRA in 2016, four of them supporting Democrats. I do not see fixing this problem when we can't get our facts straight and we scapegoat an organization, which, if it disappeared today, would have no impact on the problem of gun violence. It is hard, by the way to get Sudafed, but for some reason, it is not hard to get meth. So much for bans and criminalization.
2
Blech. Talk about weak tea. No wonder progressives find arguments like this absurd.
18
Interesting option...I wonder if anyone else has come up with it. Quite reasonable. I think that it shouldn't be instituted nation-wide, only in states where guns are rooted in their culture. I think it applies to Florida and Texas, for example, but not my state and New York. We are quite happy not having an omnipresence of guns. I think the idea is so reasonable and sensible that it might stand a chance in those children as collateral damage states. Not sure about the NRA and the more extreme gun rights organizations.
And as I said in my other comments recently, I think that action must be taken at the state level for those affected states. Only when the legislature in Florida and Texas act to address the problem will anything happen. Children as collateral damage doesn't work at the national level because it is too remote, but can work at the state level, and definitely could work at the city level, if that were possible. At that level, the voices of the state cititizens can be heard. If only they act.
2
Ross, You got to be kidding, selling AR15s to 30 year old people will do it? As if a 30 year old could not pull a trigger like a 90 year old? But more specifically comparing Choice to gun killing is more that foolish--it is down right wrong. As Maureen Dowd wrote today: "treating children as collateral damage is intolerable."
I'll put it another way--do not abort a fetus, but wait until it is a child so it can be killed bu guns, and lert's not talk about it now but pray.
3
Texas is gun friendly but has the same murder rate (4.8) as California. It has a lower murder rate than 21 other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state
We could have meaningful gun control if, before any vote on the issue, each Congressman or Senator were required to publicly state the amount of money he or she had received from the NRA. Goodbye assault rifles. Hello common sense gun control.
39
The gun-selling lobby, now using Russian money as well, has too many elected officials in their pocket to permit anything to stand in the way of selling more and more guns.
So we will just have to get used to more and more gun deaths.
17
"many (guns) deter violence"--exactly 505 last year--only slightly more than killed by accident, and WAY less than the 20,000 suicides.
8
Seems to make a little bit of sense until we get to the proposal to allow semi-automatic weapons to 30-year-olds. Why?
39
Ross . . . staggering gun ownership by age on "high-minded" grounds is a good idea. But why not appeal to facts as well? Research into human brain development tells us that the faculty of judgement is one of the last to mature. The teen brain isn't finished until the age of 25 (see here and elsewhere: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708).
Once we understand the medical science concerning the development of judgement and age, it should also caution us in allowing people under the age of 25 to volunteer for military service.
2
Sorry. We have moved into a society where people commit mass shootings because they can. Consider the wild scramble to come up with a motive for the Las Vegas shooter. His thirty-three gun purchase was his right. It certainly wasn't his responsibility.
16
What a ridiculous idea Ross Douthat suggests, that (in schools shootings alone) treating the ownership of weapons like the AR-15, comes with maturity and age, where there would be a sliding scale of age demographics that would make as Dothan suggests, 30 years old as the baseline to own one of these mass murder weapons. Remember Las Vas, the sane, calm, premeditated act of Stephen Paddock? He was 64 years old when he murdered 58 people and injured over 800.
49
Lou Rehrs is correct. Some of our worst gun violence is from men over the age of 21. Not just Stephen Paddock, Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald, but hundreds of killers who only murdered 4 to 6 people and so didn't make the national news. By Douthat's logic there is a stronger case to ban males from having such weapons.
Neither proposal has any chance, even in a majority Democratic Congress. Douthat is a devoted Republican who has pulled this trick before. When there is a Real Problem he offers a flight of fancy, apparently to distract some of the heat from his party's indefensible position.
Mr Douthat, you missed the mark by a long shot.
But let me (a socialist liberal) propose a deal. A deal that will truly hurt the liberal soul.
I would be willing to restrict abortions to the first trimester, (abortions in the second and third trimester only with medical indications) if in return you'd grant me extremely well regulated gun ownership (guns for hunters and in justifiable cases for self defense purposes and sports, ban of all semi automatic weapons, ban of certain ammunitions etc).
Deal?
21
Hang on there. Don't know if you're male or female, but not all women are willing to bargain away our rights that way.
Just awful. morally and factually bankrupt. I once slept with an M-16. After I gave it back to the armorer, I never had another firearm. There are firearms designed to kill animals for meat and even sport but most are designed to kill people. Does anyone think police carry 9 mm handguns to shoot a stray raccoon raiding your trashcan. There is no case for weapons of death. Most civilized nations have agreed. Only here is an anachronism from the 18th century put forth as a right and fetishized as what manly men have to protect what is theirs. No guns make us safer than many guns, fewer would help.
35
Ross: "Let 18-year-olds own hunting rifles. Make revolvers available at 21. Semiautomatic pistols, at 25. And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger."
Yes, that's right: allowing people older than 30 to have semi-automatic weapons worked out so well recently at a concert in Las Vegas, didn't it?
Oh, Ross, you are so funny.
26
“Let 18-year-olds own hunting rifles. Make revolvers available at 21. Semiautomatic pistols, at 25. And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger.” This is where you lost me! Sorry, but no one except law enforcement needs AR-15’s or any type of semi automatic guns. Sorry.
18
I find it strange that conservitives who are pro-gun are also pro-life. The kids who were mowed down with an assault rifle purchased lawfully are dead. How is the ownership of that kind of gun pro-life?
29
Ownership of a military weapon, and high capacity magazines should simply be stopped. For all ages. The AR-15 in the photo that accompanies this piece appears to be chambered in .223 caliber. That is a military load. It is illegal in many states for deer hunting, which often requires .30 caliber or larger. .223s are for killing people, and were designed to be used by those with little experience with guns, due to their low recoil. They really aren't for hunting, and while one might argue that they are legitimate target weapons, there is no excuse any longer for them to be available with high capacity magazines.
There is so much that could be said about this. Simply put, though, AR-15s of this sort should be banned. Those wanting to shoot them should sign up for active duty in the military. Period.
31
I've known some eighteen year olds who I would completely trust with an AR-15, and scores of people in their thirties and beyond who shouldn't be trusted with a pen knife. Your plan is unworkable and slanders younger people in the process. This kind of tinkering is silly. A society awash in ever more deadly firearms is not going to be saved by anything short of repealing the Second Amendment.
18
I grew up firing guns in Wyoming. I served in the Army and was my unit's armorer who conducted weapons maintenance and helped organized shooting ranges. Douthat is mistaken in his logic. If someone attacked a rural house in Wyoming, then they would get their heads blown off. That goes without saying, but that is not the core of the debate. Our Quasimodo Trump signed a bill to exempt mental nut jobs of being added to an FBI list prohibiting nut cases from buying guns. How about some truth Ross! We have had enough of gun lobby lies.
30
As an Australian-American, I note you do nothing to explain the stark difference regarding gun ownership between our two otherwise similar cultures. You present an academic argument using fine phrases such as young-male anomie which gun owners will not read. The word "anomie" I have not heard used since my social theory class in the sixties. If you are ever related to someone in the household who is given to fits of rage, the idea that a gun sits idly on a shelf, is again, academic. At best, people lock their weapons in gun cabinets to deter its lethal potential as an instrument of thoughtless anger. We live gun free and do not feel the need to defend ourselves by means of a weapon.
15
Make it a very expensive "right" by taxing ammunition. At $40 per round, or more. A 30 round clip, $1200.
13
Make the gun owner carry an insurance policy on every weapon they own. Yearly premiums actualized by the number of people who have been killed by such a weapon. BB gun...low rates.....AR 15 high rates.
1
"...but guns sit harmless in millions of households and many deter violence or turn back evil men." This assertion is an empirical, not a moral question. I think you need to do some "vulgar empiricism" to test this hypothesis. Otherwise, you have merely said something that bears no connection to reality.
9
let's be originalists about this. at the time of the passage of the constitution, "arms" were muskets. so let's say every citizen has a right to a musket. hard to accomplish a mass shooting with one of those.
22
Mr. Douthat, I'm another liberal admirer of your frequently intelligent conservative observations. Your idea here of an age-based regulatory regime for gun ownership is another such. In the same space, however, you lend support to the utterly fatuous and disingenuous old gun-lovers' saw that gun ownership, even in the age of overwhelming American military might (a state armed to the teeth with history's greatest arsenal of ultra-sophisticated death-dealing machinery) is every citizen's sacrosanct right and some kind of useful tool with which to "resist when the state fails." That canard fails, Mr. Douthat. In the face of one mass school shooting after another, it fails obscenely.
16
“The reason that mass shootings aren’t leading to legislative action is that we have a chasm between two sweeping moral visions, one pro-gun and one anti-gun...”
Are you kidding us, Ross? Are you actually claiming that the Republican-led Congress hasn’t moved on gun legislation because of a moral-philosophical debate?
Really?
It is virtually indisputable that Republicans are in the hip pocket of the NRA and gun manufacturers, and reticently so, if not cowardly. How can you not see, much less admit, this? Republicans won’t even entertain the idea of moving on moderate, sensible legislation that a decisive majority of American citizens strongly support.
Any member of Congress beholden to the gun lobby and unwilling to move beyond innocuous “thoughts and prayers” has the blood of precious innocents on their hands. And, Ross, their unwillingness has little to do with philosophical debate, but with moral weakness.
It’s visceral, partisan stupidity.
P.S. I’m not a card-carrying Democrat; I’m simply an ultra-concerned American citizen.
25
Ross, It may be as you state that most people who advocate for unfettered ownership to lethal weapons do so with the belief that they are promoting self-defense as an essential civic good. But not all. My uncle lived on a country road at the crest of a hill. His gun closet contained a number of high power hunting rifles. He built his home on that location and filled his closet because he was certain that the impoverished residents of a nearby city who were of a different ethnic background than he were going to steal what was his. He intended to stand on top of the hill and kill those he viewed as a threat- judge and executioner - without any knowledge of who they were or whether they were of bad intent or out for a hike. President Trump feeds such people with his assertions of bad hombres streaming across our southern border, and his tolerance of individuals at his rallies who chanted worse then "lock her up." There was at least one recording of a individual who cried out in response to the name of President Obama, "Lynch the Nigg..".
In the the early 1980's one of my friends returned to Lebanon to visit his mother. The country was in the midst of its civil war. Everyone had a weapon. Children carried assault rifles. If you were not recognized as a neighbor, you were immediately shot. I asked if anyone had a gun how was anyone safe? He said that a man up the street had purchased a tank.
Is this were we are headed?
18
This would seem to be rather a shock, Mr. Douthat, but you do not in fact have anything resembling a monopoly on morality.
Particularly, if I may tug a forelock and make so bold, as you deny your own Pope's criticism of capitalism.
7
"...relying on studies and experiments that show the limits of prohibition..."
And yet those opposed to gun control have taken every step they can to prevent such studies and experiments from taking place. When one side of the debate is unilaterally opposed to any research on the question at hand it makes it hard to credit any appeal they might make to "facts" or "evidence" or even "logic". They clearly are not interested in such things.
13
"AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger." So there would still be AR-15s aplenty. We all know that would work just fine. You must be 21 to purchase alcohol, which makes it completely unavailable to anyone younger than 21. Right?
11
Mr. Douthat, you excel at sophistry.
You give us pap - distractions from the ongoing carnage that your political party inflicts on our country in the name of "freedom" and "The Second Amendment."
The founders envisioned "A well regulated Militia" and perhaps technically advanced muskets. But not quasi-machine guns that can kill tens of people in a minute - made available to virtually everybody.
You claim to be an intellectual. Then note our Constitution's Preamble.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Don't see the part about insuring the availability of tools for mass civilian murder.
I've used the M 16 military equivalent of the AR-15. It's lethal in combat but awful (and dangerous) for home defense or for personal protection.
A sane gun policy would ban all assault weapons, large capacity mags, and mandate: 1) local, 2) state and 3) federal background checks.
All civilian guns would be registered. All gun-owners would be trained, licensed, and required to carry gun liability insurance.
The latter condition would tend to weed-out whack-jobs and prior gun offenders.
11
So making an analogy of abortion to guns states that terminating a pregnancy before viability is worse than using a weapon that is manufactured to kill existing people, sometimes multiple mature humans?
No wonder we can't agree on any of these of these issues, when abortion is compared to slavery, and now it's compared to gun violence. Ironic; when a Constitutional right involves women, it gets compared to the worst example of male-oriented behavior we can offer: chattel enslavement and mass murder.
8
Umm, Ross. The Las Vegas shooter was 64 years old. The common thread is availability and access to weapons designed only for mass murder. This really isn't that hard.
9
Yes. As long as there are angry males and angry guns there will be bloody, scary, heart wrenching deaths. We cannot fix everyone’s anger, but we can nix angry guns.
Congress 2018: either no WMD or go home. Either a national gun registry or go home. No compromises. Gun owners, you are a minority. You have money but you are few.
4
I would remind Ross that the Las Vegas shooter was in his sixties. NO ONE - let me repeat NO CIVILIAN - needs to or should be allowed to own an automatic machine gun. Period. Case closed. It is a moral issue. There is no justification for civilians owning weapons designed for war.
9
I have a modest proposal that we certainly please everyone.
About 90% of violent crime is committed by men, and an even larger percentage of indiscriminate mass shootings. Most pro-gun propaganda features women threatened by home invaders, rapists, etc., who need guns to protect themselves, or be protected with.
So, here's all we have to do. See to it that every woman in America is trained and equipped with firearms, and men (other than professionals) are forbidden to touch them. This will ensure that there are always an abundance of "good gals" available to stop the "bad guys" especially in vulnerable places like schools and churches. Men have their strength and size to protect them and can carry sticks if they like. If any man nevertheless feels threatened, there will surely be a woman handy to whom he may run for protection.
There is surely precedent also. Through most of human history and in most countries it was really only one gender that was armed, this entails only a slight adjustment from that ancient and venerable pattern.
No reduction in the number of guns would be needed, and many other gun laws could in fact be repealed. There are some bad woman out there, of course, and this would not eliminate all gun crime, but surely this modest proposal would save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives every year. We don't need to get rid of the guns at all. We just need to put them in the right hands.
Who could object?
7
I love that they can 'carry sticks if they like' ...
So why not have a public-private partnership with organizations like the NRA, the NSSF, etc to teach gun safety in the schools? As much as the zealous anti-gunners would wish it were true, NRA members do not make up the leagues criminal classes that commit murder with their guns.
I wouldn't like your system of graduated responsibility for a constitutional right. My grandfather, a veteran of WW1, not 2, gave me a revolver when I was fourteen, as well as a high powered military rifle, bolt action, with bullets.
I was old enough. I didn't kill anyone, or even threaten anyone with the guns. I was, and still am, a responsible citizen who is still learning about my responsibilities as a citizen of this country. I learned how to drive too, at a later age, but I still don't entertain the possibility of giving up my car because another person drives drunk and kills a bunch of teenagers.
Why is gun education such an anathema to the gun control legions? They, the liberals, have essentially shut it out as something they would tolerate.
Why?
Repeal the 2nd amendment. Your argument is spurious and impractical. The shooter in Vegas was an older guy. Gun culture and fetishization of guns in American culture leads to valuing this individual right more than thousands of lives. It's sick. I value life more than weapons.
4
"And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger."
Yes, that's the solution! Our children can be slaughtered only by mature 30 year old sociopaths. Why didn't I think of that?
Mr. Douthat, your attempt to bridge the gap has a major problem: One side has been driven crazy by the gun lobby, and your compromise just gets us to half crazy. No good.
I watched the screaming crowds at the Trump rallies, wound up by the demagogue candidate to the fever pitch of a lynch mob. The idea that those people can have firearms is nuts. The idea that a "conservative" columnist thinks they should is chilling.
8
There is a category error in Douthat's analysis when he claims that people who want gun control are "anti-gun." That's demonstrably false.
Empirical studies have show where the real division is. It's not between people who fear or despise guns and those who value guns. The divide is between those who just want to have sane restrictions––no assault weapons, no permits to domestic abusers or people found to be mentally ill––and those who think any regulation whatsoever harms their liberty.
Those who want sane restrictions includes most gun owners! The hunters who have rifles. The people who have a handgun secured in their home for protection. The sportsmen and women who enjoy target shooting at a range. Thousands if not millions of these people are not "anti-gun" by any stretch of the imagination, but they are still appalled by the routine slaughter that comes from a country awash in military-style assault weapons that serve no purpose but mass death.
8
Graduated firearms ownership? Mr. Douthat is grasping at the proverbials here.
Speaking for myself, I was cured of the "myself-alone libertarian" mindset back in the Boy Scouts when I went out for the various Citizenship merit badges (Home, Community, Nation, World Brotherhood). But when I mentioned this to a couple of contemporary conservatives, I was met with a mixture of incomprehension and disdain.
That fetishizing of the individual, coupled with whatever psychopathologies drive mass murderers, is as much of a factor in public shootings (school, church, concert) as the ready availability of the hardware. But discussing the hardware dispassionately appears to be impossible.
BTW, it isn't just "young-male anomie." The San Diego school shooting of January 29, 1979, was perpetrated by a girl. I'm just saying.
"I decided not to bore my readers with research papers and simply appealed to moral intuition and recent cultural experience."
Placing your feelings over facts. You are indeed part of the problem, Mr. Douthat. Smart people doing incredible research have established the relationship between the level of guns in a city, state, and country and the increased chances of firearm deaths. The guns are the problem. Not a person's age. Not a level of experience. The guns.
6
Sure. Raising the age for access to AR-15s would be good.
If one is arguing that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own guns so they can protect themselves against a tyrannical government, why settle for AR-15s as the most lethal option? Given the strength of our armed forces, let’s level the playing field and allow private ownership of grenades, machine guns, rocket launchers, tanks, bombers, and tactical nuclear weapons.
Absurd as it is, that’s NRA logic for you. It’s long past time for it to be declared a terrorist organization and dealt with accordingly.
5
Weapon ownership staggered by age is a fabulous idea! The older you are, the better you can handle the increased firepower.
Since I'm turning 65 in a couple of months shouldn't I qualify for a Hellfire II Romeo?
5
The AGM-114 Hellfire is an air-to-surface missile (ASM) first developed for anti-armor use, but later models were developed for precision strikes against other target types, and have been used in a number of targeted killings of high-profile individuals.
Can anyone read the second amendment? Why not just enforce the part about a well regulated militia? Seems pretty clear the Founders intended gun ownership to be REGULATED as part of being in a militia. Like Switzerland, where every able bodied man in the militia gets to keep gun at home, but they count the bullets.
1
The majority of gun owners are not mass murderers. We also need to talk about mental health issues. This young fellow had serious psychological problems that were left untreated. He was abusing animals and wrote about becoming a school shooter on the Internet. Why wasn't this threat taken seriously? There were many telltale signs that something was not quite right with this young man. The police had been called numerous times to his home by his mother. He was a bad seed who should have gotten immediate attention from the authorities and mental health professionals. He should never have been allowed to own the AR-15 rifle but should have gotten professional help too. Hopefully, this is an important warning sign that parents and authorities take seriously to avoid mass murder in the future of innocent people young and old.
1
Douthat pretends to deplore bogus arguments but his apposing abortion to simple gun ownership (every abortion kills but most guns sit harmless) is as specious a comparison as I have ever seen. Many guns that "sit harmless" will someday find their way to someone who will do evil with them, even if the original owner doesn't. It's a simple numbers game, some percentage of the millions of firearms will be used in crimes, now or later. Conservatives pretend that the supposed freedom of owning a gun is worth the thousands of deaths they cause to innocent people. Good luck with that argument.
5
C'mon, Ross. No AR15s at any stage unless you're a highly trained and mentally vetted professional. And how about no guns without passing a training ritual, like cars. And, why again is it that other cultures not that different than our own have been able keep a lid on gun violence or even effectively ban weapons? And no more NRA-sponsored politicians. Let's start there.
1
If you go to the CDC website the data speaks for itself. States with greater restrictions on gun ownership have fewer deaths from firearms this includes murder, accidental deaths and suicide.
This is a public health issue pure and simple. Remember there was a time that cigarette companies promoted the health benefits of their products, advertised how manly you could be if you smoked their brand, and vehemently denied that smoking causes cancer? How is that any different from what the NRA does now?
5
Trump and the GOP have put automatic guns in the hands of hundreds of thousands of people, knowing full well that some are bound to be deranged killers and that some of these are also bound to slip through any conceivable safety net. That makes these politicians accessories to murder. No less.
According to Washington Post, the FBI’s call center in 2017 received more than 766,000 calls, (from people with concerns about unstable gun owners). Common sense dictates that no system can guarantee against errors of judgement when assessing 3/4 million messages.
Consider then the vile dishonesty and hypocrisy and, yes, wickedness of Trump and his GOP enablers who, accept NRA bribes (socalled donations) in exchange for putting military grade weapons in the hands of millions of many thousands of Americans, and then immediately blame the law enforcement authorities when some crazy killer predictably, slips through the net.
1
Ross, you state that every abortion kills but guns sit around harmlessly, with many being used to "deter violence or turn back evil men.'
A) Guns are designed ONLY as killing machines. They literally have no other purpose. I agree that abortion should be avoided at all costs, and it can largely be prevented with sex ed. and availability of contraceptives. However, when it does happen (safe, legal, and rare), abortion kills a collection of cells, saving the emotional/professional/psychological/sometimes medical life of the mother--an actual walking, talking human being, with family, thoughts, feelings, ideas, goals, and a life. Guns, on the other hand, very frequently kill actual walking, talking human beings, with family, feelings, goals, etc. (Conservatives' fake outrage about abortions would be a lot more convincing, Ross, if they were also strong proponents of sex ed. and contraception. But it's not really about babies, is it? It's about your squeamishness about sex--as many of your columns demonstrate--and your objection to women being free.)
B) As murder and suicide statistics show, millions of guns do not sit around harmlessly but rather are used for killing.
C) I have literally never seen or heard of a gun deterring an "evil man" (or an evil woman, for that matter. Equal rights for women! We demand the right to be evil too!) It might happen in, oh, 2 households per year in this country of 300+ million, but, well, don't be silly, John Wayne, I mean, Ross.
5
So, by your analysis, someone is mature enough to have his fingers on the button of America's nuclear arsenal at the age of 70?
Perhaps we need to question the very concept of "gun culture" and why a culture of people could have their identities shaped so much by guns and our celebration of the glory attained with guns.
Why, you know, we are due for a parade of arms! We must have this show of Alpha in our genes.
Snowflakes will not inherit the earth.
As an aside, what was the Uber driver thinking when he delivered Nicholas Cruz to a high school with an AR-15 and a zillion rounds of ammunition? I find it beyond belief that he didn't notice those two items in the killer's possession.
I think high school students may be on the verge of demanding that either we get rid of assault rifles or they are not going to school. Good for them.
I think the graduated ownership of guns is a great idea.....but why allow semi-automatic weapons at all? They serve absolutely no purpose and, as proven by all these mass shootings, are deadly to our society.
1
This column is an insult to every parent who has lost a child to gun violence. The Constitution is not a sacred icon, and has been amended in the past. Our society's worship of guns is an obscenity not shared by any other civilized nation, and we pay for it daily. If there were a virtual reality experience of the aftermath of the slaughter of the children at Sandy Hook and Mr. Douthat had the courage to view it I doubt that he would be so nuanced in his defense of gun ownership.
Still not clear on why semi-automatic weapons are needed by civilians. It would seem non-automatic weapons would suffice for protection in rural areas against would be felons. As far as protection against an oppressive government, one would need ballistic missiles and the like for that. The fact that Douthat would advocate ownership of semi-automatic guns at any age makes me wonder why I would ever again read any column by him. The obvious answer to all of this is: VOTE!
"(The pro-gun vision is) essentially a moral-political picture in which the fullness of citizenship includes the capacity to protect and defend, to step in when the state fails and resist when it imposes illegitimately."
Here's an interesting historic perspective on that argument. Ronald Reagan when he was Governor if California,, signed the Mulford Act which forbid the public carrying of loaded firearms, a law he believed “would work no hardship on the honest citizen”. California’s Mulford Act was introduced in 1967 in response to the Black Panther Party’s decision to conduct armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods because of their objection to treatment by the local police force, which they saw as illegitimately imposing it's will on the citizens. By contrast, in today’s world the presence of armed militias in Charlottesville “to provide order at the protest” did not compel any legislative action or raise any concerns about an armed insurrection. Readers can draw their own conclusions... but I see it as evidence that the NRA has blinded us to the inherent dangers of vigilante justice.
From my perspective, I see no reason why any private citizen needs a weapon designed to kill large numbers of enemy troops... which was the intent of the kinds of weapons used in these school shootings. Like Mr. Reagan, I do not believe an outright ban of these kinds of weapons “would work no hardship on the honest citizen”.
The pro gun tribe is all about mental health monitoring. But what about the mental health of all the students who grow up with a siege mentality because the pro gun lobby can’t bear the thought of banning assault weapon sales. And Ross do you really think the pro gunners would be comfortable if suddenly multitudes of Arabs and Muslims started buying guns? There are other issues here, racism, religious intolerance, xenophobia that the pro gunners also associate with and that is a reason why some of us who are minorities are frightened by the zealotry of the pro gunners. As far as personal defense goes, we have police, albeit in need frequently of reform. They train to use weapons with good judgment. (Well they’re supposed to at least). Just look at the pictures of marksmen ready to shoot and kill to defend Cliven Bundy. Scary. There is so much paranoia about jack booted government thugs that is pure nonsense. They insist on the right to bear and wield arms of all kinds. What about the rest of us and our right to be free from their intimidation?
1
St. Ignatius and Satya Sai Baba both declared that "Satan" is that part of
ourselves which walks away from God.
Since the 1960's, I've been watching the gun control issue. For over 50 years, Republican politicians have consistently thwarted reasonable gun control legislation, nationwide. President Clinton managed to get an assault weapon ban through Congress, but on the way Republicans wedged a 5-year Sunset Clause into the legislation. 70% of Republican voters and 90% of Democrat voters have indicated they would approve of legislation to control assault weapons. Senator Diane Feinstein (D) has submitted a proposal
to Congress to do that.
Let's make it simple, Mr. Douthat, Republican politicians have walked away from God. May your spiritual journey continue.
1
“...a fetishization of guns and violence is also a real American cultural phenomenon, ...”
The AR-15 is an assault weapon. It was designed for use on a battlefield. The so-called civilian version is a sales gimmick pandering at best to armchair warriors or at its worst, to murderers. These “guns” were designed to either kill outright or seriously injure. The alienated young men or not so young men who crave these weapons precisely because of the fact are lethal and this fact alone gives them a sense of power they never would have otherwise had. This was never the intent of the Second Amendment. I cannot understand why anyone with even a sliver of morality would tolerate the arguments that anyone who has the money to pay for these weapons has a constitutional right to own what are in reality military grade weapons that fire ammunition specifically designed for use on a battlefield.
1
Please enlighten us as to the situation where a 'morally responsible" citizen should be allowed to posess not just one but 33 automatic assault weapons and sufficient ammunition to kill hundreds of people.
Also, people do not fall into two clean categories, "morally responsible" or "lunatics". Any "responsible person" can have a bad day, week, month or year and if owning an assault weapon is the norm, violence and mayhem are too.
1
Junior's too young to buy a gun so he: gets a fake ID, or take's dad's gun, etc...way to many routes around the age restriction thing. Guns serve little/no necessary purpose outside of law enforcement and the military these days. Time to remove them from society.
2
The 5-4 Supreme Court decision that concluded every American has the right to bear arms, is only 10 years old. Reading the dissenting opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens gave me hope. I believe this decision will be overturned when Americans the age of the students of Marjorie Stoneman Doulas High School can vote. Buy back programs and other methods will be instituted and we may return to what I remember in my youth - very rare mass shootings.
Driving is regulated -- but we still can't buy tanks. We shouldn't be able to buy AR-15s either.
The social fabric of our country is at the mercy of the arms industry. It’s unraveling with the death of each innocent child. But the arms industry will not get away with for long. All who support corporate profits and the death of children over community and domestic tranquillity will be voted from office. And soon. Their money can’t stop it for ever.
1
No one -- not a one, regardless of age -- needs a semi-automatic rifle. They must be banned completely.
The notion of defending yourself against the state when it imposes 'illegitimately' is ludicrous.
This is a ludicrous proposal. Why not just ban AR-15s? There is no rationale for the possession of these guns by ordinary citizens of any age.
Nothing in your article justifies - at any age - a semiautomatic weapon and high capacity clips. The Las Vegas shooter was not a teenager. These weapons of mass murder are fetishes, not practical arms for hunting. And show me - even far from local police - where AR15s have protected anyone better than more sane firearms.
Mass shootings make the headlines, but they account for a small fraction of all homicides. By the same token, of the millions of AR-15 style rifles out there, the number used in crimes is a fraction of a fraction of one percent.
As Nate Silver notes in his fivethirtyeight blog, the real problem in the US is the black homicide rate. According to Silver's data, the white homicide rate is 2.5 per 100,000 people. That's higher than other developed countries but in the same order of magnitude, and comparable to Finland's 2.0. What makes the US an outlier is the black homicide rate of 19.4 per 100,000. You can have your own opinions about the causes, but it's pretty clear that the problem lies in the black community.
Want to stop 99 Percent of Gun Murders, within DAYS ? Easy. Except for active duty military personnel and licensed police, BAN all MALES from possessing all firearms. VERY simple AND effective. Seriously.
1
They want to protect their freedom from an encroaching government, let them bone up on the First Amendment, a free press, and the rule of law. No one in a modern urban society has a reason to own any kind of firearm. Where there aren’t predators to control proliferating herbivores, then license hunters and wildlife managers to cull them and protect the environment. Guns are not toys, and regressed adolescents who want to play with them have no right to endanger the rest of us..
Ross Douthat at lease proposes something I have been thinking about, age restrictions, as possible compromise between prohibition and our insane laissez-faire gun laws. That said, I find his argument that data and science "support" his critique of gun proposal laws to smell pretty rank.
Cross-country comparisons, and even between U.S. states, show a clear reduction in firearms deaths purely from HAVING LESS OF THEM. The "pro-Gun moral vision" does not exist. It's an absurdity.
The reason U.S. bans like the automatic weapons ban in the '90s had poor results is that it requires comprehensive, nationally-standard changes, with much tighter supervision of gun-owners, to get positive results, mostly. Although CT has seen reduced deaths just from its automatics-ban. Show us your data, Douthat, so we can rip it to shreds. It's a crock.
What a breathtaking proposal... letting 18 year olds own hunting rifles but not pistols or AR-15s! Is this suggesting that a hunting rifle can do less harm than a pistol? Mr. Douthat, perhaps you should have been exposed to guns earlier or gone hunting with someone who used a rifle to rip apart the flesh or disembowel a large animal. You wouldn't have made such a cockeyed proposal were that the case. Pistols?...take the case of a good friend of mine, who upon visiting the home of older couple, the husband which had too much to drink, went to his closet and brought out his loaded pistol and waving it in the air, railed against the minorities in our society... not the most pleasant dinner party experience I think you will agree.
For the life of me Mr. Douthat, I seen no difference between death by hunting rifle, pistol, or AR15 except for the increased capacity of the latter.
I have a more practical solution--one taken in fact from the abortion debate. Conservatives have insisted that state instead of federal law apply in the case of abortion. While I personally disagree with this view because the rights of a mother over her fetus are inviolable, as they are one person, the concept of states rights would be a great partial solution to our guns and murder obsessed country. Let states and cities erect their own laws around guns.
If you live on a ranch in Wyoming where the police are an hour away, keep your gun. If you live in most places--populated, busy, with neighbours up and down the street, no guns are needed and none should be allowed.
Why stop with AR-15’s at age 30, Ross? Why not allow tanks at age 35, missiles at age 40 and atomic bomb at, let’s say 50? We do need to be reasonable, of course! No young person should have an atomic bomb!
Why is America the only country in the developed world that allows for the legal ownership of weapons like AR-15’s? If protecting ourselves from the government is the key, we need access to a lot more than this. If self-defense is the key,we need a lot less!
There is NO reason period for a civilian to own an AR-15 or like weapon. These are meant to kill enemies on the field of battle not toddlers teenagers, partygoers or movie attendees. Let's start with that and move on to making gun ownership a responsibility as well as a priviledge, meaning licensing, insurance etc.
I can't understand how any Christian can defend our culture of guns. Have you read the gospels? For instance, the command to love our enemies?
The problem with the "but what about this evil thing" argument is that at it's core it is an excuse not to take any action because things are so bad and there is so much to do we can't choose. Silence in the face of horror is the coward's way out. That is despair plain and simple and maybe an admission that you like the way things are because keeping things the way they are supports a questionable and controversial position that you hold and attacking that position makes you uncomfortable. Basically you are legitimizing not taking a stand because we can't do anything or we can't be sure. Banning the sale by anybody and everybody of assault rifles, specialized ammo and kits or tools to convert to full auto isn't going to solve all the problems or get all assault rifles off the streets but it is surely a good start and is a heck of a lot better than doing nothing and sitting around wringing our hands as a nation while teenagers are gunned down in cold blood to protect "the right to bear arms" of adults obsessed in an unhealthy way with guns and gun culture. Face it. Americans are sick, really sick and the disease is guns. How many more children will have to die to protect the " rights" of adults to kill in cold blood? That seems shockingly backward thinking to me. I thought adults are supposed to protect children not kill them.
One need not have attained any age to have access to fire arms, Several of the past school shootings were done with a parent's fire arms.
"Let 18-year-olds own hunting rifles. Make revolvers available at 21. Semiautomatic pistols, at 25. And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger."
That'll surely keep AR-15s out of the hands of the deranged teen boy in the household. Sure it will. Are you kidding? Civilians don't need automatic and semi-automatic weapons - period.
Just as we don’t interpret the 2nd Amendment to allow for widespread ownership of surface-to-air missile launchers and missiles, we should not allow ANY weapons of war to be part of the private market for arms. “Assaulting” other humans is illegal. Weapons of war, including assault rifles, should not be tolerated!
The gulf is not ideological but political. Universal background checks, categories that prohibit ownership/possession - as with being convicted of domestic violence - and no weapons of mass slaughter or war. There has to be majority support for these ideas. The interest group politics, too little mentioned in the piece, kill majoritarianism every time.
You lost me at allowing AR-15's to be sold, period. Give me one good reason for owning an AR-15. I've yet to hear one.
Ugh.
Especially lame is the notion that rural people may have more need of assault weapons for personal protection. Practically any non-assault style firearm in existence should suffice....if there was a genuine need...which I doubt.
Jed Clampett had a musket, as I recall, for scaring off bankers and neer-do-wells courting Ellie May. OK, he could probably have used an upgrade.
Seriously? You seriously think that age limits imposed on the type of gun people in a certain age bracket will be allowed to purchase will be the answer to mass shootings? My mouth dropped opened in disbelief at this assertion based on exactly what I do not know - perhaps some kind of vague conservative pretzel twisting logic. How old was the person who committed mass homicide in Las Vegas? Orlando? Colorado? Wisdom comes with age? Oh I turned 30 today so therefore I no longer want to commit mass homicide and can buy the semi-automatic gun of my dreams. Have you never even bothered to look at the comparison of statistics of deaths caused by gunshot wounds between civilized countries which impose reasonable gun control standards compared to the United States with its lax standards on gun control? You might find it illuminating to do so. Gun control does work. That is a fact. Period.
Yes, you have "(raised) my liberal zeal" but my "liberal zeal" gets raised when yet again I hear "our thoughts and prayers are with the victim's families and friends..." We need sensible, reasonable gun regulation, and we don't need a committee to come up with what is already known: "It's the guns.....". (Those who remember one of Bill Clinton's campaign slogans can fill in the rest of the sentence).
Very good proposal, but I can hear my pro-gun at any cost friend saying
“This is the first step to gun confiscation”. Don’t know how to incrementally make any progress here but we have to do something.
10 year old can have guns for hunting and so can the blind. Nice idea of age limits, but it will never happen
1
"And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger."
So, by your standards, it is ok for some one like the Las Vegas gunman, who was over 30, to buy an AR-15 type rifle. Well, he did and massacred many people.
It is not the age of the gunman that should be a factor in the availability of the type on weapons that are used to commit mass murder. It is the carnage that these weapons cause. That alone should prohibit the sale of such weapons to people who are not involved in law enforcement or the military.
Florida is also known as the Gunshine State with a long history of NRA lobbying and NRA produced laws.
Rick Scott has a terrible record on gun control and signed one of the worst NRA gun laws, Docs vs. Glocks that was recently overturned.
And before being governor, Rick Scott had to step down as CEO of Hospital Corporation of America in 1997 for the biggest Medicare fraud case in history.
Your proposed approach is a half measure that won't work. It doesn't address the problem of too much fire power that is too easy to purchase. In 1934 the federal government banned private citizens from owning automatic weapons. Why can't we ban semi-automatic weapons? Explain why private citizens need access to weapons that can't be used for hunting only for killing people. Are you so afraid of your fellow citizens that you need a gun that can shoot 40 - 50 rounds per minute?
Ross, you are a knee-jerk conservative that can't recognized that your philosophical position is indefensible.
Semi-automatic guns should not be sold to anyone at any age. These are military weapons that have no use in civilian life except to kill great numbers of people at one time. Your 30+ limitation would still enable those such as the Las Vegas shooter. So, just no.
Of course, he could have looked for data, and asked this question: How often have these guns been used in lawful self-defense compared, say, to mass shootings, or shooting law enforcement while serving warrants or responding to domestic violence calls? As for the advancing age suggestion, it's hard to believe someone with the talent to write for the NY Times could come up with an idea that ludicrous in too many ways to count.
Ross should know, there is no brooking moral absolutes. And that is what we have turned the second amendment into.
"Make revolvers available at 21. Semiautomatic pistols, at 25. And semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 could be sold to 30-year-olds but no one younger."
How about hand grenades at 35, rocket launchers at 40..... We need to protect ourselves, right?
Sans the smugness that predominated not a bad ending. It's a start, at least. Yes, let's do this.
RD still wants the AR-15 available? He doesn't explain why, nor will he ever.
He remains unable or unwilling to see the NRA's moral bankruptcy: NO LIVES MATTER.
This column makes no sense! We live in a society where we should fear the insanity of our president who is unwilling to oppose the gun lobby and talks about international violence on a regular basis. Douthat's values are similar when he talks about gun ownership like admission to a X rated movie. PLEASE!
Here's the trouble with your suggestion. As long as I am in good mental health and not a criminal, I can buy as many guns and bullitts as I want. None of us think we are ever going to come down with mental illness, but 25% of Americans do have mental illnesses on any given day. And I am sure there are more who aren't being counted. It's very very dangerous for folks with depression, bi polar disorder, schizophrenia, etc. to have guns around. Since none of us know when we might develop a mental illness, the common sense approach is just do not have guns in your home. If they aren't absolutely necessary, please do not have them. Our country cannot afford the toll it's costing. Period. If you don't want to get shot, don't have a gun in your home, don't carry one, don't go to places that allow guns. Because that increases your chance of dying of gunshot. It's a fact. Don't be a fool.
Ross's argument for age restrictions recognizes that 2 types of weapons are responsible for majority of crimes. Handguns and automatic or semiautomatic military style weapons.
the 2nd amendment calls for a regulated militia. Regulated means just that. We can and should regulate age and type of weapon. The SCOTUS controlled by conservative Republicans have chosen to misinterpret the constitution in order to keep the money rolling in to Republican candidates.
Thwe 2018 election gives us a chance to bring sanity back to congress.
7
People can and do age out of being competent to keep and employ guns responsibly.
Thoughts and prayers haven't saved anyone from senseless gun violence. Thoughts and prayers will not prevent future carnage. Only we the people can stop it. There are so many ways to restrict access to weapons to the public at large while maintaining rights for hobbyists and those who hunt but the Republican party isn't really willing to listen. There is no reason to own an AR-15 or other such high discharge rate weapon. I propose that people who wish to own these types of weapons be required to store and use them solely at gun clubs and nowhere else (they would essentially only be legal in a gun club environment). We also need to greatly reduce the number of weapons in circulation. Cities have successfully run cash for guns campaigns. Why not have a national level one. There are dozens of examples around the world of how to lower gun violence. We are paying a very heavy price for the 2nd amendment.
7
Prayers reassure believers that the victims are in a better place now, at the head of the line at the Pearly Gates, for having been innocent.
You are trying. But come on now. Nobody needs an AR-15 to protect themselves anywhere. Only police and soldiers should have such weapons. Comparing the right for over 30s to have AR-15 rifles in no way can be compared to the abortion debate. It is the same logic of saying I support the death penalty but I am against abortion. Do you support the death penalty. If not, then when it comes to morals and protecting the lives of people there is no way to support civilians having weapons of war in the US.
198
Why do the police need such weapons? A full exploration of this question would be useful in this debate and some others as well. They are, after all, unlike the military, only allowed to use lethal force in self-defense just like civilians, Sure they are expected to run to a fight, but ordinarily it is a fight in which a civilian victim was already involuntarily engaged before they got there. It seems to me that if no civilians need them, then the Police do not except for special anti-terrorist teams. If the police need them to be routinely available, then it might be a reasonable consideration for some civilians as well.
2
And I'm not even sure the police need them.
2
Police do not need AR-15s either.
2
Since all the school shooters have been young men and men perpetrate most of the crimes relating to guns, we could just ban or restrict men from having guns.
If we are going to discriminate by one trait, why not by the other?
Or, you know, we could sensibility regulate guns for everyone.
13
While guns are deadly weapons, people using them in a way that harms others is what makes them deadly. People who use them safely and legally rarely harm others. But when people use them to harm others they do horrifying damage. If they have a weapon that fires many bullets quickly, they do a lot of damage quickly. If they have a weapon that fires fewer bullets in the same time, the damage is still horrific on those shot. The fact that fewer people might be murdered in the same time, will not be any more acceptable.
When people argue that civilian model guns modified from military guns should be banned because nobody has any reason to have such weapons, it’s because military weapons are for killing people. Unless it’s to kill people, why would anyone use one? The same thing could be said for all but the most powerful handguns. But even small caliber hunting or target guns have commonly been used to kill people.
So the solutions to gun violence are to eliminate guns or to create an effective system that identifies people who trustworthy or not to keep them from those who would misuse them. If those who could have guns was controlled, the threats of gun violence would be addressed as well as possible.
2
The very idea that an armed citizenry is either a necessary or a sufficient protection against a tyranny expressed through a modern military is simply so absurd that it is yet one more example of the degeneration of a thinking who was once provocative.
17
This column fails to appreciate a very basic fact and, as a result, becomes virtually worthless. The NRA opposes ANY gun control measure. The organization has conditioned it's members to believe any gun control measure is the inevitable start down a slippery slope to take away all gun rights.
The argument has no merit but it has been an effective tool to raise money and fund election races against any candidate who wavers in support. Until you change the NRA, you will never change federal laws via the legislative process. The Supreme Court becomes the only potential ally to effect change that is desperately needed.
8
An alternative would be the countervailing power of an organization that funded pro gun regulation candidates. It’s about time for us to create and get behind such an organization.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't make laws; it only interprets them, then upholds or overturns them, and sometimes doesn't do a good job at that! Watch what happens when the skewed gerrymandering debate hits their docket. McConnell is such a sneaking reprobate; he knew exactly what he was doing by denying Obama's appointment of Garland and installing Gorsuch instead.
I can't see anything wrong with ownership of guns for hunting, sports target shooting, and in-home defense. But how about leveling astronomical federal, state and local taxes on any purchase of a weapon or ammunition that goes beyond the normal requirements of hunting and self defense -- magazines over a certain size. and guns that fire faster and more powerfully than is needed to hunt in a way that gives animals a sporting chance, or to stop a burglary or robbery. Like gasoline taxes earmarked for highway maintenance, these taxes on high-power guns taxes would be earmarked -- in this case, to fund security in public places and to enforce gun regulations. This might be a pragmatic approach that would make an end run against the usual 2nd Amendment arguments. No gun would be banned, and anyone who wants one badly enough and qualifies for ownership under existing gun laws could pay the tax. No rights would be abridged, and far fewer AR-15s and bullets would be in circulation.
8
Hunting isn't about giving the prey a "sporting chance". A hunter seeks to kill cleanly with the first shot.
I hear shots in the woods around my house. Everybody knows some people shoot deer from their own back porches. Sometimes they shoot at people who walk in the woods, or their dogs.
Okay Ross, whatever you want. Let's adopt your rules. I mean that. I can agree to anything and know that nothing will change, or very little that would change anything. I am resigned to the fact that many people are ill in some way that makes them destroy themselves and others. Guns are just a peculiar little method of destruction that Americans seem attracted to. But their are many things we do to kill ourselves and others. Some are quick and precise and others are slow and insidious. I suspect that this destructiveness serves some evolutionary biology purpose, or would have in the past, when we were less "civilized". Now, however, I doubt their is any real purpose to our destruction, it's just that our genetics are tens or hundreds of thousand of years old and we live in an era of technological growth that our tendencies are not tuned to. We are still animals in a time when machines do much of the work. We're unable adapt fast enough to the technology we produce.
I don't expect guns to be a significant factor in the end of mankind. There are many much larger threats, but guns show our tendencies. Do whatever you want with guns and drugs and war and food and the environment. Fixing one thing won't make that much difference and fixing them all won't either because my list is incomplete. The tendencies of humans are still not tuned to modern life and the changing technology. We'll continue to destroy because it is in our DNA. We are just animals with a language.
1
"Includes the capacity to protect and defend, to step in WHEN THE STATE FAILS and resist when it imposes illegitimately."
Sounds to me like the government we current have ("when the state fails")and I have not seen these moral-political people take up arms to bring the country back to a democracy.
I suspect these moral-political people would disagree with me about a failing state.
And that is exactly the point.
How is it that these moral-political people are more able to define a failed state and take action, than another group of people. Those moral-political people are a danger to our society if they have the ability to force their beliefs/defend their beliefs as to what constitutes a "failed state". For them to have that ability IS A FAILED STATE.
7
I have had the pleasure of having a gun held to my head. It was at a fast food restaurant that I managed in 1981. The gun was only a revolver, yet that we enough to convince me to give the man our cash.
At the time, I live in southern Ohio and if I gave a ride home to one of the kids, it might take me to cornfields, so I know what rural America looks like. A shot gun is really the best was to threaten an intruder. A revolver will scare most folks.
The idea that we need rapid fire weapons is true madness.
9
It occurs to me that the country really needs to approach such matters as these in the way someone like Wm Buckley and one of his interlocutors -- Al Lowenstein, for example -- might. Neither of them would begin or end with ad hominem attacks on the other. Instead, the opposition's argument would be treated respectfully, as a matter of principle. Nowadays, politics is like a war that starts without even an initial conversation about the differences that are leading to conflict. If one believes (as I do), for example, that the Founders who added the initial Amendments to the Constitution were thoughtful and far-seeing, then those who find the 2nd Amendment outdated or even abhorrent should be similarly focused and high-minded in their opposition. And the same goes for those who feel that any diminution in the rights of a citizen cannot be countenanced. Or in the case of immigration laws and enforcement, neither side should smear the other as xenophobic, racist or unpatriotic or politically scheming. There were wide differences among those great minds that fought for and put this country together, but they found ways to treat their opponents with respect who were exponents of principles, not just low, cunning enemies. We have to find ways to respect each other, or it is all going to come apart.
1
Unfortunately "God" is considered a credible authority in the US. Many people resort to God to claim that something is non-negotiable, and others assert that what they do is lawful because God makes them do it.
This opinion column leaves me profoundly sad. Somehow the "rights" of citizens to own assault weapons trumps the right of citizens to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
9
Ross: Please explain clearly why *any* civilian needs an assault rifle. Why?
All rights have limitations. For the 2A, that should mean no assault weapons (at least).
4
Mr. Douthat, your and Mr. Stephens' column only show the poverty of the conservative pundits in NYT, and can easily be refuted. Second Amendment practically is impossible to repeal giving the requirements needed as Shown by the failure of ERA, yet if not for the technique of Mitch McConnell, the Supreme Court would have enough votes to reverse Heller decision for gun control. Others have point out the Las Vegas shooter's age or success of Australia's reducing gun violence, but you still insist on your moral vision on "Marlboro Man", illusory freedom.
6
"chasm between two sweeping moral visions one pro-gun and one anti-gun, that is now too wide to be easily bridged by incrementalism."
What chasm?!?! Ross, have you looked at any national polling on the issue gun control? There is overwhelming national support, across party lines, for common-sense gun control measures.
As with so many things in our politics today, the only people who oppose it are a small minority with outsized influence, money, and/or political power that is completely disproportionate to their actual numbers.
You want to talk about category errors? Don't make the categorical error of thinking that the pro-gun talking points repeated ad nauseum by the NRA represent a viewpoint that is shared by the majority of Americans.
7
How can gun ownership be a "moral" vision?!? Immoral is more like it.
I don't think the men who wrote the Constitution could foresee how far the intent and the interpretation of their words would diverge through the centuries. They were moral men, but they were not moralists; their efforts were directed at solving practical problems of governance. Whatever else they said, I am certain none of them would have would have argued for a gun law that could undermine public order and jeopardize the lives of innocent children.
1
Mr. Douthat has reduced his parameters too small. All liberals are NOT anti-gun just as ALL conservatives are not pro-gun. It is always best not to label people with stereotypes that you prefer because it makes your arguments easier.
I, for example, am not in favor of everyone having an AR15, but I do have a rifle in the house. I suspect that might be the position of a majority of both "sides" in Douthat's argument.
2
Mr. Douthat: I thank you for your column titled, "No Country for Young Men With AR-15s." It's evident that you've given this topic critical thought, though, your endorsement of semi-automatics should be of grave concern to any citizen. Colin Powell, after one of the mass shootings, was questioned about the relevance of AR-15s sold over the counter. He simply stated that these guns were made for the military and should by all means be kept out of the hands of civilians. Americans seem to have affinity for guns without considering how to keep these weapons out of the hands of those individuals who shouldn't be able to obtain them. The world's a much different place today than when our forefathers crafted several of the greatest documents ever written, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Most certainly guns have taken away citizens rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Nor is a Militia like the Minute Men or Sons of Liberty required to offer protection from the Indians or British. I'm a conservative yet believe that we must create a national database of all gun owners. That guns should be licensed like automobiles and sold with insurance policies to cover those hurt by gun violence. In addition, no gun(s) should be sold until the potential purchaser has passed a stiff course on the use and maintenance of a gun and his background has been reviewed for domestic violence issues or for violence committed during a felony.
1
In your fine newspaper you propose that the number of guns not mental illness is the principal cause of mass shootings. I strongly disagree for the following reasons: 1. The severe lack of well trained psychiatrists in the USA is appalling. 2. It typically takes an average of 10 years of careful observation before even a good psychiatrist can properly diagnose mental illness. 3. Finding acceptable meds can take a long time. 4. Such meds are often difficult to take consistently because of initial very annoying side effects. 5. There is no means by which a psychiatrist can force a patient to take the prescribed meds consistently. 6. It is virtually impossible for a psychiatrist to have a patient put in a psychiatric ward unless the person has committed a crime and even difficult then. 7. With all the above the easy purchase of a rapid firing weapon it seems to me quite likely that an angry, insane person will use that weapon. Your statistical conclusion about ease of purchase of a rifle is really hiding the fundamental issue of a very weak mental health system which has a small fraction of the needed number of competent psychiatrists. We can not even figure out how to pay them. No psychiatrist that is capable can afford to accept the miserly reimbursement that might come from our current public health system. My solution to this situation is quite simple stop selling guns. I see no reason for their availability in our present society.
1
I don't have any empirical knowledge in this regard, but my sense from personal observation is that the gun owners we need to be most apprehensive about tend to share these characteristics:
- They tend to be male, bringing a level of testosterone to the mix
- They tend to share a highly libertarian view of life; they are not their brothers' keeper
- They tend to view organized government as an enemy and arm themselves to the teeth not just for fear of criminals but as a bulwark against the government and the black helicopter folks
- They are not insane, but tend to anger quickly, e.g., engage in road rage
- They have no qualms about displaying their weaponry at public gatherings, for example, outside of the Republican convention in Cleveland, because of the intimidating effect upon others
- They are just as likely to be in their 30s, 40s or order than teenagers
These observations lead me to disagree with Ross' suggested age-basis limitations.
1
This issue, as with most things, boils down to money. The NRA is an organization dedicated to maximizing profits for the gun industry. Therefore any restrictions are bad for business. Gun makers support candidates who vote for policies that make them rich. Trump took $30 million from the NRA so he won’t mention firearms in any discussion of solutions to our mass carnage problem. Until money can be separated from politics, guns will be chosen over the lives of children every time. And your reasonable debate about options and attitudes is whistling at the wind.
This this is a bit of a straw man argument. No one is saying ban all guns. Most are simply asking to treat them like cars: register them, get liability insurance and a license. It's not complicated.
1
Douthat writes: "I ... defend the pro-gun vision. I am not a gun owner but I can imagine many situations and political dispensations [what in heck are those?] in which a morally responsible citizen should own a weapon." Just try that on citizens in the UK or Australia or the other nations which greatly restrict guns and have effectively zero gun deaths compared to us.
4
Douthat ignores the reality that this isn't really about the second amendment, which begins with the words: "a well regulated militia..." This is about the business of selling guns and the gun lobby will accept no restrictions period.
5
"The pro gun vision is essentially a MORAL-political picture in which citizenship includes the capacity to protect and defend, and to resist the state when it imposes illegitimately" What a breathtaking statement.
If gun ownership is moral than owning a fire extinguisher, a fire alarm, a security camera, a home alarm etc also moral.
Do we live in the Wild West of the 1870s? Do we really think that we could resist the government with personnel weapons? We spend as much as the next eight counties on our Military.
We have a gun derangement syndrome among a portion of our population. They love their guns more then their children.
We have created a situation where students of all ages are afraid to go to school.
Well done 2nd amendment supporters.
1
You write that that the pro-gun vision is linked to practical concerns such as, "to step in when the state fails and resist when it imposes illegitimately". This is an argument often heard in support of unfettered access to military grade weapons. I challenge you to describe a situation where an armed citizenry could successfully stand against the state, with it's almost limitless ability to bring military violence to bear. The only real protection against tyranny is a just society, an equal distribution of wealth, professional and well paid law enforcement, fair courts and a politics not owned by moneyed interests. There is something adolescent and fantastic in idea that someday the 2nd amendment will be all that stands between us and a tyrant. As you, yourself, realize, it is the sort of delusion that drives a " myself-alone libertarianism" a self-disenfranchisement that weakens our defenses against the very tyrants we fear.
It’s clear that in a nation of our size and population and diverse ways of living, the means to reduce the likelihood of those likely to use guns for harming others or themselves having access would require a system of identifying all guns and those keeping them and actually knowing that those that use guns can be presumed trustworthy, or to eliminate private possession of guns without strictly limited permission. This could done but not as things stand, today.
First of all, while most gun users and owners belong to a culture that makes gun violence unlikely, guns are deadly weapons which can be and are used to do harm to people. The results are so appalling that the risks are defined in most people’s perceptions with the harm not the relative likelihood of harm being done. This leads people who are unfamiliar with those who own and use guns to fear that they are crazed with a neurotic fixation that makes them keep guns.
Those who fear gun violence and fear the motives of gun owners want to eliminate private gun ownership. However, they consider that people often hunt with guns and not in a manner which threatens other people. So the try to control weapons that seem impractical for hunting, handguns and rifles in military design modified for civilian use. However, so many people own handguns for home security, restricting their use is no achievable. The target for elimination are those military style guns. But every gun is a deadly potential murder weapon.
Mr. Douthat's cites competing moral visions of America to explain the gun control debate.What complete nonsense! Is there a political philosophy besides Anarchy which would deny a government the right to protect its citizens from mass violence and potential chaos by keeping assault weapons from individual citizens? Mr. Douthat's proposal is completely inadequate to say the least and perhaps just plain cowardly. No other civilized nation has the gun rights "moral vision" that this editorial alludes to.
2
I think that the NRA has accomplished its mission, to sell as many guns as possible, yet that is still not enough. Reasonable restrictions haven’t worked worked because people such as Mr Douthat will always make the perfect law then enemy of the good law. No one is coming to imprison you after they’ve confiscated your guns. I understand that some may want to have a hand gun for protection. While I don’t understand hunting, I know many responsible people have a riFle or a shotgun for that purpose. I know that a rancher needs to protect his herd. Who, however, needs a semi-automatic weapon? For what purpose? And how many good guys with a gun will kill other good guys before they actually get the bad guy? I would hope that we listen to the children in Florida who now demand we do something. Sadly, I know that we will not.
4
The gun was not out of control; the shooter was. The issue is mental illness, how to identify it and what to do about. In the recent Florida case we knew and identified the potential shooter ahead of time but didn't, couldn't, wouldn't do anything about it. Doing something about these 'time-bomb' personalities before they 'go-off' should be the focus of our attention.
Or how about this? We make a distinction between a "gun" and a "weapon of war." The framers of the constitution protected citizens' rights to own a musket, which has little in common with the things we are calling guns today.
1
Amid countless conversations these past days --- and in previous years too --- I see little mention of what emotional purpose guns serve for men specifically. One poster mentioned that women have a "miniscule" record of using guns in mass murders. Overall, women have better things to do than guns, aside from decrying their lethality.
So why men? It's a third rail of an issue: Sure, hunters need their rifles and collectors their artifacts. But these uses don't speak to what really feeds this +male obsession.
IMO, guns convey such potency and power --- all glamorized for a hundred years --- that they are for many men, an extension of their very bodies. They are fundamental to ites of manhood, and they protect a man's status in the group. If we look at other primates, we see that a male has a tenuous position, be he alpha or just a gamma trying to get by. A gun is indeed an "equalizer." Disarmed, these men feel weak and vulnerable --- or rather, realize that they are weak and vulnerable. With guns so vital to many mens' self-image, as well as a prop against their fears of impotency and weakness, it's no wonder that these men will virtually kill to protect ther ownership rights.
1
Regarding guns, I would suggest every American go read again the Second Amendment, and tell me where the madness that has resulted in an American being 57 times more likely to be killed by a firearm, than citizens of any other wealthy nation. First thing to notice is that the word "gun" is nowhere to be found. Rather the word is "arms", a much broader term that, at the time the Second was inscribed included muskets, cannons, and warships. So how could is have ever been intended to refer to individuals? Clearly that opening clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" has evaporated from the minds of at least 5 justices of the US Supreme Court as well as a whole lot NRA members.
Those who think that their ownership of guns is going to be the thing that stands between their freedom and an authoritarian government, with vastly greater resources and, well, fire power are kidding themselves and have likely being watched too many Rambo movies. No civil society is going to allow you to own your own Predator drone with its Hellfire missiles--no matter how 2A extremists want to dice up the word "arms".
The Second Amendment maybe worth keeping, but the current interpretation is badly flawed. Until that is recognised, the carnage will only multiply.
2