"The regulatory model to follow is automobiles."
Really?
What If We Treated Guns Like Cars? Then We Might Be Able to Enact Truly "Common-Sense" Gun Laws
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorburrus/2017/10/06/what-if-we-treated-guns-like-cars-then-we-might-be-able-to-enact-truly-common-sense-gun-laws/#69dbb3262c73
In fact, many gun-rights advocates would be okay with regulating guns like cars. There would be no federal registration or licensing, state-granted licenses would be given to people over 16, 17, or 18 years old after passing a simple test, the license would be good in all 50 states, and using a gun on private property wouldn’t require a license. As others have pointed out, in many ways this would be less onerous than current firearm regulations. Purchasing a car requires no background check or waiting period, and cars can be purchased by people who have been convicted of a felony, use illegal drugs, have been dishonorably discharged from the military, or are illegal aliens—all of whom are “prohibited persons” under current federal gun laws.
Why not treat guns like cars, i.e., why not license gun owners, register the guns and require gun owners to carry insurance?
https://www.quora.com/Why-not-treat-guns-like-cars-i-e-why-not-license-gun-owners-register-the-guns-and-require-gun-owners-to-carry-insurance
Responsible firearm owners in the USA need to dump the NRA and fund a new firearm safety and ownership organization that is responsible and truthful. Marion Hammer and Wayne LaPierre have taken a once rational group and led them into a land of madness and money grubbing.
17
As the NZ Prime Minister said:
“They are us.”
15
The ever-sensitive Mr. Kristof finds space in this column to blame liberals; they sometimes use the wrong words, he thinks.
For goodness sake.
Both Donald Trump and Narendra Modi should be required to do a one-year internship in New Zealand under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
11
What has it got to do with leadership? There is a problem. We have a Second Amendment and NZ does not.
Just two weeks ago, Democrats were complaining that Trump's declaration of emergency (for which he appears to have statutory authority) was unconstitutional. So does Nick Kristof think that Constitutions should not stand in the way of leaders doing the right thing?
In the '30s, Cole Porter sang "You're the top. You're Mussolini." (The verse was removed later). Is that what it has come to? Are we suffering from democracy fatigue and yearn for a strong leader on a white charger to sort out our problems in a few decisive (and unconstitutional) strikes?
7
I nominate for 'most overlooked phrase', the words: 'well regulated' in the 2nd Amendment.
13
You always attack Trump and the Republicans, and you preach here about what true leadership is.
OK, so here's a leadership level question for the Democratic candidates who aspire to be president: Is there still a need for each state to have a well-regulated militia? If not, should the Second Amendment be repealed?
Why don't you have your intrepid reporters corner these Democratic candidates with that test of leadership question. If you admire Jacinda Ardern so much, can these Democrats rise to her level?
Jacinda Ardern does not face the barrier of a Second Amendment to make clearly necessary reforms in New Zealand. What about here?
2
New Zealand Shows the U.S. What Leadership Looks Like
Give us a break Niko, the population of Nuzzy is 5 million. The USA has 'bout 66 times that.
4
It’s real simple - get some justices to re interpret the second amendment or change the constitution - it’s just a cheap piece of paper that’s supposed to make our lives better - not kill us.
5
The arms industry sells to anyone. Think about that. A home owner as well as the thief, organized crime as well as police, terrorists as well as the military. They have no or limited liability so socialist protections with capitalist profits. We hold tech and others to the fire for their failings but we can't even name the CEOs of the arms industry who profit from these 1.45M deaths. And the USA doesn't even need to reinvent the wheel because many countries already have arms regulation that is proven to work. Oh I forgot! Too much money donated to politicians!
6
“Why can’t leaders in America learn from experience, the way leaders in other countries do?”
Because American leaders—namely, Republican leaders—have been utterly bewitched by the billion-dollar charms of the gun-manufacturing lobby. And it truly is that simple, and tragic.
15
New Zealand also shows us what "one person, one vote" democracy looks like. It's entirely different from the "one dollar, one vote" plutocratic oligarchy we have in the United States, all because of interminable costly campaigns that require politicians to exclusively serve donors and ignore everyone else who doesn't write big checks.
Without those protracted campaigns that make MPs beholden to donors, New Zealand's government can immediately respond to a terrorist massacre by banning the assault weapons the terrorist used. But after each repeated mass shooting, the Republicans who control the United States government can only offer "thoughts and prayers." And those thoughts and prayers are probably more about continued NRA campaign contributions than about the victims and their families.
15
I remember the early 1960s when you could buy (Military Semi-Automatic Rifles) like M1 Carbine, M1 Garand, other rifles, pistols, revolvers and ammunition thru the US mail. There were far fewer regulation than there are today and yet there were far fewer mass shootings than there are today! The only mass shooting I recall occurred on Aug. 1, 1966, when Charles Whitman climbed a 27-story tower on the University of Texas campus and started picking people off.
3
Seems to me that it is not a gun problem.... it's a crime problem. I'll keep my 2nd Amendment in exchange for harsher gun crime sentences, more rigorous background checks, mandatory gun education, etc.
5
Mr Kristof should be ashamed of his blatant manipulation and emotional pandering. That notwithstanding, I will openly agree with at least one remark he made: There are no simple solutions.
The ultimate challenge in the US is to find solutions that both reduce violence and protect rights. There are many out there, and if we collectively move away from entrenched adherence to talking points, we can find new ones.
An extremely uncomfortable truth for gun control advocates is that gun owners are, indeed, citizens. We have the same rights, the same voice, the same status as everyone else in the nation. Further, we are the ones most impacted by restrictive gun laws. You need to listen to us and ASK about our thoughts on solutions. When we tell you certain solutions are unacceptable, or won't work, LISTEN.
You want a true democracy? It's not about sheer numbers and shouting down minority populations. It's about listening and working towards a common view of the future while protecting what we've built America on - freedom.
Mr Kristof is arguing from ignorance in many respects. I would invite him to discuss these points in the spirit of solving problems, rather than blaming and demanding others be restricted. We're in this together; we can solve it together.
4
I have read about New Zealand's response to the shooting there with awe and admiration and a deep sadness. I do not believe we will ever come even close.
15
So if some state comes up with an odd law to create background checks to 'adopt' a dog from the Humane Society pound, this becomes an argument for additional gun background checks (of which there are plenty)?
And if tech companies password-protect your smart phones, suddenly, as a direct result, it becomes 'outrageous' to not require 'smart guns'?
Strange reasoning. And as to Mr. Kristof, who claims to 'know guns' over the years-- yet he thinks that all of those tens of millions of 'responsible gun owners' should embrace 'smart guns'--he knows better.
The electoral college of the USA elected Trump and since the day he was inaugurated he has demonstrated outstanding leadership and I am not going to take cheap shots at our president. When I took my oath of allegiance to the USA, it was with clear knowledge that there were other countries I could have immigrated to. America is not a perfect union and it does not lead for accolades but because US is the best for the world.
I have no use for guns and if the USA ever becomes gun free, I will die a happy person on the day I am no more. I am against violence and I don't believe that even a single person should die of firearms or at the hands of any one else or himself or herself (suicide). I don't hunt and would not be the first or last thing I would do to gun down a deer going about its business or a trophy of a wild animal. I believe guns for a period of time should only be in the hands of law enforcement, some hunters and defense forces.
Mass killings or any killings are sickening and even more when they occur in places of worship where innocent people are praying or in schools and colleges where unarmed innocent students are gaining an education. I can think of many places that should be gun free and after doing all the wrong things I hope USA will finally do the right thing to protect human and animal lives from gun violence.
Today the barbaric and brutal ISIS has been driven out of Syria. Thank you Trump for the outstanding leadership in making our planet a safer place.
3
I felt ashamed of my country for not keeping the victims safe from harm. But after the positive responses and reforms by our Prime Minister, with support from coalition and opposition parties, and the broader community, I can feel proud to be a New Zealander again.
8
I could not agree with you more on the urgent need for our country to finally take more effective action to reduce gun violence. The excuses offered to date are, well, inexcusable. In addition to the innocent lives lost, the bodies maimed, the unbearable suffering of the families and friends left behind, I assert that each and every one of us are injured by the carnage we have had to endure in our lifetimes. Even if we don't know any of the victims personally, it takes a toll on our hearts, minds and spirits each time we absorb one of the horrific incidents of gun violence - whether it is an accident, a suicide, a gang shooting or a mass murder. Anyone who places any value on human life suffers when they hear, see or read about these occurrences. Over time it can make us fearful and untrusting of our fellow human beings, make us afraid to travel or participate in certain activities, give rise to anger, hatred and otherwise harden our hearts. So, I thank you for continuing to lend your powerful voice to this issue and ask you to please keep it up until we see some action from our leaders in Washington!
4
No mystery here. The politicians are afraid of the NRA. We need to make them more afraid of us. There is really no reason we can't since we have the numbers on our side. First, we must insist on nominating candidates to public office that support gun control. Then we all have to go to the polls and vote against any candidates that block gun control. We should even vote against the politicians that equivocate on the issue. After we kick a few of them out of office we will get the changes we need. Not before.
4
I wrote essentially the same essay, though less erudite and lacking statistics this morning for a small group of friends.
Meanwhile, our local gun safety advocates have been just that for years--not gun control advocates, but gun safety advocates.
There is no good excuse to put gun rights ahead of the rights of all people to have their lives not interrupted by a shooter bent on havoc.
6
Neither the US or NZ has a 'gun problem'.
We have some crime, but it's not the fault of firearms, and legal guns save far, far more lives each year than they may take.
According to the CDC, guns stop criminal attacks 2-3 million times a year in the US.
8
Mr. Kristof asks: "how many more people will die before the president and Congress act?" An answer is: "At least as many as are killed between now and the 2016 election".
2
While they are at it, it's a good time for NZ to review and update their laws on lobbying and political donations, fair representation of citizens, etc. They are currently ranked as one of the least corrupt governments in the world, but who knows how this will change as the world's billionaires continue to buy up property in NZ. May they learn from our mistakes and prevent what has happened to us.
3
as we are already awash in both actual guns and the power of guns' symbolism, any new regulation of gun sales is a lot like shutting the barn door after the cows have run away. meanwhile, other than their use as clubs, guns depend on a steady supply of bullets to operate, and these consumables now are the real opportunity for a safer America. we need to restrict bullet sales. and in America, that means a heavy tax, as is imposed on other dangerous but legal products like cigarettes.because bullets are pretty small and borders are long, it would need to be a federal tax. but it needs to be considered soon.
3
New Zealand shows America what authoritarianism looks like. Within days of a terrorist incident, without much debate, or consultation, or research.. the emotional reactionaries are pushing forward laws that would do nothing to prevent such a tragedy again. This is what happens in dictatorships, not democracies. The reason gun control fails in America over and over is because the American people do not want it. Contrary to your narrow opinions, surveys show again and again, most Americans view the 2nd Amendment favorably.
Ironically, New Zealand is one of the safest countries in the world.. but also the one of the most armed. How do you square that circle? More guns to = less crime. 1 in 5 Kiwis has guns; thats about the same ratio as the United States. However, it has far less crime than not just the US, but almost all countries in the world where guns are banned.
The fact is that no society is totally safe, armed or unarmed. Mexico bans private guns, check the stats and tell me, has that prevented gun crime? What armed societies do better is prevent genocides and dictatorships. There is not one genocide in the world that took place where the people could own firearms. Just look at the Rohyngya massacres of last year (which Kristof did). If half of those people had guns, there would have been no genocide. If Venezuela had a 2nd Amendment, would they be stuck under Maduro's socialist boot? Armed societies are safer societies.
11
The really sad thing is that more and more I contemplate purchasing firearms for myself for the sole reason that so many of my right leaning fellow citizens are heavily armed and I fear the day when I may have to defend myself , my home, my family against them. And the recent behavior of Steve King does not make me feel any more secure.
The USA will not change as long as Americans live in the illusion that they are free.
'Freedom' to an American means 'freedom from' - specifically government interference. This is the unholy heritage of 1776, the rebellion against what was perceived as British tyranny, but which has degenerated into a law of the jungle for too many Americans, who live in fear and servitude to the rich.
'Freedom' to people in most other countries means 'freedom to' - viz. the expansion of opportunities and welfare. Because countries like NZ and my own country, Denmark, are built on trust: trust in our government and trust in our fellow citizens. In civilized countries people don't need guns. But failed states like the US, which can't guarantee the safety of its citizens, have to let people own guns to defend themselves.
Civilized countries have strict gun laws.
12
from our domestic perspective in the USA, many gun proponents actually belive they will soon need military style weapons, as individuals, to protect themselves against our own government and its armed forces. if this seems at all crazy, then you begin to understand this emotionally-charged issue.
2
By not taking significant action, the US shows the rest of the world what apathy, corruption, lack of conscience, and legalized bribery look like.
NZ has just shown decency and responsibility and proves that common sense regulations in response to a growing problem is not the same as "Taking everyone's guns away." Thank you for being responsible world leaders, NZ!
2
Background checks are a meaningless move--to really end the mass slaughter the guns capable of killing numerous people in a short time need to be BANNED. What New Zealand is doing, what Australia has done is what we should have done long ago and should do now. But we won't because we are riven with hatred and dictated to by the money people and the merchants of death.
3
Thoughts and prayers that the Republicans grow spines, brains and hearts and support gun control.
3
Hear! Hear! Let's have a list of all the congressmen/women who accept money from the NRA. Money talks and, often, highlights evil. Let's see it in black and white.
1
@thinkaboutit. That information is available now. You do have to look fo it.
We somehow need to address the paranoid fantasy of a tyrannical government that requires armed citizens to fight it.
If the military didn't side with civilians at that time, your AR-15 is not much against attack helicopters, cruise missiles, etc wielded by the best trained military in the world.
The people that make a profit filling the airwaves and internet with fear are a danger to our society and an insult to all of us that honor the title " Home of the Brave."
2
The contrast between Prime Minster Ardern’s response and that of President Trump’s after the several shootings which occurred during his first two years could not be greater. The Prime Minster’s thoughtful, heart felt, caring response was followed by a forceful plan to acutually do something to control gun violence. Mr Trump does his half hearted condolences for the families of the victims, then fails to follow up with anything meaningful to stem the tide of gun violence. On the contrary, he made a call for more guns.
I was touched and impressed by Ardern, and continue to be disappointed in our own President and his lack of leadership.
4
"Why can’t leaders in America learn from experience, the way leaders in other countries do?" I believe it's because with only a few exceptions, American politicians are followers, not leaders. I doubt that anyone elected to a federal government position, or who wishes to be elected, has done so without polling the relevant electors, and then catering to their prejudices. And because voters have been influenced by those who gain by spreading nonsense, similarly as legislators are influenced by lobbyists, the result is checkmate, no action.
1
I admire the action taken so quickly yet so thoughtfully by New Zealand. But for anyone to think that this is a model or example for America is more than a bit disconnected from reality. If 320,000,000 New Zealanders were to replace the current population of America, then comparisons would be a bit more sound. Our histories are different, our cultures are different, our systems of government and law are different, and so forth. I sense that a good portion of correspondents here would favor emigrating to NZ, and that's also fine. But a second mistake would be to think that commenters to stories and editorials in the NYT are representative of a majority of Americans. This tunnel vision of our own positions is how the abuse and demonization and vilification of each other begins.
2
My husband owns 27 firearms, mostly shotguns for bird hunting & some collectibles. They are locked, unloaded, and taken out only for specific & planned forays.
NONE of them are for self-protection, and therein lies the key difference with NZ gun owners.
In NZ (where we’ve spent much time), firearms for hunting are common; but purchasing a firearm for self-protection is explicitly forbidden.
It is the guns for “self-protection “-which by definition must be readily available—that are grabbed by the 2 year olds who shoot their brothers; and used to resolve disagreements that used to result in fisticuffs.
America is not Mogadishu, folks, and most of us don’t live where grizzlies are a major threat. Get a couple big dogs, perhaps, or build a fence for self-protection, but for heavens sake call 911 for help, don’t pull the handgun you hardly know how to use.
2
@Anne, spouse of avid gun-owner. Will the bad people wait for us to dial 911?
5
I loved New Zealand when I was there for two weeks in 2014. Now I admire them completely and totally. They did not fool around but acted quickly and decisively to stop this tragedy from happening again in their country. So what is wrong with the US that it the same urgency is not happening here? Trump is useless and the NRA should be eliminated.
50 people killed, murdered, never to see another day of their lives. Think what that is doing to the family members that were not shot? The United States is way way behind in this. Our Congress and our President are not protecting their citizens, it's as simple, frightening and sad that this is the truth. And states themselves must make their states safer from guns and those who use them to kill others.
2
The children killed at Sandy Hook would now be 13 and 14 years old t. Surely that's justification for common sense gun control.
3
@Maureen
But Maureen, many of these gun-huggers even deny the reality of the Sandy Hook massacre. They claim the lack of photos of bodies and gore underscore the conspiratorial hoax of this event 'intended' to weaken the Second Amendment. These people are beyond hope and reason.
1
==The N.R.A. (not to be confused with the vast majority of gun owners) ==
Thank you for making this distinction. I'm a gun owner and carry concealed. I have no use whatsoever for the NRA's national leadership, which seems at times to border on lunacy. Those folks have lost touch with the NRA's original mission and with the vast majority of gun owners. How they have any credibility left with anyone is beyond me.
4
Approximately 40,000 deaths are attributed to firearms in the US during 2017. Approximately 40,000 deaths are attributed to vehicular accidents in the US during 2017. As long as we have a need to license people to legally own and operate a car yet fail to respect its inherent danger properly, these deaths will continue. Let's ban cars. Now replace the word car with firearms. Any real difference? Perhaps the real problem is not rooted in the device.
2
The BBC carried the speech Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made to her Parliament, live. My wife and I were both weeping at how eloquently and intelligently she spoke. True heart felt passion for those who were killed and for her nation. She blamed hate and guns for the actions of a radical who she refused to call by name.
(I don't know if her speech is on You Tube or not, it certainly was never mentioned on any news outlet here.)
I don't know if America will ever reach a tipping point on guns. It only took one horrible shooting in New Zealand to move toward sanity.
2
Our national obsession with "firearms freedom" has clouded the discussion about the outrageous rate of deaths by firearms in this country.
Military-type rifles do not belong in civilian hands.
2
Consider the thoughts of some gun owners: "If you want my guns, try and take them from me." For whom do these people vote? Will they accept a Trump defeat?
Even though I think less killing is a worthwhile trade to less freedom to bear arms, and I have no intention of owning a gun, there is something tiresome about the nanny state we all seem to be enthusiastically signing up for. Every time you get in your car, not only are you legally required to wear a seat belt, the car manufacturer is legally required to cause the car to harass you until you comply. I'd never argue that people shouldn't wear seatbelts, but each of us has a right to take risks with our own safety. Similarly, smoking is now prohibited in all privately held establishments because prospective customers or employees can't be bothered with finding a non-smoking establishment to do business in. Hard to say smoking bans are stupid; they save tons of lives, but people have a right to destroy their health or to cater to those that do. Returning to the issue of guns, right or wrong, we're a gun loving nation, and we have a constitutional right that prohibits the government from infringing on our right to bear arms (the language is clear as day on this point notwithstanding the logical contortions offered up as to "regulated militias" etc.). So here we are, supposedly in need of an emergency constitutional amendment and yet violent crime rates are half what they were back in the 80's. At some point in a free nation, people need to be able to make their own decisions; not surprisingly people will often get this wrong with tragic outcomes, but that's the price of freedom.
5
It is not just on guns but everything.
America used to be looked up as the hope of the world re poverty, civil rights etc. but now we are in league with butchers, demagogues and despots like those in No Korea, Brazil, Phil., Hungary, Russia etc.
2
@Paul. Why do people come across the border in tsunami numbers?
3
You ask how many people will die before the president and congress act. This president will not act. Our current "leadership" cannot even do things everyone agrees on like repairing roads and bridges. They can cut taxes and take credit for a short term boost to the economy, wave flags, talk tough, that's it. If someone can devise a way to make lots of money from banning assault weapons, then it will happen.
2
Here in Kentucky the Legislature just passed a law to allow concealed carry by anyone, with no permits or regulation. I look for our gun injuries and deaths to increase. More worrisome, wherever you go in Kentucky now, you never know who is caring a weapon with the intent to harm someone, and any innocent bystanders who might be there. The supermarket, library, church, nowhere is safe.
2
@Mebschn. Don't bad people do that anyway?
5
The absence of meaningful gun control in the United States despite the dramatic spree shootings in recent years is simply another unpleasant sign of Americans' lack of respect for human life in general. This rugged nihilism is extended to all sorts of mindless risk-taking, ranging from anarchic drug prescriptions leading to opiate addiction to the use of toxic pesticides banned in more civilised climes. A cultural problem beyond reform, to sum it up.
3
I come to New Zealand annually, not just because I am married to a 'Kiwi' (who lives with me in the USA and must only come briefly for a vacation, because he is NOT yet retired as am I) but because I feel 'safe' in this gorgeous country. I am beguiled by the humanity of the people here in this isolated country; it just seems like a natural and 'normal' place to hang my hat for a couple of months per year. During the past week's horrendous actions of the demented murderer, whose name (as Prime MInister Jacinda Ardern sensitively and wisely has professed), shall remain unuttered, I have been shaken, AGAIN, by my motherland's simple indecency on the matter of gun 'safety'. With all which we know by now, the uproar over making gun ownership safer must be heightened by New Zealand's swift action on this problem within its borders. I wept over the pictures of those killed here last week. How can any reasonable human being, not to mention our so-called President, say that ' thoughts and prayers' are what he offers, and not possibly understand what is happening in what used to be the 'greatest nation' in the world. As in weeping, thoughts and prayers will not settle an issue which can be confronted immediately, as has done PM Ardern here in NZ. America: WAKE UP. The world is watching; soon you will have lost all clout, and I will then reconsider which country is best for living in...
99
@Peggy Elder
Love how anything to do with gun crimes around the world always seem to be the fault of the US. The killer was Australian. He bought the guns legally in NZ. That's where the crime happened.
But it's our fault-- and especially Donald Trump's!
6
While I fully agree with Mr. Kristof's premise and believe we should have much stricter gun safety laws, he overlooks two glaring impediments. First, we are a country of about 330M people. New Zealand is a nation of just under 4M, much easier to get things done there.
Second, we have that red herring called the second amendment, which the NRA has shamelessly exploited and misrepresented since the 1970s with fanatical religious-like emotion.
1
"The regulatory model to follow is automobiles." The last time I checked the Constitution, there was no right to drive. On the other hand, the 2nd Amendment is still intact. In fact, after the SCOTUS Heller decision, it's stronger than ever. Any attempt to draft a legislative parallel between the to is simply silly. The way to stop any violence is to start with the perpetrators. The progressive Democrats have consistently blocked any legislation that even hints at individual responsibility. See Baltimore for the litany of legislative and judicial failures that put violent criminals back on the streets and back into the cycle of violence. But no, let's blame an inanimate object that's incapable of violence with human intervention.
2
It should be noted that the guns used in the New Zealand massacre, as are most guns in the world, are manufactured in the United States and legally sold throughout the world. I don't have the facts on this, wish I did, but wouldn't it be lovely if this industry was heavily regulated internationally.
6
Perfectly said. The car model is a perfect one to follow. People still die from auto accidents but all drivers are licensed and insured.
As said in the article, over 20% of guns are purchased with zero background check. Would even the most adamant of gun rights supporters want 20% of drivers on the road with no license and no education?
1
I love these liberal arguments about why can’t we be more like (fill in the country). This time it is New Zealand. First of all, NZ is a small country, with a population about the same as Alabama, about 1/70 that of the US. Secondly, and more importantly, NZ is not subject to the the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Even liberals know that openly advocating for repeal of the Second Amendment is a losing position. Want ‘gun safety’? Push for mandatory prison sentences for those violating existing gun laws.
9
What difference does The relative size of the two countries have two gun control laws? What difference does the second amendment make when considering common sense gun control laws? (even the amendment states they should be “well regulated”)
The distinctions you raise have no bearing on whether gun control laws could, or work in the US.
7
The country is changing right below your feet. We are gonna have universal healthcare in one form or another in less than a decade because that’s what a majority of Americans want. We are gonna be a minority majority country sooner or later and that means we are not gonna be trying to preserve an 18th century America that the rightists want but moving into 21st century.
We are gonna talk about modern issues such as climate change, eliminating slavery era EC, having sensible gun control laws(after all we no longer need guns to fight against slave upraising or take land away from native Americans) or having a bipartisan judges.
Your party doesn’t have Americans behind it because the GOP has won the popular vote just once (by just one state) since 1988. That is not exactly a party in the pink of health. Your fringe politics is gonna have a natural death sooner or later. Until then try to take America back to 18th century and fail. But only thing you might end up doing is giving more tax cuts for the rich. Because that’s all your party has been doing for decades now. Americans have figured out the con of the GOP perpetrated by the truthful con man.
1
When I was in high school in California I was required to take a class in drivers' education. The class should be named: safety education, and include guns safety principles.
1
I am hopeful.. even though people tell me if 20 kids butchered in Sandy Hook Elementary school did not change our gun law, what makes you think it will ever.
I am hopeful because I see new wave after Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, people starting to hate NRA. I believe, first time in 70 years gun control groups outspend NRA and other gun rights rivals. But it’s not over yet, it’s life of our kids which is at stake.
Thank you for this article, it’s written with lot of heart.
4
Mr. Kristof’s reference to a dog adoption requiring more scrutiny than a gun purchase is absolutely true. Last year, when I was simply inquiring about adopting a dog, I had to fill out a lengthy application, including the names of two references, who were subsequently contacted. It is unfathomable that almost a quarter of potential gun owners receive no such examination. At the very least, this is where we should start in a campaign for “gun safety.”
6
The gun issue in the US is - like most issues - a class issue.
Most gun control advocates have something much more effective than a gun at their disposal to keep their family safe: money. The money to live in a safe neighborhood.
Where (and for whom) the risk of crime is highest, the need for guns for lawful self defense is greatest.
And if 3 or 4 people decide to bust in your door at 2am, an AR-15 is the ideal defensive tool to have on hand.
8
@poppop
What, Pop Pop, are the odds of 3 or 4 people busting in your door at 2:00 AM? Really, statistics now not one-off anecdotes. The odds are immensely small.
Now what are the odds of someone in that AR 15 household being killed by guns? Again, statistics please, not preferences. The odds are 5 to 1 times greater of a gun death in a home with guns that one without. Or with just hunting, sport guns.
3
@operadog are you serious? there were 438,000 burglaries/breaking & entries and 72,000 robberies reported to the FBI UCR database last year. Maybe there's no crime where you live, which kind of proves my point.
6
@operadog are you serious? https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
Highlights
*An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007.
*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries
and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
1
Insurance is required for driving a car and it should be required for having a gun. Let the pool of people who choose to exercise the right cover the costs that follow.
2
@Joan -- the problem with this is the problem with the guns and the people who have them -- the damage the guns do is so high that the insurance will be unaffordable, at least for handguns.
Studies show that the actuarial cost of a handgun is about $1000 per year even if the owner is older than 25 and has zero criminal record (not just no felonies, no misdemeanors and no arrests either).
Who would pay more than $1000 per year in insurance?
But that cost is the real price to society ... right now it's just being paid by all the victims and all the hospitals and whatever health insurance they have to cover the harm.
2
The NRA, for many years has opposed all but the lightest of firearms regulation, except when it comes to themselves.
Famously, they banned anything that could be described as a weapon at their May, 2018 convention when Trump and Pence were in the building. Why they deny the same protection to school children, then, is not a matter of "rights," but a political choice.
Regulation of firearms (and weapons in general) has a long tradition in America. Many mistakenly believe the Supreme Court's Heller decision allows individuals to carry a gun anywhere, any place, any time they like.
Heller made clear regulation did not have unlimited extension into the home. Regulation outside the home it did not touch, and in the absence of Federal laws, left regulation to the states.
The lax gun regulations we have in many states are not enshrined constitutional rights, but legislation that can be walked back by subsequent legislation. The same applies at the Federal level. If Congress and the President agree, military assault weapons and large magazines could be banned and sales of any gun without a completed background check could become illegal.
And all this could be done without repealing the Second Amendment.
1
I applaud the PM of New Zealand for her actions. The same cannot happen here in the US because the NRA has contributed many millions ( AKA bought and paid for) to majority of republican Senators, Congress and DJT.
6
Some part of God and the US Constitution made America possible and long lived. You may embrace or dismiss the first part of this equation, the other part is non-negotiable.
Just as liberals want to re-word their daily script, for example, gun control is now gun safety, they want to re-write the US Constitution.
If the majority of liberal voters live in 6 or 7 states, liberals want to eliminate the Electoral College. Somehow lining out certain sections of our keystone document, is easier than developing better strategies to attract more voters.
If liberals ever get control of the US Senate, they won't pussy foot around trying to get a liberal justice to the bench, they will simply appoint some number of liberal judges. Of course that is the fast track to re-write the US Constitution.
Be advised, as liberals are less than energetic when it comes to immigration, might there come a day when local law enforcement drags it's collective feet to enforce "new" gun laws. Selective law enforcement is not the path of honorable men.
I've heard this prayer may help.
God grant me the Serenity
To accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And the Wisdom to know the difference.
1
What is wrong in changing laws that were created by men who wanted to keep power to themselves and not to serve ALL the citizens of the country equally and justly? Didn’t we change the constitution to outlaw slavery? Didn’t we amend the constitution to give women their right to vote? I can go on.
EC was created by evil, racist founders, who were just being men of their times, nothing wrong with that. The purpose of EC was to count the black men without giving them the right to vote. Period. But of course the evil part is that this can’t be said aloud as it exposes the lie about the founders being great visionaries. And even then the EC made black men only 60% of white men.
The second amendment was created so very white man can carry gun( find out if slaves were allowed carry a gun) so they can quell any black slave upraising in their plantation. Or maybe to just keep the power with white men so they can take away the lands of ANY Native American if they want at the cost of a few bullets. Did the Native Americans have any right to own/carry a gun, of course not. But all this is inconvenient lies that the rightist cult would rather not talk about. Instead it is much easier to hide behind the lies about guns as protection against government take over. Really, are Americans that stupid to believe cockamamie stories created to preserve white power? Maybe the rightists could sell it as long as they keep the mass uneducated and that’s what they always do.
2
New Zealand reminds of what a free society can accomplish when there is no Republican Party, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, NRA, Electoral College, Republican-dominated Supreme Court, Donald Trump, and an obstructionist US Senate--to kneel at the altar of the Gun Lobby. These people and political structures stand in the way of even the sanest gun safety protections--tragedy after tragedy, year after year. I for one and sick to my core of their callousness and/or corruption. They have the deaths of all Americans who have died and will likely continue to die from gun violence on their hands.
11
WE THE PEOPLE - average, honest, informed, socially conscious women and men - know what leadership looks like, Mr. Kristof.
Until now we were no match for the Koch brothers and their inherited/stolen wealth brethren who are intent on destroying OUR America.
Many of us have had our eyes opened wide. Many of us are taking action to stop the crooks who are trying to destroy OUR lives and world.
WE are going to hire/elect people who have the skill, knowledge, experience and committment to turn OUR United States of America back around from this forced march to thrid world status.
This hostile financial takeover of OUR United States of America will not stand. Not now. Not ever.
4
The second amendment was’t really for the defense against the government. That’s just the story that the vile framers of the constitution created, just like the Electoral college. The electoral college was explicitly created to count the black slaves without giving them the vote. But then the story given was small state rights. And the not so bright rightists(or maybe some of them are just evil smart) say we are not a democracy but a republic pitch.
The second amendment was in reality a protection against slave upraising and a legal way to kill and eliminate native Americans and take over their land. Without guns the slaves could really fight back. And the native Americans could really fight back and keep their land. Alas, that’s not an option. Voila, the story that second amendment is to fight the government. The government has a military and no one is stupid to believe guns in the hands of civilians can stop an army.
Now the second amendment doesn’t serve any of the purported or unsaid purpose. We no longer have the fear of slave upraising and we have taken away all the land (and more) that we want from the Native Americans, who are just dying.
Does anyone really believe guns can stop the worlds super power if it wants to usurp power from the people? Yeah, I didn’t think so. So guns are just a historical holdout that need to be taken away because stats say that guns mostly kill the holders and innocent people caught in a mad man’s rage rather than any real threat.
4
If AR 15s and other similar weapons were outlawed across the board, including a total prohibition of use by police departments, then yes, I will cheerfully turn mine in or destroy it. That would mean turning in or destroying several million weapons. Before about 1964 there were few semi-auto rifles available for civilians. Some WWII Garand and M1 carbines were available but hardly on the scale of modern ARs and AKs. Also, semi-auto pistols did not come with double stack magazines with a capacity of 15-17 rounds.
What gun control advocates must keep in mind is that other weapons are equally lethal. The Texas Tower shooter killed over 30 people using conventional rifles and shotguns. A skilled shooter with several modern bolt-action rifles and a few extra magazines can do as much damage or more than an AR or AK. Even a lowly .22 like the Ruger 10/22 can be devastating. Ruger also manufactures a mini-14 though not an AR it is powerful and easily reloaded even with low capacity magazines.
So, what will be banned? What about the millions of legitimate, innocent gun owners who are not criminals? How will we deal with criminals who disregard all gun laws? We must also consider the impact on gun shops, sporting goods dealers, hunters, competitive shooters, and ability to manufacture weapons. If we do not have that industrial base our military procurements become more expensive. At the beginning of WWII men trained with wooden rifles. It's not so simple to just ban guns.
3
Does the idea of an armed populace as the last defense against tyranny sound crazy in this day and age? I would wager that it seems a bit less crazy than it did a few years ago. Look who is running the country. So yes, enforce existing gun laws, strengthen certain ones, sure. Keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Those are good ideas. But the idea that we must deprive law abiding citizens of their fundamental right to defend their life, property, and liberty just opens the door for tyranny in the future and defenselessness in the present. The cops show up AFTER you have been victimized.
4
@Charles K. I really don't understand the fearfulness of gun owners in America. Do you really feel that your life, property and liberty are being threatened all of the time? You really need to be "packing" to save yourself? You are constantly feeling victimized? What a horrible way to live.
2
@Charles K.
"...an armed populace as the last defense against tyranny sound crazy.......?'
Yes Charles K it is absolutely looney. Unless of course to you who honestly believe you can stand up to the US Military, local police, and national guard. Only in silly movies Charles.
2
They just did!!!! Now out turn
The article makes a moving, thoughtful appeal. The data it offers in support of its argument for greater gun legislation is damning to the NRA and its Congressional lapdogs. But while this might be hopelessly impractical and not helpful to the cause of even modest gun reforms, I can’t help but ask why a serious reinterpretation - if not outright repeal - of the 2nd Amendment isn’t under consideration. This is an amendment passed at a time when when the memory of British colonialism was still fresh. Same with the 3rd Amendment, which outlaws [British] troops from bunking in your home against your will. These amendments are from a time when we needed an armed militia and feared colonial subjugation. In other words, they are complete anachronisms. They have outlived their relevancy. And now, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, it has become a scourge. Get rid of it. Or scale it back to be limited to hunting rifles and sidearms only for those who submit to rigorous background checks. Why is a “Bushmaster” rifle even something a civilian can purchase? Why haven’t our lawmakers resolved that such a gun shall never again get into the hands of an Adam Lanza? Congress tolerates the mass murder of innocents and offer prayers but not plans for how to put a stop to this. And we tolerate our Congress. We, ourselves, the American public are complicit.
2
Not only that the second amendment was used to quell any black upraising at the point of a gun or the freedom to take away Native American land at the point of a gun. Any chance the blacks or native Americans had a right to own a gun? Of course not. It was the right of white men to keep power at the point of a gun.
1
So long as the N.R.A. and the gun lobby continue to bribe and/or frighten this congress, nothing will change. Only a democratic president and a democratic congress have a chance at enacting the kind of gun safety laws that other less corrupt countries have long since adopted. The N.R.A. is an incubus of toxicity, a national nightmare from which we need to awaken.
3
There is almost a zero percent chance of any meaningful action against America's gun problem in the near future. And there is one simple reason for this. The 2008 Supreme Court 'Heller' decision that found the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to own weapons. It took over 200 years for the right mixture of right-wing jurists to come to that ridiculous decision, but there you go. Of course, the preamble to that was a generation of fear-mongering by Republicans who then reaped the rewards of the idiot plebes at the ballot box and enabled them to appoint these half-witted people to the judiciary.
5
In NZ there are intelligent people in the government. Of course the stupid Trump, the stupid NRA, the stupid gun worshiping Americans, the stupid congress and the stupid Senate will continue with their insane gun laws.....what an intelligent bunch. One event in NZ prompted real action. In the US killings after killings, mass shootings after mass shootings have prompted ZERO action. Hey,Trump wrap yourself in the Flag along with Congress & Senate make sure every American has an equal opportunity to be killed by firearm. God Bless America!!!
5
@ric
You give our leadership too much credit they are worse than stupid, they are intentionally malevolent and play dumb when it comes to gun violence. Our history shows we are not a meritocracy but a gunocracy, this is how we kept the slaves, natives and uppity unarmed humane fellow whites in check.
Freedom loving peaceful Americans need some help from abroad as it's apparent we live in a gun tyranny. Maybe the Kiwi example is a step forward, let's hope the 2020 elections get rid of some of the gun violence enabling elected chaff in our society.
2
Gun laws? Drug laws? We can't even figure out how to talk about these things much less ac† about them. I guess Americans want to have some say about how we die. It's not enough to accept that we're all going to die anyway. We just want to have our say about what will kill us. Maybe it's a freedom of religion thing.
Incoming news -NZ bans military semi-automatic and assault rifles.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111442846/christchurch-mosque-shootings-live-emotional-haka-broke-out-near-christchurch-mosque
Shame Americans can not support 1st grade kids as New Zealander’s supported Muslims. How did guns become more important than our children?
6
We all know the numbers and the history. We also know it's not Congress, but the Republican Party that blocks sane gun legislation, while using battlefield weapons and guns as a fear and "cultural" wedge issue.
The Republicans go so far as to promote wild gun fantasies, as Clarence Thomas wife Ginni did after the Parkland school massacre. Attached to a photo of a pile of death camp victims shoes, Ginni made the absurd claim that if Jews had guns, they could have prevented the Holocaust, stopping the Nazi blitzkrieg across Europe, Asia and Africa. When our media do not mention the heart of the problem, partisan obstruction and lies of the Republican Party, it allows the GOP to keep getting away with doing nothing.
3
The NRA/GOP Party : Enabling the slaughter of Children, and others, for many, many Years. If that doesn’t enrage you, you’re inhuman. VOTE in 2020, vote for Democrats, only. It’s the only way to even begin to heal this plague.
5
I’ve been reading NYT from New Zealand for about a year. It’s quite tiring reading about the gun debate after a mass murder after another mass murder. Guns obviously facilitate the mass in murder, and your political representatives, are beholden to the millions of dollars of corporate donors. As a kiwi would say “its bloody obvious!”. As Homer Simpson would say “Duh!”
6
I'd rather have a Prime Minister with a Brilliant Queen than a Constitution with a Feeble King----at this point.....
4
@TWShe Said. Priceline awaits your call.
Jacindamania.
Google that term and you will learn the surge of hope and love she carried with her in the lead up to the elections in NZ.
They can't stop gushing over her, and you are spot on, 'this is what leadership looks like'.
3
Comrade Trump could, and I emphasize COULD, learn much from PM Ardern and many other responsible heads of state. He could, but he won't.
Trump is quite the opposite of a "stable genius" - he is a demented, ignorant, delusional narcissistic sociopath with a fatal ego who convinces himself that he is Christ incarnate. Nothing is further from the truth. He will never take any responsibility for his aberrant actions nor does he seek true reflection from intelligent people. A truly great leader, a REAL President, would welcome the chance to learn and improve oneself. Barak Obama was such a person, and Trump demonizes him and all he stands for. Such a fool!
YOU elected this defective man child. Fix it!
4
This is what happens when your government isn't run by self-serving crooks with single digit IQ's.
5
I will recall the famous, or infamous, words of H Rap Brown: "Violence is as American as cherry pie".
Gun culture is deeply ingrained in our ethos and I see no way that is ever going to change. I don't understand it, as it just seems utterly crazy that we place a higher value on gun ownership than our children.
All I can say is hug your kids every day when they go off to school as it may be the last time you will.
1
The gun culture is ingrained simply because the slaves were kept down at the point of a gun and the Native American land was usurped at the point of a gun. That was the REAL reason for guns in the hands of white men. But of course we can’t say this as the real reason. And hence the story of the guns protecting people l(really, which people, blacks or whites) against the government.
Unless we reckon with historical truth we are condemned to repeat historical mistakes. And the truth is our framers are not exactly men with great and noble intention or vision as it has been built. They are vile, selfish, racists, just men of their times and they created laws that benefited them to assert their hold over power.
It is time that we create laws serving a 21st century America and not 18th century one. So let us get rid of the UNLIMITED and Unquestioned interpretations of the second amendment and make it realistic. Keep a simple gun for protection or hunting. No one needs an assault or military style semi-automatics. That is just making the law a travesty.
1
Prime Minister Ardern merits nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing her countrymen and citizens of the world together in solidarity with their Muslim brethren in the wake of the horrific massacre.
Additionally, her swift actions in spearheading gun control legislation in New Zealand so soon after the event reveal the character of a true national leader who by example presents a model for other nations who struggle to contain gun violence, especially those with deeply flawed laws like the U.S. When will we ever follow suit in the unending quest for worldwide peace and join in solidarity with our global neighbors like New Zealand? The unlikelihood of ever doing so in this country is nothing short of a national tragedy.
6
he 2017 FBI Uniform Crime Report shows more Americans are killed by unarmed assailants than by assailants armed with rifles. Of 15,129 Americans murdered in 2017,
7,032 were killed by handguns;
1.591 were killed by knives;
696 were beaten, choked, kicked or stomped to death;
467 were bludgeoned to death by blunt objects;
403 were killed with rifles, including military-type rifles;
And 264 were shotgunned to death.
Rifles were used in about 2.5 percent of muddlers, but there United States would not reduce murders by 2.5 percent by banning all rifles, including assault rifles. Murderers denied rifles would use handguns, shotguns, knives, blunt objects or their bare hands.
We need to work on making Americans less homicidal.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
2
Mr. Kristof, when you throw irrelevant statistics into your column, it makes your entire column irrelevant. You start off praising New Zealand's quick reaction to the murder of 50 people in Christchurch. Their response was to ban all semi-automatic weapons (with the exception of semi-automatic shotguns with magazines of 5 bullets), period. You then throw out the irrelevant figure if 1.45 million Americans have died at the hands of firearms in the last 50 years. How many of these deaths were at the hands of semi-automatic weapons? Please tells us. I am all in favor of banning all semi-automatic weapons because all they are good at is killing people, they are not good for hunting.
You suggest that we could reduce gun deaths by 1/3 if we adapted simple changes, that's just silly. Two thirds of the 35,000 Americans dying annually are suicides. Most deaths are caused by handguns. Banning semi-automatic weapons will greatly reduce mass killing. Banning hand guns (never happen in this country unfortunately) is what is needed to really bring down US deaths.
Mike Rahimi
Mike Rahimi
New Zealand should consider selling all the weapons they buy back in America to recoup the expense.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is a leader. We used to have leaders. The US has increasingly become disgraceful for its abandonment of ethics. The intransigent, immature, reactionary right wing, the NRA, the gun lobby and the Congressional Republicans have weakened our honor in the eyes of the world. They know no shame and it’s on the backs of dead Americans. They have undermined our self confidence and battered our sense of morality. But those of us who know what’s ethical will continue to fight for it.
5
It takes a woman to stand up and say NO MORE, and make things happen.
5
New Zealand (and Australia earlier) are examples that show government can work and make good decisions if lobbying, propaganda, and rabble rousing are ineffective. In the USA that is not the case, and billionaire funding of disinformation and spreading dementia creates the support needed to allow Congress to duck responsibility.
Meanwhile Trump incites crazy people to shoot us.
6
It will be their own darn fault when they figure out that thoughts and prayers are the true solution to gun problems.
1
Thanks to Mr. Kristof I've been reminded of someone equally as repugnant as Trump and his lap-puppy Pence: Wayne LaPierre.
3
When some people from other countries proclaim hate towards the West and US, some people use that to plant fear and say that those people are the enemy and we should keep them out. White supremacist, KKK and the likes, have always talked about the same, but the hate is toward another race or races. So why not treat White Supremacists for what they are, a terrorist group. They are not here to talk only, they are here to talk and act. That guy, I think he was in the Navy, who thank God was caught up in time, he was a white supremacist ready to act. Manifestos like the one these people read and write and pass to under people are not talking nice things, they are promoting hate and violence. Freedom of speech is one thing, but anywhere in the world when you threaten others, you might go to jail for that.
People are so focus on the violence that can come from the outside forgetting that there is more violence in the inside. Las Vegas shooter is the best example, a guy out of nowhere, with no motives, shooting people like ducks. Ban guns and ban white supremacy
2
Jacinda Ardern becomes more beautiful every day.
3
The answer to your question is - never. Take a trip to the Fox news site related to this story and you will see the wrath of gun owners in all their glory. All the old arguments are on display; guns don't kill people, socialists are trying to take away freedom and, of course, the racism like "muslims had it coming to them". There is no cure to the violence Americans embrace.
1
One of the things Mr. Kristof could add to his focus on gun safety would be to point out that what we are talking about here is technology: The guns we make are so powerful, and so easy to use, that people in the throes of anger can blow someone away while barely having to aim.
I'm sure that some people who set out to threaten others with a gun ended up killing them because they just weren't aware how incredibly easy this lethal technology is to use. And then there's people who do know: The Las Vegas shooter, I'm convinced, simply believed everyone was dumber than he was and therefore didn't deserve to live, and could be slaughtered like sheep in a pen.
If and when we get Democrats in control (and we don't have too many GOP judges in the way to knock the laws down), we can take back our country at least part of the way from the NRA. And one of the arguments we can make is that this technology is so strong it has to be severely restricted and regulated.
It would also help policing in general: Cops these days are on permanent house-to-house guerilla searches because they don't know whether an AR-15 is waiting for them. No more assault weapons for anybody but the military, and widespread, generous buybacks to get these things off the street and out of anger's reach. They're too powerful to be lying around the house.
1
The Pew Research Center has a comprehensive report online on 'The demographics of gun ownership':
There are now 247M adults in the US, 325M total residents.
120 guns / 100 residents = 390M guns privately owned.
30% of adults own one or more guns, of these:
32% own a single gun = 23.7M guns
37% own 2-4 guns (say 3) = 82.3M guns, leaving
29% own 5+ guns = 284M guns, or 13/owner
So 21.5M adult residents, or 8.7% of adults (6.6% of total US population,) own 73% of the total privately held guns.
Ownership is concentrated in a small minority of hands here in the US. They won't give them up willingly. One trump-supporting congressman claims the trump base collectively has 15T rounds of ammunition. Make of that what you will.
4
The Second Amendment was written at a time when there was a recent history of the need for self-defense against the government. That is not the case today.
Whether or not you are in favor of individuals being able to use guns to hunt or for reasonable self-defense, there is no legitimate reason for allowing assault weapons (or weapons that can be easily converted into such) in the hands of civilians.
If we had marginally competent leadership, the laws would be changed -- at the very least in the way that New Zealand is doing.
It is no wonder that Russia has supported the NRA.
7
The principal problem is that gun control is a hot button issue that can be used to guarantee republican electoral victory - particularly when it is presented as an all-or-none issue. Think of the periodic "Obama's coming to take your guns!!" media blasts we heard between 2008 and 2016. Nevermind that there are innumerable other regulatory ways to control access to firearms.
As long as republican pandering is a viable means to win elections cheaply there will be no gun control at not within the foreseeable future.
NZ got it right. The US got it oh so wrong at the cost of so many lives. When will we have leadership that has the guts to stand up to lobbies and do the right thing? When? 2020 seems like a good time to start. We all need to get out and vote for candidates with the guts to the right thing and support the people, not the gun lobbies. It will take an army of voters, but we can do it if we get out the vote.
4
Maybe the key difference is that the New Zealand government cares about its people, ours doesn't.
5
"In fairness, liberals have often been unhelpful, broadcasting their own ignorance about the firearms they propose to regulate, or speaking blithely of banning guns or of 'gun control' … I suggest dropping references to 'gun control' and instead speaking of 'gun safety.'"
As someone who knows firearms well, I think blaming liberals for not understanding the technical characteristics of different types of firearms is unhelpful. You don't need to understand how an automobile engine works to know that speed limits are a good idea. Yes, when we get to the point of actually enacting regulations, people with detailed knowledge of guns will need to be employed to write the regulations. But you can advocate for better gun control without knowing the difference between a semiautomatic action and a falling block.
And while gun safety is desirable, what we need is gun control. The only effective way to prevent dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of the wrong people is to make those weapons scarce and hard to get. Trying to identify the next killer is a fool's errand. We aren't going to background check our way to safety. The only way we are going to reduce gun deaths is to ban guns other than low-capacity long guns. The proliferation of handguns, high-capacity semiautomatic rifles, and other weapons designed primarily for killing people is the core problem. Until we limit those weapons, the problem will persist.
3
@617to416 "I think blaming liberals for not understanding the technical characteristics of different types of firearms is unhelpful. You don't need to understand how an automobile engine works to know that speed limits are a good idea." I agree, but I don't think this is what he meant.
In defense of Krystof, what I think he actually meant is that liberals need to up their game on how to talk about common sense legislation on firearms. If we keep repulsing conservatives and 2nd Amendment advocates, we're only making this task more difficult for ourselves.
Once again the voice of reason and a good journalist. Yet what is needed is action and not continued talk. In America we continue to see criticize and analyze "till death do us part. If doctors were to continue to "understand" diseases and do nothing to treat them we'd be all dead. It's time to act and stop analyzing. Until we do more and more Americans will die and we are the only ones to blame.
1
1) Trust and compromise make democracy work and keep families wholesome and communities safe. Gun violence sows distrust and paranoia. The home finds many victims of gun violence and it is not from a break in, but rather from a spouse or a child. Paranoia infects participants in gang violence and many law enforcement officers who mistake a cell phone for a gun. 2)Those who site the 2nd Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" forget the 1st Amendment, "the right of the people to peaceably assemble". 3) Gun violence is a public safety issue. Indeed crime rates are low compared with many decades in the latter half of the 20th century. The generation of children and young adults who have grown up since Columbine have experienced reports of mass murder year after year and our leaders have done little to address gun violence as a public safety. Fearing gun manufacturers might go bankrupt, legislatures have written laws to put more weapons in the public square! How does this promote the right to peaceable assembly? Schools may teach about the "Gun Fight at OK Corral", must not be the OK Corral Gun Fight!
As to your statistics on the efficacy of stricter gun laws on murder rates; please explain why Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, has the murder rate it does?
1
@mikecody Income inequality is the answer and the root cause. It is what's driving radicalization, polarization and populism around the globe. People who are struggling to survive are easily manipulated into blaming "the other" for their misfortune: immigrants, socialists, muslims, etc.
As always, it's "the economy, stupid" to quote Carville. But now we have millions of people manipulated into voting and acting against their own self-interest.
1
While America may have some unique cultural characteristics that make gun control difficult, we shouldn't underestimate the obstacles presented by our Constitution.
New Zealand is a parliamentary democracy, which means the executive and legislative power is fused—and the party in power controls both. It can do what it wants—efficiently, quickly, coherently. The check on power in a parliamentary system is the election. If the people don't like what the government does, they vote it out, maybe with early elections. So governments, while powerful, are always held in check by the prospect of losing confidence and thus the impending election.
In the American system our founders—afraid of both mob rule and the usurpation of power by a tyrant—created a byzantine system of power divided between states and federal government, between executive, legislative, and judiciary, and, in the legislature, even further divided between House and Senate. The result is a government that is inefficient, often gridlocked, and ineffective at producing coherent law or policy. Just as bad, the division of power actually creates ambiguity about who is in control—which means the Courts play a bigger role than intended interpreting what can and cannot be done by each governmental body—and a power void that ultimately is filled by the one branch that has actual power (agencies and military), the executive, whose power has steadily grown in recent decades.
And then there's the 2nd Amendment.
1
No need for guns of any kind anywhere in the public realm, except for law enforcement officers. Hunters can go to government monitored reserves, where their guns would be securely held, shoot at targets and be done with it. We can deal with all sentient beings, including humans, in far more responsible ways than having them shot at indiscriminately, often by mentally unstable individuals.
2
Mr. Kristof, I'm with your conservative colleague Bret Stephens. Time to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
2
If gun control advocates wish to turn this debate into one of “gun safety,” it means at least one thing: they have conceded that Americans need to first own a gun in order to exercise “gun safety.” A person who does not own a gun has no need of “gun safety” handling.
2
Mr. Kristoff, we don't need "gun safety". We need to ban guns. Plain and simple. The second amendment now functions as an antiquated law design to make desperated and uneducated people feel more powerful than they are. Guns make people who are weak in character feel strong. It allows them to take out their feelings of inadequacy out on unarmed people and animals. Guns have no role in a civilized nation of people. The fact that it is legal to sell guns designed for war to civilians in order to make money is a moral stain of this country. No more guns!!!
3
Jacinda Ardern has been inspirational and stands out in comparison to all world leaders, barring perhaps, Angela Merkel. She also stands out against the candidates for the nomination of the Democratic Party Leadership.
1
Why the knee-jerk need to bring in liberals as responsible because they are not experts in defining assault weapons. (Par. 7) That buys into the nonsensical argument that you can't have an opinion if you're not sufficiently nuanced on weapons intricacies. Why isn't it enough to say "Gun that kill many people in a short period of time should be outlawed." After all this time, Mr. Kristof still must give lip-service to the most irrelevant and deceptive arguments of the right.
2
You can't lump all gun issues together, each is a unique issue and unique problem.
You also can't throw stuff against the wall as see what sticks. You can't come up with idiotic stuff that won't really do anything except make folks feel good. Because, as the article says, when you do these things you drive folks in the middle away.
You can't toss out statement like the author does about how it is unbelievable that his phone has fingerprint ID but guns don't. Who here would bet their life in a life and death moment on being able to open their phone first try in a split second each and every time? Fingerprint ID could have some uses, would make sense for some guns in some situations, but when you make a blanket statement like this you show your ignorance.
And along with universal background checks, red flag laws an such you need to consider some other measures:
1. Stop and frisk and increased police presence in the top 50 gun violence areas in the country.
2. Mandatory 10 year enhancements for any crime committed with a firearm.
3. Stronger borders and ports to prevent the influx of black market guns.
4. Strong gun education.
5. A statement signed at time of purchase that you own a gun safe and will use it, under penalty of perjury if you lie.
6. $10K fine for not reporting a stolen gun immediately, a $5K find if the gun was stolen due to improper storage, a $50K fine for an unreported gun being used in a crime.
7. Mandatory 5 year sentence for strawman purchases.
This country, the United States, has elected people who treat viruses with antibiotics, do not believe in science and, as is the case with the President, think they can break laws and civil codes with impunity.
The naïveté and utter stupidity of our citizens, led by a man who is the antithesis of a leader, does not have the abilities to govern itself wisely let alone the ability to disarm its most psychotic and dangerous citizens.
1
Wow, concrete action on guns versus useless “thoughts and prayers.”
Amazing what you can do when your country is rational.
Sadly, the gun debate in this country is dominated by irrational people- gun zealots who have an intense almost sexual relationship with their guns and religious fanatics who believe their imaginary Sky God will do something about tragedies he’s powerless to prevent.
As bad as the former are, the latter are the worst because they form the base of the gun loving party.
The whole gun debate is yet another example of the toxic effect that religion, especially Evangelicalism, has on this country.
In addition gun control, we should eliminate all tax breaks and exemptions for religion in this country. It’s high time we drive irrationality, myths and fairy tales and imaginary beings out of our policy debates.
1
Thank you, Mr. Kristoff, for this article, and for this good advice that highlights how much language matters:
"I suggest dropping references to “gun control” and instead speaking of “gun safety.”
Please ask your photo caption writers to join in this effort -- they captioned the photo featured with this article as a "gun control rally."
It is more accurate to describe it as a gun violence prevention rally. U.S. teenagers have been rallying because they are concerned with preventing gun violence in our schools, on our city streets, in our communal gathering places.
1
The title says it all. New Zealand's swift and decisive action in reaction to the tragedy is the playbook for our country to follow. How many lives must be extinguished before our elected officials look past their NRA donors and take action.
1
Tiny nation of NZ headed by a woman, is leading the world in wakefulness. She is opening our collective eyes. As tiny islands NZ is fully aware of its fragility, surrounded by deep oceans, it knows it is isolated, Nature’s forces and climate change can swallow its very existence. Earthquakes cyclones rising ocean level..the beautiful gorgeous islands are at mercy of Nature. I heard the same in Hawaii where traditionally the natives worshipped forces of Nature, Pele, Lilonoe, Poliahu, Waiau, Kahoupokane....
These islanders know viscerally how precious human life is. It is meant to be cherished nourished nurtured and not simply wasted by guns and violence.
Please kindly listen to our island brothers sisters led by a young woman who is begging humans to save our precious planet and humanity.
4
Perhaps a flotilla of Progressives could sail across the Pacific and show up in New Zealand demanding asylum. Be a paradise of open borders and no guns in Kiwi land.
1
When will we? NEVER. No explanation needed.
2
In 2014, there were 6 gun deaths in Japan, population 127 million. In the US, same year, population 318 million, there were 33,599 gun deaths.
See, "How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime" https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729
Luckily we can take solace in the fact that guns don't kill people, presidents who praise white supremacy and encourage violence in their supporters do.
2
New Zealand’s Dealing With Its Gun Problem. When Will We? I know: never.
excellent points, Mr. Kristof.
We also need to educate that the interpretation and the NRA itself dramatically changed so we are far from the original meaning of the 2nd amendment. Many of these people are into the original meaning of things, not realizing that they have altered what the intent was. Rifles for hunting and protection were always allowed.
We also should have a place to gather ideas of what to do about the AR-15s. Outlaw new sales? Much higher insurance on ownership AR-15s? Insurance discounts for storing them at certified gun shops or armories? Limits on ammunition? More emphasis that regular rifles are not being taken away.
If we had a Democratic President and a majority-Democrat Senate, we'd have reasonable gun control laws passed in no time. The problem isn't "Congress" or American "leaders." The problems are the Republican Party and the NRA, along with the Electoral College and absurdly unrepresentative Senate that are the sources of their continued power.
4
A dear friend of mine, along with 5 others, was murdered one sleepy morning in May 2012 while getting a coffee for his wife at their Seattle neighborhood cafe, by a schizophrenic, suicidal madman in legal possession of guns. It happened so fast, no one with a gun could have stopped it. Since then, there have been hundreds more innocent Americans murdered in schools, churches, workplaces, by madmen with guns. All because soulless corporate executives create the laws and feed a media with propaganda that equates ownership of weapons of mass murder with freedom, and continues to propagate a bizarre and archaic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It's a true idiocracy that fears hard working immigrants, but does not fear its own, mass-murdering culture. What a lost civilization.
266
@WR You may want to write your legislator and ask why those who are diagnosed with a mental health disorder or NOT permanently barred from owning a firearm.
Currently they are not. Why? Because some nitwi_ decided that a mental health issue/s were only temporary. Most are not temporary and require the taking of medication that often ends with the person refusing to take their medication.
Then there's....why is there not a system that puts one into a database once they are seen in an ER/doctors office for mental health issue/s or diagnoses?
The issue is not guns themselves but the lack of checks/balances. Anyone who has a diagnose mental health disorder regardless of whether it's deemed 'not dangerous' should not be allowed to purchase, possess or own a firearm of any-kind. Zero tolerance needs to be the approach.
5
@WR
But if everyone isn't armed, no one will be afraid and if people are not afraid, no one will buy guns, and if people dont buy guns (and ammunition) then the gun/ammo industry won't make obscene amounts of money.
That is so UnAmerican.
11
@Jim Federal law provides that people adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution are considered prohibited from owning or possessing a weapon (18 USC, Section 922 (g)).
Your assertions about applying all mental health issues as prohibiting conditions is a severe overreach. It's fairly certain that you would have some diagnosable condition, whether it's anxiety, emotional dysregulation, or whatever. Removing the threshold for "dangerous" altogether is just a way to prohibit gun ownership altogether, including from many law enforcement and soldiers.
Most credible research studies on criminology and mental health show little to no link, despite what you and I may posit as lay people. The underlying issues in some shooters is social dysfunction, not mental defect - they do not manage their thoughts and emotions well, for whatever reason, but it's not considered mental illness.
Background checks are like putting a band aid on a severed arm. Military style weapons should be banned. Guns should be limited to three shells/bullets. Migratory bird hunters are required to modify their shotguns so that they can hold no more than three shells. I have never heard one complaint. Birds are important but so are people.
1
America is a country of greedy people who all want more for themselves. The other guy, who cares about him? If I can better myself at someone else's expense, then so be it.
New Zealand is a country which thinks of itself as a community. They take care of one another, and will give up something for the benefit of the others.
As long as the NRA has a strong lobby and "buys" members of the House and Senate, and the president's support, then we are doomed to never pass any real game-changing legislation on gun control. And as long as the GOP can veto any meaningful legislation, we will be at stasis, which no event, no matter how horrible, can change. And we will pay dearly for this inertia over and over again.
In answer your question of when will we be able to deal with the gun problem Mr. Kristof, I'd say were at least a generation away.
We clearly are not as smart or as civilized as the rest of the developed nations. Kudos to the New Zealanders for acting responsibly.
2
Don't ban guns, there are too many (300+ million), too many good people would get hurt if you tried. Ban ammunition, reloading supplies and tools instead. It would not be perfect, nothing is, but in a few years most guns would become expensive bricks. The death toll would plummet and perhaps the SCOTUS would also take note.
Speaking of the death toll: So far this year in the US 2,982 people have died of guns, 599 young people have been killed or injured by guns, there have been 62 mass shootings. These figures do not count the approximately 20,000+ people who suicide by guns each year (Gun Violence Archive).
5
Many gun owners make their own bullets, so banning would do nothing but create a lucrative black market. The goal must be remove all military style automatic weapons from the civilian population.
Our stonewalling on guns compared to New Zealand's rapid response, and our reluctance to ground the Boeing planes both speak volumes about who's running the government.
6
I lived in Christchurch for four years during my first job. During time I had no idea that the country had plenty of gun owners, though given its rural nature I'm not surprised to learn that it did. Then I moved to Britain where I lived for seventeen years. I've long touted both places, plus our neighbor to the north, as evidence that a population armed against itself is not a safeguard to freedom. Prime Minister Ardern, her governing party, and the conservative opposition party have shown real wisdom and public spirit. So have New Zealand gun owners who have turned firearms that have no place in a civilized, rule-of-law society that values its people's lives. I'm immensely proud of the Kiwis who let me live among them for a while.
5
Washington State passed some rather restrictive gun legislation by initiative last year. The NRA is challenging the constitutionality of the law. Gun shows previously held in Spokane near the Idaho border simply moved twenty miles east to Post Falls, Idaho where no laws exist concerning gun shows. One can purchase a weapon without even giving your name. Some sheriffs in Washington have stated they will not enforce the law. The AG has given them fair warning about doing their job and consequences if they don't.
This is why we need Federal legislation so all states have a standard with which they must comply.
2
@allen roberts
We already have federal legislation. We already have federal background checks.
@allen roberts Enforce federal gun laws, but not federal immigration laws?
If that's the case, we need federal gun suggestions and federal immigration suggestions.
The most likely answer to your question is, “Never.” We have the 2nd amendment problem which one writer of another national paper called a “self defense” provision. Of course, that writer and most 2nd amendment proponents ignore the “a well regulated militia” clause in the 2nd amendment. There is nothing “well regulated” about the gang who continues to harp on the 2nd amendment. It’s all about the unbridled “right” to possess weapons designed solely for easily killing a lot of people, even to the point of being able to carry them on public display. The most bizarre 2nd amendment gang members suggest that open carry extends to places like National Parks, school, and places of worship.
Anyone who has ever served in the military knows that the use of weapons and the provision of ammunition are both extremely well regulated. In my U.S. Army Reserve unit, we did indeed have a stocked of semi-automatic weapons. They were locked in a gun room. The ammunition was stored separated. We would check out the guns during a weekend meeting when it was time for drills, including time for cleaning and maintenance checks. We only signed out a specified amount of ammunition when we went to the range, and that whole process was extremely well regulated.
Will the gun industry and the scruffy advocates of unfettered ownership and display of weapons designed for mass killing willingly support real gun control in America? No... they will threaten civil war. Some already are saying that.
2
Hold it there Mr. Kristof. Let's not rush into anything here. We need to sit down and study the problem and deliberate the possible solutions. We are not an irrational people. We have to hear from all sides. Again and Again. Over and Over. To make sure we don't get it wrong. It may seem like we are stalling. But we just haven't had enough hearings . We just need just a little more time. Oh, wait, Wayne LaPierre just came in my office with his checkbook. I need to clean off my desk and set a bit of time aside for him. What was it we were talking about again? Right, right. Let me get back to you on that.
10
It is actually not astonishing that 22 percent of gun sales are done without a background check. This is econ 101--the simpler an alternative is relative to the other choices, the more attractive that alternative becomes. This is obviously a regulatory hole that needs to be plugged.
4
Most guns curculating in society have be purchased by individual owners who do no background checks. The idea that only 22% are purchased without a background check is nonsense, and indicative of the fact that the NRA is in full control of the debate and the statistics that inform the debate in this country.. Many American gun ownerz purchase guns directly from online retailers and then resale in and around their states at will. I would say that more than 70% of guns in circulating in the population have been purchased without a background check.
@PJM
Except that your statistics are wrong.
Of course not. The problem with gums in America stems directly from the 2nd Amendment itself, and the absolutist view that this vaguely worded passage has prompted on the right, especially over the recent decades. There is ZERO chance to any reform that would do anything meaningful to reduce our gun problem.
The cost of "freedom" in America.
3
@George T, I agree with everything you wrote, except the part about 2A being "vaguely worded." In the context of colonial history, where militias and a handful of redcoats were the armies of the time and place, it's perfectly clear.
It's the NRA/right-wing echo chamber and their wholly owned SC justices that have cast doubt on the perfectly clear meaning of the Second Amendment.
“Our gun laws will change.”
That’s what effective leadership looks like.
No, that is what a government does, when there is no Second Amendment. Be advised New Zealand, when you surrender your weapons, you will NEVER get them back.
"I suggest dropping references to “gun control” and instead speaking of “gun safety.”"
Mr. Kristof is taking the liberal "wording" meme to heart. Of course everyone wants more safety. Only a mad man would balk at that.
Global warming was not too threatening. Then it became man made climate change, with rising oceans, washing small islands away, dooming the inhabitants. Simple racism, practiced by White people, became White Supremacy. White Supremacists don't have simple hunting weapons. They have weapons of war. Designed to kill humans. Efficiently.
Now, gun control has become gun safety. After all these years, with all of the attempts to take away guns, why don't we just seek more gun safety. No guns = more safety.
This mad man says, no thanks. I'll keep my guns and myself safe.
2
@Mike Yet that means if there are no regulations for you, there are no regulations for others. Just like if there are no speed limits or traffic regulations for you, there are no for others.
Statistics, when people are allowed to collect them, show that when fewer people are carrying firearms, fewer people are shooting each other.
The whole idea of forming society and rule by laws and government is that instead of people living in isolation or gathering into warring groups, we surrender some freedoms in exchange for others. I'm not free (at least allowed by law) to beat my neighbors with a bat, and that may seem like tyranny to some, but then they can't beat me with a bat either.
Although, I do understand the case for allowing easy access to firearms:
Allow people easy access to guns and that will make them feel safe, and that will help gun sales. Then there will be more shootings. This will keep the people on the bottom at war with each other, less likely to be a threat to the people at the top. Also, shootings become a virtuous cycle, because more shootings spur people to buy more guns, which help make more shootings more likely, helping more sales, etc.
All this time, they will feel more empowered by having guns, even though they will have to constantly look over the shoulders in fear of each other more and more. And while they feel more empowered, you can do things like keep their wages low and cut services that help their communities.
@Michael And if I can keep my guns, you can keep yours. Thanks. Between you and the Second Amendment, I'm good to go.
@Mike It helps if you know what you are talking about. It's rubbish to say "when you surrender your weapons, you will NEVER get them back"
New Zealand gun laws last week were less restrictive than when I grew up there 50 years ago.
So how about dropping the 2nd amendment jingoism, getting some real knowledge, and engaging in a rational discussion?
The NRA is a terrorist organization designed to promote fear among its members. And to promote fear among those who oppose them. They are sympathetic to White Nationalist movements and echo many of the same ideological talking points as these racist groups.
6
@Phil, yep! Just look at the comment above yours and his sensitivity on how others talk about racists.
"[L]iberals have often been unhelpful, broadcasting their own ignorance about the firearms they propose to regulate, or speaking blithely of banning guns or of 'gun control' in ways that drive responsible gun owners into the arms of the N.R.A."
I doubt you can support that claim, Kristof - that's just what right wingers say to justify their positions, one of those, 'it wasn't what you said, it was how you said it' weaselings.
"I suggest dropping references to 'gun control' and instead speaking of 'gun safety.'"
Uh, right - so the gun lobby can say 'Hey look, they're being sneaky by calling 'gun control' 'gun safety' now.
A populist movement that makes its demands simply and apologetically will prevail - not one that pussyfoots nervously around the topic like an abused spouse in a dysfunctional marriage.
1
" I suggest dropping references to “gun control” and instead speaking of “gun safety.”"
Thanks, Orwell. You say that after arguing New Zealand gets it right by banning most or all semi-automatic weapons. So you want to ban guns, but you don't want to talk about that because you know democrats will be voted out of power.
The reality is that America has too many guns, and that cannot be changed. Legal gun owners are generally very law abiding. Legal concealed carries are statistically far more law abiding and far safer than cops, but no one flips out knowing cops are armed. Deaths by semi-automatic rifles are extremely rare, though they are magnified enormously by media attention.
Without this stance on gun control, Democrats would have won the presidency this past time, would probably have kept the house in 1994, might not, or would not, have lost the Al Gore bush election, and so on.
Democrats continue to throw away power with ill informed policies, they continue to lie about their goals, an are continually advised to lie by people like Mr. Kristof. You're not fooling anyone on the pro-rights side, you are only fooling yourself.
Much like hallway restrictions on abortion clinics don't fool democrats into thinking Republicans care about health.
3
@Wake
Those are some really good points. I have a concealed carry permit and have never once drawn my weapon, even when I did feel somewhat threatened. Cops on the other hand...
If there ever is a rifle ban, which I believe is what we should do, the government should do a buy back at market value and then service those weapons in the military.
1
@Wake "Deaths by semi-automatic rifles are extremely rare, though they are magnified enormously by media attention. " Another reason they are "magnified enormously" is because such weapons make it much easier to killl many people quickly.
There is an interesting article on an Auckland newspaper cite today:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/gun-licensing-procedures-not-followed-christchurch-mosques-attack-accused-ex-arms-control-officer?variant=tb_v_1
Apparently, New Zealand had all the laws they needed already, but nobody followed them. The gunman did not apply for a license in his own town as required, but in another place. The police were supposed to interview friends and relatives, but instead interviewed two buddies from a chat room. The police were also supposed to visit him at his house and check out how he lived, but didn't do so.
We are just as bad in the US. The police catch teenagers who have felony records carrying guns. Are they sent to jail? No, the police take away their gun, and the judge tells them not to do it again. What good are laws if nobody follows them?
3
Dear Nicholas Kristof
Do you honestly believe that the pro-gun side or NRA will come around if we call it "Gun Safety" instead of "Gun Control"!?
You are also blaming "ignorant liberals" who want gun control for the surge in the NRA membership.
Smart Guns is an oxymoron and instead of having the gun take your fingerprint the gun seller should take your fingerprint. If you loose your gun, stolen or otherwise, you are liable for any harm done by the shooter!
Republicans and 45 have no desire to limit guns.
Weapons are aiding their cause very well and a little side cash from the NRA, never hurt anybody...
BTY I was shooting guns from age 7. Once upon time a NRA member. Lapsed.
USA has so many guns Feds will never find them all, and if they do somebody will make make one with 3D printing. Gunpowder is easy to make.
Always voted Democrat since 1972 when I reached 21 and will continue.
Good luck America, we will need it.
5
I cannot understand why any business would sell a gun that is designed to specifically kill a human being. The only way to get social justice is to look at photos of rifle clubs and other gun enthusiast buildings burning down, until you get change.
After the devastating slaughter in Christchurch and the catatastrophic cyclone in Africa - Trump stood in front of a crowd in Lima, Ohio today and completely debased himself and perverted the presidency by slandering a beloved, honorable American hero - he also exchanged pleasantries with the fawning, racist, homophobic, sexist dictator from Brazil this week - and he attacked the husband of his publicist for kicks.
No, we don't expect Trump to EVER be one iota of the leader that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is. Never.
7
The Onion, that's right, The Onion!!! got it absolutely right with its headline " 'No Way to Prevent This', Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens."
6
Australia experienced a very significant reduction in gun related violence following major gun control reforms in 1996.
See https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/recent
Interestingly though, the decline wasn’t as rapid in percentage terms (or, of course, in absolute terms) as the decline in gun violence in the US over the same period.
1
"No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun." -Bill Ruger
1
of course, they're dealing with the gun problem.
because they're all godless socialists.
i'm pretty sure the born again 'folks' can point to the scriptures to back up that point.
perhaps roy moore can explain it.
3
How about dealing with the terrorism problem liberals sweep under the carpet? The Christchurch attack was retribution for Islamic terrorism. That’s what it was. Did France change its gun laws after the Paris attacks that killed more than twice those killed in New Zealand? Why not? Only liberals would disarm a population in the middle of a war. One person commits murder in New Zealand and the prime minister criminalizes one third of the nation’s population and demands they turn in their legal guns. One would think the shooter was contracted to provide the government with the needed excuse. The Islamic world not afraid to use violence is now calling for vengeance against white westerners, probably focused on New Zealand. What ever happened to those sleeper cells our government told us about? Oh, no. That’s in the USA, not anywhere else. Never mind. what was I thinking. They wouldn’t dare retaliate in New Zealand. They will if the population is disarmed.
1
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus, we used to think people in Beirut were insane during their civil wars, when car bombs went off in a Christian neighborhood and one in a Muslim neighborhood the next day, for blaming all members of a group. Now many of us have that same tribal mentality -- "they did this to us."
I'm nearly certain that none of the people praying in these two Mosques had been involved with any violent groups, especially the children. Yet the shooter was the violent one.
Do all Muslims now have the right to shoot any white Christian as retribution?
@Michael
Most people killed by terror attacks are innocent. That doesn’t stop the attackers, it inspires them. Disarming a law abiding citizenry makes them vulnerable. She doesn’t see the profound ridiculousness of a gun buyback. Those are the very people who will not use their guns to kill their fellow citizens.
If the killer's hate was the problem–and not the guns–it would have been more fitting for the sociopath to throw his manifesto at people. When the 2nd amendment was written, it was done so to provide a de-facto national guard. We have a national guard, we have police forces and we have armed forces. Is there any reason to allow the heavy armament of our citizenry?
4
For humanity - there will always be reckless hate, and human ignorance and stupidity - but there need not always be access to guns/weapons that allow such people to carry out these atrocities...
4
"Other nations' leaders" aren't in the deep pockets of the National Rifle Association.
6
Wow. Looks pretty easy, right?
1
There's no NRA in New Zealand buying off the government.
4
While I agree no one but the military needs an AR, the proverbial horse is already out of the barn. I'm guessing the number of ARs in the US is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. You can make them illegal, but people won't be giving them up. The folks doing the shootings are criminals - so they don't really care about laws. Like I said, I don't think folks need ARs, but at this point, I think it's somewhat pointless to ban them.
1
@Horse is gone If we can learn to live with North Korea and Iran having nukes, we should be able to find a way to live with gun owners.
Wasting breath talking about "taking all of the guns" gets nothing. They are here. We need to find a way to live with the guns.
"New Zealand’s Dealing With Its Gun Problem. When Will We?"
If the death of 20 children between six and seven years old at Sandy Hook led to nothing,you already know the answer.
NEVER.
4
Good blog post from a couple years ago: https://medium.com/@yishan/you-cannot-regulate-guns-unless-you-know-how-to-use-one-d129d0a82974 - addressing his point in the paragraph "In fairnes, liberals...."
A fairly predictable headline from Mr. Kristoff and the op-ed team at the Times. One suspects they all excitedly drew names from a hat to determine who got the honor.
2
"When a terrorist massacred 50 people at two New Zealand mosques last week, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern immediately grasped the nettle. “I can tell you one thing right now,” she told a news conference. “Our gun laws will change.”
That’s what effective leadership looks like."
////////////////////////////
NO, that's what caving looks like.
3
When will we?
NEVER
It only took New Zealand 6 days to ban assault style rifles and meanwhile, senseless mass shootings continue here in the United States. As the pro-lifers legislate away a woman’s right to control her own body, in defense of the innocent fetus, these same “pro-lifers” have little to nothing to say about the innocent life slaughtered almost daily by armed-to-the-gills crazy gun lovers. What a country! I guess only life in the womb is precious and should be protected here in the good ole U.S.A.
2
New Zealand is dealing with guns because it doesn't have Republicans
2
Hi, if you look at all leading countries in the world including Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Swiss they all have regulations for guns.
You’re still the Wild West! Just do it!
Or you will continue to become a failing state !
Thx t
4
“When will we?” How about never? Does never work for y’all? When 20 first graders - FIRST GRADERS! - we’re gunned down, half of you said “FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS” or variants thereof. If that wouldn’t galvanize you to action, I’m guessing even God doesn’t know what will.
2
When will we? Probably never. Bound and gagged by the Second and the NRA.
2
It is not, never has been and never will be a "gun" problem. It is a people problem. A mental health problem. An ideological problem, a religious cult immigration problem, an irrational human being problem. You can melt every gun and knife down to a blob of iron and you will still have sick people doing sick things in the name of some tribe, ideology, religion, cult etc. Be honest with yourself instead of being an irrational reactionary all to eager to get your words published on the back of a tragedy
@Robert White
No guns and their apologists are the problem, they enable gun atrocities.
Australia hasn't had a repeat gun atrocity like Tasmania since they banned and bought back a boatload of civilian guns, proof the pro-gun argument is inaccurate if not willfully misleading.
Since Tasmania the USA has had countless gun atrocities that killed thousands including worshippers in Christian churches and Jewish synagogues. The gun proponents argument is dishonest fake news. It directly or indirectly supports terrorism and tyranny over the peaceful unarmed, to the tune of countless dead in the USA by gun atrocity and other shootings since the executions of JFK, MLK and RFK.
1
Nicholas Kristof just can't help himself. He just has to indulge his "both sides-ism" of "yes, the NRA is despicable, but so is the other side."
Here in Connecticut, we "liberals," led by Governor Dannel Malloy, stared down the NRA and the gun crazies, and passed one of the toughest set of gun control laws in the nation. And since it's passage in 2013, violent crime in Connecticut has dropped by the steepest extent of any state in the nation- by far.
So stop with the false equivalency. Stop with the claims that "liberals" are to blame. Here in Connecticut we liberals took on the challenge and won. And we saved lives.
America must do what the liberals in Connecticut did. Pass tough gun laws, and ignore Nicholas Kristof's false equivalencies.
4
The argument for or against changing our gun laws boils down to this....Keep things the way they are, how can you improve what we have in America? v Are you insane? How can you accept ...what no one else in the world would?
Nothing changes in the good old USA.
1
As long as the Republicans are in power nothing will be passed about gun control. Gun owners hunter and sportsmen at large may be smart and careful about their weapons. But you only need one or two crazy heads to commit a massacre and kill children at Sandy Hook, students at Parkland, concert goers in Las Vegas, gay friends in Florida, African American worshipers in South Carolina or Muslim worshipers in Pittsburgh. We, the People are tired of seeing our children, men and women, young and old, whites and blacks killed because politicians refuse to change the laws and control these weapons of mass destruction. This country, which deems itself so progressive is really backward when it comes to gun control and so many other things. Maybe we can learn a lesson or two from New Zealand. Maybe we could elect a woman President and a democratic Congress and roll up our sleeves to get things done instead of destroying our democratic values and letting our children being killed.
Everyone of you calling for gun control are like the ignorant lambs to the slaughter.
When will we? When congressional republicans grow a spine and tell the NRA to go jump.
1
Duh, The USA did pass Gun Control Laws in the early Clinton Administration lest you've conveniently forgotten!!! How'd that work out???
When it comes to guns American exceptionalism means being exceptionally stupid, short-sighted, stubborn and beholden to a tiny minority using misinterpreted words where a militia is an army of one.
1
The lack of common sense gun laws as well as other common sense laws shows how elected représentatives don't really détermine the laws of the country. It is the lobbyists.
Aime to get real!!
OK, here it is in the article, he said it:
"— without the weapons of mass murder, 50 New Zealand worshipers would still be alive; 17 Parkland, Fla., schoolchildren and staff members would still be alive; nine Charleston, S.C., churchgoers would still be alive; 11 Pittsburgh congregants would still be alive; 58 Las Vegas concertgoers would still be alive; 26 Newtown, Conn., first graders and adults would. …"
He's arguing gun control based on the numbers of deaths that guns cause. But one should remember why the right for a private citizen to be armed was placed in our Bill of Rights. It was not to facilitate mass murder by those private citizens. The vast, vast number of people who own guns are not criminals. The NRA are not criminals. You can check this in spite of your groomed hatred of those three letters. None of our mass murderers were NRA members. The solution to the problem is the NRA. (you just blew a gasket, didn't you?)
But back to those numbers. If guns didn't kill so many then the author would not be upset, so... why isn't he more upset and writing ceaselessly about 400,000 Americans killed every year from another cause? I know. It's because he and the liberals have a devious agenda of dismantling our Constitution. Sounds crazy, right? but that's the effect. They want to erase the Electoral College, render the second amendment powerless...
The second amendment is more important than ever today.
Look at New Orleans after Katrina.
1
"Why can’t leaders in America learn from experience, the way leaders in other countries do?"
There is no political will because they have sold out to the gun lobby, the NRA and their gun-hugging constituents. I have no problem with responsible gun use for hunting (although the need or ethics of that is another story) or for sport shooting. But automatic weapons, based on military prototypes, are not needed nor appropriate for civilian use and should be banned. Will it stop mass shootings? Probably not, but it will reduce the number of deaths and injuries and that's a start. Isn't it a sad story in this country that common sense and concern for the commonweal takes a back seat to profits and politics.
Sorry to have to say it, but serious "gun safety" reform in this country is a hopeless pipe dream. I gave up all hope after Newtown, and look at us now... There is something gravely wrong with America. We are doomed.
2
And that they were able to make changes within what ?
A week ? That sure says something about us Mer-kins
1
Great ideas.
Not going to happen.
This is not a sane country.
3
Want a gun to shoot someone, but won't pass fingerprint check or other nose-poking? Just check the pages of your local free trader-type publication. This week, for example, ours has an ad offering a semi-automatic 12 gauge shotgun for only $250. The seller probably has a few other things for sale, too.
No questions asked.
The answer to Mr. Kristof's question as to when we will address our gun problem? Never. We don't address problems in the United States. Whether it's health care, education inequality, income inequality, crumbling infrastructure, or any other problem that degrades/destroys the quality of life in the United States, we simply ignore it by talking about freedom and liberty.
5
Don't you mean nothing will happen until PRESIDENT WAYNE LaPIERRE until says so. He's almost a year younger than me. I was drafted and sent to Vietnam, I would have thought someone with a love of weapons would have thoroughly enjoyed the Vietnam experience
1
NZ doesn't have the NRA, Citizens United and a culture of corporate lobbying to the degree we have.
1
Its very nice to shoot something small and furry isn't it. It feels very manly to shoot something large and furry, doesn't it.
It's great to be a member of Congress and have expenses paid by the NRA isn't it.
No - all three are disgusting.
New Zealand now, and Australia some years earlier, show true maturity.
2
Assault Weapons are legal for one reason and one reason only. Republicans. No matter how many people are slaughtered Republicans will always be against banning weapons of mass killing. This is because Republican are okay with mass killings. It's the guns they care about. They want to be armed to take over the Government, which makes them terrorists not Patriots.
4
It's no more fair to compare a lunatic asylum like America with a sane and decent country like New Zealand than it is to compare us with the happiest countries on earth, like Finland, Denmark, or Iceland. And it's not just unfair because so much of our national madness is racial, or because we're so "diverse." You can go to the whitest, most homogeneous, most ethnically Northern European parts of America, and all the same old American miseries--e.g., depression, addiction, and suicide, for starters--will still make them much crazier, more homicidal, and more miserable across the board than these little "white" countries that are so relatively decent and happy. Of course we will never do anything about slaughtering each other with guns, or opioids, or trying to change all the things about America that make people so anxious, depressed, crazy, and suicidal. America's too irrational and indecent for any such progress to ever really go far.
1
I doubt, with extreme prejudice, that Kristof could tell you, demographically, who was killed by a gun over the last decade, or even the last year, in the US. I also doubt, again with extreme prejudice, that Kristof could tell you how many people were shot by ANY kind of semi-automatic rifle, and I mean ANY kind including what he likes to call "assault" rifles. You see, Kristof does not traffic in facts, or history, or causation. Rather he likes to peddle sensationalism. You see, Kristof, we don't have a problem with guns in America. Why? Most guns are owned by one demographic in the US, and most gun deaths are a completely different demographic. I know it sounds very complex, but, do you understand Kristof? The distribution of guns is unrelated to the distribution of gun deaths. You will need to look elsewhere for your scapegoat. The problem is, liberals, like Kristof, want to enjoy illegal narcotics free of any guilt about the deaths caused by the drug trade. So they blame the guns owned by law abiding citizens. Long ago, all states began reporting drug or alcohol involvement in ANY traffic accident. Why don't we do the same for gun deaths?? Maybe it's because liberals want to protect drug consumption from it's proper causality in the chain of violence? Think of all the drug money financing all the violence, addiction, and social decay in the US. Tell me Kristof... is it getting hazy up there where you are? I'll bet it is.
1
Ah yes, but the Aussies and Kiwis are saner folk than the insane clown posse that's the US of A where gun loving bands of loons have the temerity to insult and threaten gun atrocity victims like the Parkland kids and Sandy Hook parents.
New Zealand style atrocities happen every few months here in gunslinger country. Here, even the SCOTUS with an RBG on the bench rubber-stamps the use of deadly force by armed authorities on unarmed citizens even children playing in parks or buying skittles all in the name of freedom. What kind of sick joke is this? Our country, where our school kids routinely have school shooting lockdown drills, is the antithesis of free; we live in a bona fide gun tyranny that is neither meritorious nor exceptional, except that it's exceptionally violent to the point of being a grotesque farce of a democracy.
Rather than repeat the same failed behaviour over and over again expecting a positive outcome, one definition of insanity, our southern hemisphere friends have done the right thing and banned ungodly weapons of mass destruction. The violent terrorists will have a harder time now killing and terrorizing everyone. Good on you Kiwis following the post Tasmanian atrocity Australian example. Sanity prevails under the skies of Centaurus and the Southern Cross. May a healthy peace return and blossom.
1
Change is usually generational, that is, it takes a few generations time to die off so that old prejudices and stupidity can give way to new, rational thought.
In the case of firearms protections, and by that I mean protections from the easy access to military assault rifles, it will take a long time. We aren't New Zealand, led by a woman with guts.
Ireland stopped their civil war after a bombing that massacred a lot of little children, as I remember.
We Americans, of course, shed tears when young men shot children in a school in America, and then bought more weapons.
Hugh
3
I hope the people of the United States never willingly give up their natural right to keep and bear arms.
2
@poppop -- what "natural right" are you talking about?
We are not born with firearms. Mankind existed without them until quite recently.
1
There is no gun problem. It is a people problem.
1
You can't outlaw these weapons in the US, it's too late for that now. The best shot you have (no pun intended) is to ban the ammunition that powers them, or at least tax it to the point of absolute insanity (like $1000 per bullet). That might give you a little bit of breathing room, and would probably be more than doable without contravening the constitutional right to own a gun (ridiculous as it is).
Amazing how everyone who dislikes firearms yearns to have the US be like NZ where they have no Constitution and no judicial oversight and politicians can unilaterally ban guns and confiscate private property. How would you like it if a right wing government element decided to ban abortion or outlaw gay marriages and declare all existing marriages and associated benefits voided? Sort of like the “Australian Solution” that Dems have been pining over for years....
The reaction of Jacinda Ahern, prime minister of New Zealand, after the terrible massacre, done by mass shootings, is a leading example for every civilized country. It’s really a question of gun safety, no NRA-style 2. amendment ideology there.
1
New Zealand doesn't have a gun problem.
It has an occasional maniac, as do many places.
And the maniacs always find a way to accomplish their goal, laws or not.
That people like Kristoff continue to push the false narrative that more gun laws will somehow, suddenly stop them, is an insult to our intelligence.
And pushing the "white supremacy is a worldwide existential threat" false narrative is equally dishonest.
If mosque deaths are the indicator, ponder this:
Muslims, have killed more that a thousand other Muslims, all in mosque attacks, and all - just - since 2003.
The odd belief that AR-15 'style' rifles are different than other semi-automatic rifles that were developed in the 1940s...that they are somehow uniquely powerful or lethal. .. is simply is not true.
Everyone buying a gun in a store today gets a check. Peer-to-peer sales are difficult to regulate. You can pass laws, but sociopaths have been known to bypass them.
If you want facts, read www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html
Or
"The gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety studied 133 acts of mass murder committed between January 2009 and July 2015 and found that only one of the murderers had been “prohibited by federal law from possessing guns due to severe mental illness.” In only 11 percent of the cases did the group find “evidence that concerns about the mental health of the shooter had been brought to the attention of a medical practitioner, school official or legal authority.””
"Everytown found that only 5 percent of the mass shooters it studied were under 20.”
The various studies conclude the 'disaffected' or sociopaths, study defenses and develop counter-measures.
Are you really happier if you're shot with a revolver or a lever-action rifle? Or if the killer uses dynamite, molotov cocktails, bombs, machetes, or trucks?
Tell me the functional difference between an AR-style and a Remington 740. What will you do when the ban has no effect?
Safer communities? Read Secret Service, FBI, RAND, Parkland, etc. studies.
When Will We?
never. how sad.
The right to live trumps all other rights. The killings need to stop.
1
"When Connecticut tightened licensing laws in 1995, firearm homicide rates dropped by 40 percent. And when Missouri eased gun laws in 2007, gun homicide rates surged by 25 percent."
That statement is the rankest form of a Post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, come on we learn not to make this simple mistake in high school
The Gun Culture has been alive and well in the USA from the get go with it's conquest of America.
After all, how else were those "brave colonialists and pioneers" going to steal the land from those "Savages" that had right of ownership by thousands of years of occupation.
The NRA panders to the fear mongers and conspiracy theorists. Trying to fight propaganda with truth is always a tough job no matter how obvious the propaganda. Just look at all those phony western movies that have been made that glorify the gun and the killers that use them.
1
For people who say we shouldn't bother with gun-control because there are 100 million guns out there already-and since there are only 40,000 deaths a year, not 100 million-why bother?
Because. There. Are. 40,000. Deaths. A. Year!
Wake UP America!
1
Assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, bump-stocks, etc.,etc., are only designed for one thing: to maximize killing of human beings. Anyone or any organization who defends the availability of these weapons outside of a military setting (a "well regulated militia") should be designated as abetting terrorism pure and simple. Let's call the NRA what it is: A politically corrupting, terrorist organization that is utterly calloused to the human suffering these weapons cause.
I had the privilege of working in New Zealand several years ago and I am not at all surprised at their common sense ban of these weapons. In fact, it's inspirational--as is their Prime Minister's rebuke of hate, demagoguery, toxic narcissism, and malignant white supremacy. It's good to know that there are mature leaders left in the world. When do we get one who is willing to stand up to this madness?
2
Snapshot of 21st century American life:
In the USA, Americans killed in gun murders this year = more than 10,000. Americans killed by gun suicide this year = more than 20,000. Total number of gun deaths and violent injuries this year = over 100,000. Guns will not be banned.
In Arkansas, honking your horn in front of a sandwich shop has been banned. Total deaths by horn honking in front of a sandwich shop = 0.
In Aspen, Colorado throwing a snowball is banned because snowballs are considered a form of “missile.” Total deaths by snowballs = 0.
In Collinsville, Illinois, saggy pants have been banned since 2011. Total deaths by saggy pants = 0.
In Biddeford, Maine, roller-skating on the sidewalk is banned. Total deaths by sidewalk roller-skating = 0.
In Minneapolis, Minnesota, it’s still illegal to wear a hat inside a movie theater. Total deaths by hats in movie theaters = 0.
In Tennessee, it's illegal to share any password for a paid subscription streaming service. Total deaths by Netflix password sharing = 0.
In New Hampshire, carrying away seaweed from the seashore is illegal. Total deaths by landlubber seaweed = 0.
“Other nations’ leaders learn from experience.” Some. Not all! And surely not about ALL of the human-made issues and problems for which viable and sustainable changes are needed. And in addition it is also useful to consider that we get the types of leaders, in our toxic, violating WE-THEY culture, and world, that ordinary folk- family, friends, neighbors, as well as strangers-enable. Allow. Perhaps even foster. Leaders, whatever their political types, levels, and qualities of ideologies, and their daily ongoing personal unaccountability, for their harmful words, voiced and written, and done-deeds, don’t CAUSE our complacencies. Our complicities. It is for each of US to permit ourselves to become more aware of what IS which should not BE. Ever! BE come more personally-accountable. Choose to experience the gift, in our democracies, to make the choices to contribute to making a difference that makes much needed sustainable differences for menchlich, civil, and mutually caring and helpful wellbeing for ALL. Not only with regard to gun control, which is only one of the “tools-of-violating!”
What New Zealand did showed the crass absurdity of American gun policy. Thank you New Zealand for giving the US a demonstration of what to do when these massacres happen--now all those clinging to their "second amendment" right will look even that much more foolish.
2
It's the same reason we can't lower carbon emissions:
The rifle, like the automobile, is part of the cowboy-like mythology of the independent American.
Take a look at the Middle East. Mythologies die hard.
This country has some very serious weaknesses, all having to do with money, guns and human relations. Beyond that, we're perfect but mostly clueless.
Never! News Zealand doesn’t have NRA that has power over our President and all the republican law makers.
1
When will we? When pigs fly. Next question?
Banning violent video games will help.
1
It’s quite endearing when you guys have your regular “when will we make better gun laws” conversations. I mean, the rest of us know it’s never going to happen in a million years because there’s too many who are quite prepared to let people get massacred rather than be grown-ups, but it’s sweet to see you try and try again.
MLK then Bobby Kennedy gunned down 1 after another in quick succession was proof that the NRA is in charge. President Ford shot at twice, then the Pope and Reagan again shot in quick succession. The NRA envies the mobile phone industry and will not be happy til everyone everywhere has a gun in their pocket.
1
By "gun problem" Kristof means the Second Amendment.
"That’s what effective leadership looks like 'Our gun laws will change.'”? Sounds like no Congress, Supreme Court, or Bill of Rights--just dictator.
Oh, well, there's always Australia, Japan, and Canada, but Mexico, Central America et al., not so much.
1
Banning firearms, doing more background checks, instituting red flag laws. None of this will have any effect on anything. Anyone honest enough to do the research will discover that there is absolutely no correlation between the amount of firearms in a society and the homicide or violence rate. None.
The suggestion that banning firearms will do more than prohibition did to lower the incidence of alcoholism is dishonest, disingenuous, and dangerous. It posits a panacea, which creates false hope at the expense of freedom. Can there be anything more nefarious?
Today, in the vast majority of our liberal democracies, banning firearms may seem like the reasonable thing to do. That’s what the Weimar Republic thought when it mandated registration during times of political upheaval and violence. But when the tides shifted and the government tilted to the National Socialists, those registration lists proved very useful to those knocking on Jews’ doors as an excuse to invade homes and arrest people on Kristallnacht.
It is extremely naïve to believe gun restrictions will have any effect on anything when making a semiautomatic firearm has never been easier. This may surprise many New York Times readers who primarily hale from urban utopias that have eliminated all crime and threats to their person, but it takes about $300, 30 minutes, and about 30 parts to make a semiautomatic handgun.
The disarmament movement is like the temperance movement of the 1920s. The results will be the same.
2
Seems the afternoon crew missed it. Once more:
By “gun problem" Kristof means the Second Amendment.
"That’s what effective leadership looks like 'Our gun laws will change.'”? Sounds like no Congress, Supreme Court, or Bill of Rights--just dictator.
Oh, well, there's always Australia, Japan, and Canada, but Mexico, Central America et al., not so much.
1
Total Land Border:
New Zealand - 0 miles
United States - 5,500 miles
Population:
New Zealand - 4,780,400
United States - 328,441,000
Number on Guns in the country:
New Zealand - 1,212,000
United States - 393,347,000
40 years of 'the war on drugs' an anyone anywhere can still buy anything they want. All that making drugs harder to get did was make a lot of foreign criminal cartels rich. (Like prohibition and alcohol - people who wanted still drank.)
The United States has the longest AND the 9th longest borders in the world. That isn't even talking about the marine/lake/coastal borders!
We can't stop drugs. We can't stop sex traffickers. We can't stop CHILDREN from walking across our borders!
Anyone who thinks it would be any different with guns - even richer cartels - must be high on those drugs ... or naively lives in a fantasy world refusing to acknowledge reality. (I suspect it is the latter - people who get emotional stroking from jumping on a 'bandwagon' with people who reinforce what they want to believe.)
Reality makes a difference.
4
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and the New Zealand Parliament will pass sensible gun safety laws in the near future and their beautiful country will be an even more beautiful, safer country because of it.
There is no National Terrorist Association to stoke 2nd Amendment Derangement Syndrome in New Zealand; there is just a humane realization that the laws require stricter regulation to avoid a repeat performance.
There is no Guns Over People party in New Zealand that is heavily bribed and corrupted to ignore public safety at all costs; there are simply much more rational political actors in New Zealand.
So let New Zealand serve as a model of decency, public safety and humanity for all the world to see.
And let the United States of Guns serve as a continuing model of indecency, gun violence, inhumanity and right-wing corruption for all the world to see.
And remember that when America had its many chances to demonstrate to its 325 million citizens a modicum of human decency about strengthening public safety, the Guns Over People party chose more guns, more gun deaths, more early funerals and 'free-DUMB !'.
America.....that shining, homicidal city on a hill !
386
@Socrates
What the Gun Grabbing Left Wing Fringe in this country can't accept is that they don't get a special exemption to subvert the Constitution as they see fit.
You feel a need to ban the right of self defense in this country then here's what you need to do
You need 2/3rds of the Congress and 3/4's of the States to agree with you.
Good Luck!
8
@Java Junkie
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
What the 2nd Amendment Derangement caucus has trouble comprehending is that 'a well-regulated militia' is not a random collection of angry white guys randomly shooting up the nation's schools, churches, synagogues, post offices, shopping malls, sidewalks and public squares based on their individual mood swings.
Any reasonable person can see that public safety is more important than a few stunted males that think they need weapons of war to go to the grocery store.
Counseling and less American gun deaths are available.
152
@Socrates
Why have we NRA members been so successful in holding the line on gun control? It's simple but it's hard work.
We don't bother with the easy, ephemeral stuff. We don’t attend feel-good protests. We don’t write seething, sarcasm-laced comments on the NYT website that reveal an ignorance of basic facts about guns, gun laws, gun owners, Constitutional law and relevant Supreme Court rulings. We don’t sign change.org petitions and then let all our Facebook friends know we signed it.
Instead, do the hard things that produce concrete, durable results. We pay close attention to positions and politicians. We call and write our representatives again and again. We get to personally know some of our opponents to understand them better. Above all, we never, ever fail to vote. We do these things year in and year out, decade in and decade out.
Our results are durable. Our opponents’ are not. Can anyone name a durable result of Occupy Wall Street?
9
We will have laws like New Zealand and Australia when we have the same supremacy of elected officials that they have. People applaud their rapid and decisive action, but they could equally easily have elected to end all immigration from Muslim countries, or other draconian measures.
We have a Constitution than checks the power of government. Do not forget that.
@Daedalus, also do not forget that next election in a parliamentary system, the entire government can turn over, and the new government can reverse any action of the previous government.
The fact that the swift change in gun laws in Australia have never been reversed since the Port Arthur massacre decades ago, during which time several conservative governments have been in power, says that the response is a societal response, not a pure product of a parliamentary system.
The fact that the NZ opposition agrees with the current government's approach (as just reported during an NPR story) says exactly the same thing: that it's not the political system, it's the society.
If pickup trucks were found to have been involved in most fatal vehicle accidents, would all these gun grabbers be pushing to outlaw pickup trucks -- retroactively?
Gun confiscation has NOT been very high (or even on) voters' lists of concerns. But if the liberal Democrats keep pounding this drum, it soon will be -- resulting in a few more electoral votes in Trump's column come 2020.
Thank you!
Instead of a shrug and this “ nothing we can do about it” resignation , how about voting for candidates next year who support tougher gun “safety” laws and/or a repeal of 2nd Amendment, for starters? The fact is that only a radical approach will currently America of its fun obsession. If it’s not on you’re list of priorities then you don’t get my vote, period.
1
In Colonial times the law demanded that able bodied white men obtain a rifle and suitable clothing to defend the new nation as part of the State militias.
How the Amendment assuring that obligation be met became the nonsensical mantra of personal self defense is apparently lost on Clarence Thomas and those who claim that the Second Amendment pertains to anything else.
America's climb out of the gun hole starts with discussing the problem. The NRA says it is not proper to discuss guns so soon after a shooting. But since nine out of every ten days produces a multiple shooting some where in the US, which days are appropriate to discuss how to restrict killing machines from falling in to the hands of mentally defective murderers?
1
Nearly 23,000 gun deaths by suicide when last checked. This number must be doubled yearly till the second amendment is banned and the guns confiscated.
Guns are just immoral and should be illegal.
I know I am way to irresponsible to ever own gun...i would have shot my boy friend by now or he would have shot me for sure...
We have no good need for weapons like guns to be in the hands of the public at all these days.
We don't fight for our daily survival in normal society.
What message does carrying a gun around on your person send to other people who see that?
I am a hunter and a gun enthusiast living in the American West. I am also liberal in my politics. I want single payer. I want affordable college. I want fair pay for workers. I want a real safety net. I want money out of politics.
I hate the NRA. They protect a corrupt and callous weapons manufacturing industry that intentionally markets guns to a warrior culture that has been on the rise for decades in my country. I know these survivalist types. Paranoid of the federal government. Convinced that an AR15 in their arms will protect them against impending doom.
I see these men, women, and yes children at gun ranges. I see them ignore basic gun safety rules and treat weapons like military spec rifles and handguns as toys. I see the growing paranoia among these folks. In part religious fervor bent on realizing and expecting a burning and destroyed world before Jesus comes back and raises them all up.
This is a perversion of the rights of Americans to bare arms. I believe in the 2nd amendment because I believe in freedom, and in hunting for my food (if you're a meat eater you cannot criticize me), and protecting myself and my family.
I want strong regulations. I want magazine capacity limits. I want AR15s banned. There is no reason why civilians need military spec rifles. I want the age of gun ownership raised to 26. I want training, robust gun safety rules, and long wait times for gun ownership.
I work in ERs and see the violence.
Enough already.
5
I understand why this is an Opinion article. Obviously he is saying that only criminals will have guns if these laws pass.
Get rid of guns, and get rid of the Electoral College - any other Constitutional rights or features you'd like to get rid of? O, I know, let's shut down Fox News and eliminate conservative voices in social media, because the First Amendment is too broad. Democrats have a very fluid relationship with the Constitution.
Other countries have functioning democracies, and we have a government run by a lobby front group for the gun industry. We could address it if we had the courage to act in the interests of all Americans. But we don’t. We don’t address it because we elect cowards.
1
Why has the NRA been so successful in holding the line on gun control? It's simple but it's hard work.
We don't bother with the easy, ephemeral stuff. We don’t attend protests (if the weather is not too bad). We don’t write comments on the NYT website that reveal an ignorance of basic facts about guns. We don’t sign change.org petitions and then let all our Facebook friends know we signed it.
Instead, do the hard things that produce concrete, durable results. We pay close attention to positions and politicians. We call and write our representatives again and again. We get to personally know some of our opponents to understand them better. Above all, we never, ever fail to vote. We do these things year in and year out, decade in and decade out.
Our results are durable. Our opponents’ are not. Can anyone name a durable result of Occupy Wall Street?
1
How many times have you written this story, Nick? It's heartbreaking to think that you have to keep writing it. I can't thank you enough.
"I met the enemy and he is us" is so often used but only because it is so often true. We live in a country that has 2/5 voters still interested in voting for the most corrupt an corruptible (and simple-minded ) president we have seen. This goes in parallel with a rising tide of American white nationalism. With the recent history, is there any realistic ambition for any kind of restriction on existing firearms? A big chunk of the population is instantly reactionary to any gun law. The country just won't have it. Maybe our racism will help us. If we could get someone like Huey Newton carrying an AR around the county courthouse, there'd be legislation, for sure!
That's leadership! She immediately shifted the blame to gun owners. She is responsible for one act of arson so far with that burning of a gun club in Northern New Zealand.
2
New Zealanders do not have a Second Amedment individual constitutional right to bear arms.
New Zealand won the New Zealand Wars fought against the ethnic Polynesian Maori pioneer minority.
New Zealand is a tiny island nation of about 5 million people of whom 25% own guns.
New Zealand does not have a gun homicide nor suicide problem.
The shooter was an Australian.
3
The killers' hate in America, not guns, are the real problem, claims our National Rifle Association. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern -- less than one week after the horrific massacre of 50 worshippers in 2 mosques in New Zealand -- is banning all semi-automatic and military type assault-weapons from her country. New Zealand has learned from its grievous experience that prevention of and protection from gun violence is the job of the leader.
Here in the U.S.A. the President and the Congress have been unwilling to act and learn from the horrific experience of terrorism and ban the guns responsible for our constant history of death by gun. White supremacy needs to be confronted. A million Innocent deaths by shooters, gun-owners, haven't taught Americans diddly. Cars are regulated, but drunks still kill people by car. Shouldn't gun-owners carry gun licenses like we all carry drivers licenses?
Our gun culture encourages fatality rates for innocent gun victims. The N.R.A. has Donald Trump in its pocket. Preventive gun laws have no chance of being enacted by this president or Congress. The N.R.A. has Donald Trump in its pocket. Voting Trump out of office next year will help us navigate the thorny path away from bigots and gun-shooters and back to democracy.
Licensing, liability insurance, mandatory competency testing along with background tests all make perfect sense. That is why Blue Grass Mitch will never allow voting on laws to help protect us from the NRA greedfest.
When congress did nothing after children we murdered, we should have known that this was more challenging than anyone would have ever imagined. They will go to their graves with that shame on their legacies.
2
"Gun safety" instead of gun control...well done! And while we're at it, how about "protections" instead of regulations?
1
The solution is simple, get rid of guns and you get rid of the problem. Implementing that solution is a little harder.
No law, neither Federal nor State, will keep guns out of the hands of gangs. I hate to say it, but the NRA mantra is true.
1
The United States had a assault weapon ban from 1994-2004 but Republicans let it expire in 2004.
I hold them responsible for every assault weapon attack since 2004.
3
@ak Are you aware that in that time period 1994-2004 there were also plenty of other semiautomatic rifles of the same calibers as the so called "assault weapons" that were still available for purchase and extended magazines were available for them too. Rifles like the Ruger Ranch Rifle and the Communist Bloc SKS. Not to mention high-power semiautomatic hunting rifles such as the Remington 742.
The AWB accomplished exactly nothing.
@RDS
Maybe we should re-enact the old ban with additional bans on the specific weapons and extended magazines you mentioned.
It’s certainly better than doing absolutely NOTHING.
In the meantime, I believe too many people will die unnecessarily.
If Republicans have any say in the matter, it will be the day after never.
1
What you describe in this country's cowboy mentality, the irresponsibly wide availability of guns, including the military style (in civil society? How crazy is that?), is in part due to the 'criminal' activity of the N.R.A.; but this could be stopped tomorrow if the prostituted politicians would reconsider doing their job for a change, the defense of their people. Unless you think that 'pay to play' is the order of the day (Ugh!).
I was living in Australia when the gun amnesty happened. My father’s WW1 303 made its way to the furnace with hundreds of thousands more. It was a great time to be alive. Australia now has less than 200 gun deaths per year, suicide included. Are they less free now?
2
@Stephen Reynolds yes
Congress and Trump are not “refusing” to act on gun control. It’s not on their mind. Trump and GOP members of Congress don’t think. And they don’t do anything they are not told to do by their puppet masters.
The Kochs, the DeVos, the Spencers, the Uihleins, the Wilks, the Mercers, ... there is quite a raft of bonkers billionaires running the show. And they are the ones refusing to act.
Their supine minions, craven lackeys, merely await instructions.
1
We prevent people from buying bazookas and rocket launchers because it is pretty clear to people that these weapons are suited to war and mass killing. It’s about the proper place to draw the line.
At what level of potential harm do we restrict liberty? Swimming pools and alcohol cause more harm.
What happened in NZ was monstrous. Despite headlines, it is also a weekend in Chicago, where it is illegal handguns that are associated with most gun crime.
A just culture holds citizens responsible for crime, which is what these horrific racist murders are. An unjust culture treats citizens as children to be managed for their own good.
1
As long as the Republican Party continue to tout the NRA's propaganda and twist the second amendment into a right for every living soul to have any type of weapon ever devised by man (or anything else) for fear of needing it one day when a bad guy comes calling, we will never see comprehensive gun control in this country. Only the enlightened countries will ever act so swiftly and responsibly for its populace - the U.S. isn't a member of that group.
If this epidemic of shootings in schools, movie theaters, concerts, bars, and places of worship was being perpetrated by Muslims, the Chinese, or other demographics traditionally portrayed in America as bogeymen, I suspect there would have been action to change gun laws a long time ago. But the perpetrators of this epidemic are white men. And white male shooters are all depicted as "individuals" with "mental illness", never perceived as a group threat. The continuing white supremacist manifestos from shooter after shooter suggest otherwise.
1
How can you compare a tiny and meaningless island country somewhere in the middle of the vast ocean to the USA ?
2
It’s become clear that we won’t deal with it.
1
I like 'gun safety'. But it doesn't matter what you call it until the republican party is sent to the dustbin of history. Only then can we fix this country.
3
Both New Zealand and Australia do not have an NRA hence no party lobbies the govt the way the NRA do in the US.
When you in the US decide the NRA has too much lobbying power and clip its wings then you will be able to disarm.
New Zealand didn't have a gun problem until a foreigner arrived
Same in France. Once foreigners were permitted to move to France, horrible gun crimes became common
Google ovember 2015 Paris attacks in which 130 persons died.
1
If and when Democrats get back into power they would have an opportunity to do something about the gun problem.
Tragically the Democrats, instead of making the election a referendum on Trump, and doing something on gun safety,
are changing the subject to socialism, trashing Israel,Omar, etc.
and other losers,
which will simply reelect Trump.
And our gun problem will remain.
Very sad really.
We are a country in decline.
1
The moral fervor and humanism of Nicholas Kristof shines through in his columns, and this one is no exception.
Should we expand Kristof's preferred expression of "gun safety" to all weapons, from gravity knives to nuclear bombs? Let's call it, "weapon safety," and see where that leads us. The Saudi government is using bombs and other weapons, mostly from America, creating a "humanitarian" crisis in Yemen. Using Kristof's criteria to keep weapons "out of hands of people shown to present a danger to themselves or others," shouldn't we disarm the Saudi government? Shouldn't we also disarm the Egyptian government which killed about 1400 protesting against the coup d'état of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi? How about the Israeli government, which has killed innocent people, and uses weapons in its oppression of the Palestinians?
And now, La Pièce de Résistance, the American government. When we examine its record on the violence spectrum, we find that it has killed millions upon millions of innocent people, and it has threatened to kill 26 million North Koreans. Doesn't that clearly violate the standard, presenting "a danger to themselves or others"?
Wouldn't Kristof's principle require us to, not merely disarm it, but also disband it?
5
I stoped at a roadside gas station between Portland and Canon Beach to refuel when visiting Oregon a few years back. It was completely ordinary, except behind the counter were about a dozen different assault rifles for sale. AK47? No problem... on sale for less than $500; of course there were AR15s of every stripe, all reasonably priced.
This is America, and putatively liberal America at that; this is who you are as a nation. It is a sick addiction that is baked into your national myth of the supremacy of the individual over the group; and bolstered by the fantasy that an assault rifle will win a contest against a criminal, a wild beast, or a Blackhawk helicopter coming to steal your precious freedom.
In the words of Obama, you cling to your guns. Now he was referring to a particular demographic, but he was wrong. It is all of you.
It was a lifetime ago in California, and I was 21 when I bought my first rifle. I walked into a Woolworths in a mall, plopped down my money and walked out carrying a .30 caliber lever action carbine and a box of 20 full metal jacket rounds. I didn’t give it a thought.
Immigrating to Canada a few years later I found the gun laws pretty lax, but I left my weapons behind. I did so because my fiancée and Canadian friends regarded gun ownership abhorrent. To them it was the sign of an uncultured person who wasn’t quite right.
Until you change your laws and culture, blood will flow. Even for me it took years to lose the normalcy of gun ownership.
NZ has now acted - banning all mssa's with immediate effect, with more to follow. Government appears to have overwhelming support
Jacinda Ardern. A 38 year old leader of a country. A real leader. There are some who are born great, some who achieve greatness, and some who have greatness thrust upon them. She might be all three. Would that we had such a leader. And that as a country we deserved such a leader.
Note to U.S. politicians, this is what a spine looks like.
Selective-Ignorance rules this land on every issue from guns to planetary extinction. Nothing will change but the levels of distraction as society and the environment collapses you might be glad you have a gun.
If first graders gunned down in their school didn't change hearts and minds, nothing will. It is too late for this country. Our only hope is the Parkland kids and their generation.
When are we going to deal with the real problem, that people simply have no respect for others. Morals are quickly fading as society become ever more secular. I am not saying people need to believe in a deity that may or may not exist but at least these institutions help reset a persons moral compass, promote patience and help people simply respect other people.
What is the biggest common thread that all of these assailants in the last decade have, they do not or no longer participate in secular activities and organizations.
Start treating the real problem. People need to learn to respect others whether they agree or disagree with the others beliefs or policies.
1
We will have laws like New Zealand and Australia when we have the same supremacy of elected officials that they have.
We have a Constitution than checks the power of government. Do not forget that.
1
As a young boy growing up in Los Angeles in the 1950’s I was introduced at an early age to guns and the NRA. I so enjoyed going to the rifle range on a Saturday morning with my Dad to shoot where I had the opportunity to compete in shooting matches and win awards. Fast forward to early 2000. Lots had happened in my life including a tour of Vietnam 1968 - 1969 with a Marine Corps Tank Unit. I am at home when my phone rings. The call is from a representative of the National Rifle Association. The purpose of the call was to see whether I would like to renew my membership. During our telephone conversation the NRA Representative alluded to the concern often raised by the NRA of the fear of our Government taking away our right to have our guns. I vividly recall saying to the NRA Representative that was of no concern to me because if it ever came to a revolution or another civil war there would be plenty of weapons laying around in the street for me to use. Given the outstanding training provided by the USMC and my experiences in combat I was confident I could find and use a weapon to protect myself and my family.
Nothing about our fetish relationship with firearms will change in this country, Mr. Kristof, as long as there continue to be obscene profits made by gun manufacturers over the sale of machines that have one use and one use only -- killing.
Our society has become insane; the right of a little kid to grow up and live his or her life is trumped by the right of some resentful yahoo to buy as many guns as he wants and go kill that kid whenever and wherever he feels like it.
Why should the 'freedom' of the gun owner overrule the freedom of the kid to live?
207
In the US, citizens have a constitutional right not to have there right to bare arms infringed. The erosion of the separations of powers has been substantial and endangers our freedom. The authors of the US Constitution anticipated future changes in technology and social norms, and thus described how changes to the Constitution could be made (e.g. institution of alcohol prohibition and its repeal). The rule of law has served us well for a long time, and the risks of bending it are serious.
1
@Rod Herman please read the following:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This is the full text of the Second Amendment. Please try to understand the words and context, including "well-regulated Militia," the group of people who would act under the government's guidance (before the existence of professional police forces).
The separation of powers is between the three governmental branches: Legislative, Executive and Judicial.
Please try to understand that the framers, by creating a "sort of republic" wanted to ensure the public's safety from mob rule.
If you look at countries that have fewer gun restrictions, like Egypt or Honduras, these are not necessarily places with more freedom or safety. Indeed more people live in fear of each other, which can work well for autocratic regimes.
Rule of law means giving up some liberties to have others. I can't carry hand grenades, but that means others can't either, and I can walk in public places with my family without fear that we will be blown up.
@Michael Actually, the first clause to the amendment gives justification, and the second clause grants the right with no exceptions. Your interpretation of protection against "mob rule" is exactly your opinion. A more reasonable interpretation is that an armed populous would encourage a government of the people and for the people. I am not expressing an opinion on whether limits need to be put on personal possession of arms, but rather on how those limits should be enacted without weakening our 3-part balance of power.
It really is astonishing to watch the contortions of arguments that even commentators like Kristof, who apparently supports sane gun laws, put themselves through to make themselves arguably relevant to the gun control argument in the United States. They lose sight of the reality that the American argument about gun control is itself insane.
Let's be perfectly clear about what happened in New Zealand - an Australian nutjob who wanted to commit mass murder figured out that he could do it in New Zealand and went there solely for that purpose - precisely because he knew that there was no possibility that he could do it in Australia, because Australia has sane gun laws.
A semi-automatic weapon has the exact same design principles as a hand grenade - to allow one person to kill a lot of other people at a distance. So the question to ask any person who wants to be able to own a semi-automatic weapon is whether they believe they should also be allowed to own hand grenades. (Most will respond, "I wish!")
The only - let me repeat that - the only sane choice for gun reform in the United States is the total repeal of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is clearly designed to enable the average citizen to be ready to engage in heavily armed insurrection against their democratically elected government - at national, state or local level. Is that sane?
You can accept twisted logic like Kristof and talk about background checks or you can serious and repeal the Second Amendment.
7
@Colin McKerlie The problem here is that there is so much big money in the system that individual citizens don't believe that their votes can impact change- that it all comes from either the likes of George Soros or the Koch brothers- leftist entertainment or right wing industry- depending on which horizon you're staring at. That cynicism, which has at least one foot in the water of reality is a problem here. So good luck getting rid of anything that empowers individual liberty.
We will be able to deal with our gun problem when our government officials begin to work for the welfare and good of the citizens of the United States of America. And that will only happen when the ridiculous system of legalized bribery of politicians stops. Campaign finance reform is the most important issue of our time. Until we fix that there isn’t a whole lot our government is going to accomplish besides making the rich richer.
1
Which would you prefer in the wake of a mass murder committed with an assault weapon: a government like New Zealand's that immediately commits to more stringent gun laws; or a government like ours that offers "thoughts and prayers"?
I know what my preference is.
298
@Gregg
Isn't it refreshing (and a bit startling) to see real leadership? We have all gotten used to the mind-numbing inaction of the US with regards to guns. Doesn't have to be this way, obviously.
39
@Gregg Ahhh, "thoughts and prayers" = Wishing and hoping. "thoughts and prayers" could be put on your Xmas list for Santa. People talk about prayer and how offenders will get their on "judgment day". If the so-called deities were so powerful and all knowing they wouldn't allow such things to happen. Instead, these deities are as irreverent as fans watching a football game.
9
@Tom Hennessy
Well said, the only gods they have are football (and other gladiator sports) and guns....and they go to church on sunday and pray for the hypocrites running this country who are wasting and stealing their money.
7
Oh Mr Kristof !
You know it and I know it, scores of Americans are probably grumbling that Ms Ardern is 'that awful woman' who is nothing but 'a tyrant' in her calls for a nationwide ban on assault weapons in New Zealand…
This tragedy highlights a disgraceful aspect of political life in the United States (France, too) : the total absence of decision making for the common good. Most of our modern democracies have become balkanised, with myriads of interest groups of every stripe trumpeting for a slice of the pie never mind who pays or gets hurt in the process. We are in big trouble today.
1
There was a massacre in Australia in the 1990's and Australia changed their gun laws within 12 days; our Prime Minister said there will be gun law changes in less than 12 days.
She'll be voted out of office next election and they'll pass laws allowing for just about any type of gun, just short of a bazooka. I'm all for outlawing guns, but that's the way it is.
1
The only way our country will become one of gun safety is to first, have a Democratic president, and second, a majority in both the House and Senate. We are knocking our heads against the proverbial wall by thinking this state of affairs will change with Trump at the helm and his Senate Republicans as well as religiously loyal MAGA supporters. The third solution to this lethal problem is messaging. I believe that most Democrats, including those in Congress, neither want to weaken nor remove the Second Amendment. Like wearing a seat belt in a car or not driving under the influence - both of which are subject to regulations and laws, it is a matter of protecting our health, safety, welfare, and security. How hard would it be to do what Nicholas recommends? How does it encroach upon or threaten our Constitutional rights? We are meant to expand the Age of Enlightenment, for our intellects and souls to evolve. Yet, we are becoming a society of vigilantes. This must end. I am sick and tired of witnessing too many innocent people being shot to death by the unhinged fanatic.
109
@Kathy Lollock
Those Democrats who won "swing districts" are NOT going to give you the votes to take away from American Citizens the basic Human Right of Self Defense.
@Kathy Lollock Perfectly said. And who is the next person to be killed by a gun by a madman? The president and Congress are all complicit.
5
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer. Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel drove his 19 ton delivery truck into a crowded market area killing 86. We're aren't advocating banning delivery trucks are we? Simply calling an AR-15 an "assault weapon" is a misnomer. Its simply a semi-automatic .223 rifle. Its looks do not make it any more sinister than any wood stocked semi-auto rifle. Any item used to assault other people is an "assault weapon" whether it be a semi-automatic rifle or fertilizer. Evil does not follow gun laws or any laws. Law abiding citizens do.
This is not going to stop evil people for doing evil things, it may only change the items they use.
2
All Australian states famously passed strict uniform gun laws in '96.
Soon after the NRA ran a large internet and press campaign asserting that the gun legislation had caused a significant increase in rape in Australia
Indeed there was an increase in reported rapes in the late 90s.
It was due to many states introducing procedures that encouraged reporting by reducing the additional trauma that reporting rape had carried, particularly in remote towns.
Nobody in Australia took the NRA campaign seriously because hand guns had been banned in all states for at least the previous 50 years.
So the NRA's reasoning contemplated that more rapes occurred because victims were no longer able to carry their rifle whilst jogging in the park or to night clubs and in taxis etc. It's laughable.
However the misinformation campaign was NOT trying to influence Australia to ditch its laws. It was to dissuade other countries from emulating them.
The NRA will probably start their misleading and deceptive New Zealand campaign tomorrow.
1
America has existed for nearly two and a half centuries with laws that have permitted its citizens the right to bear arms. And in all that time it did not suffer the mass shootings in schools and churches that it suffers today. Obviously America does not have a gun problem.
1
With a few exceptions, most of the United States is currently experiencing the lowest rates of violent crime since the 1950s. For example, look at the historical numbers for annual murders in New York City.
Here are the years with NYC murders under 300 per year (with the actual total in parentheses): 1943 (201); 1951 (243); 1942 (265); 1941 (268); 1940 (275); 1944 (288); 2017 (290); 1939 (291); 1945 (292); 1950 (294); and, 2018 (295).
And here are the years with NYC murders over 1600 per year (with the actual total in parentheses): 1990 (2245); 1991 (2154); 1992 (1995); 1993 (1946); 1989 (1905); 1988 (1896); 1981 (1826); 1980 (1814); 1979 (1733); 1972 (1691); 1973 (1680); 1987 (1672); 1982 (1668); 1975 (1645); 1976 (1622); and, 1983 (1622).
1
As best as I can confirm, black people are about eight times as likely to have a gun related death than white people. I believe this simple fact is the reason our nation refuses to address the horrible gun issues we have. I understand that 82 percent of all gun related deaths in the world happen in the US.
I have long felt that as long as the people in the US do not have the will to repeal and replace the second amendment, we will be plagued by gun deaths. And as long as most who die are black, I fear that the majority will not have the will to replace the second amendment.
I have hope that future generations will come to their senses and act humanely in this regard. I'm sorry we aren't leaving them a better world.
The answer, Nick, is simple. We have no leaders anymore in America. Period. We have finally arrived at the singularity of everyone being only out for themselves. Time for the remaining few to migrate elsewhere.
The wrong people having access to firearms - or even pointed objects or lye is the problem. For law abiding US citizens, purchasing a firearm should be like getting an abortion: Safe and legal.
I'm a former NRA member, and their opposition to constructive measures like gun buy backs is what drove me away. I miss the old "Gun nut, Safety nut, NRA" ads. Opposition to harmless common sense requirements (even though they're virtually unenforceable) to secure firearms (Carry it or secure it!) when not in use- pushes me farther away from their lobby.
The constitution provides for a well regulated militia, so lets talk more about who can be a member of the armed public; passing a military entrance exam makes some sense- it covers the basics- weeds out criminals and substance abusers and screens for mental illness. The entertainment industry could pick up the tab for this with a tax for every sword slash or stab, or bullet sent down range in the name of "entertainment" whether in a movie, TV production or game.
To tackle the "assault weapon" issue, perhaps simply considering a revision to the NFA and add to it or subtract from it. So many politicians seem so eager to enact new legislation, that they either forget, or never bothered to check to see if the bridge has already been crossed.
When I read last night that New Zealand was moving immediately to reform gun laws, I thought that's how it's done. Move quickly. Don't let people forget what has just happened. Don't let them get used to gun violence. I wonder if the average American realizes that citizens in other countries don't worry about being shot as they go about their lives. Their children don't practice lockdown drills in school. My daughter grew up in a country without guns. When I brought her to the US for high school, I told her that if she heard in a public place sounded like a gun shot, assume it was a gun shot. Run. Or hide. Survive.
@Robin
Also In NZ and Australia the cops do not expect to be shot.
The benefits of that are obvious.
Differences between New Zealand and the United States:
New Zealand's political leader is sane and capable of empathy.
United States - not so much.
New Zealand's television news market is not dominated by an organization designed to promote right-wing ideas, sow fear, and deliberately misinform its viewers.
United States has Fox News.
New Zealand's ruling party doesn't promote, or at least tacitly approve of, white nationalism.
United States is the opposite.
We'll never fix our gun laws. The NRA owns the Republican Party.
153
The disgusting, horrifying and painful reality is that only more frequent mass shootings will jolt the conscience of those sitting on the fence of the gun control debate. Obviously, I hope and pray that they do not occur. Unfortunately, it had to take the mass shooting-frequencies of the past 20 years for opinion polls to indicate that a majority was finally willing to support stricter gun control laws. Yet, despite these polls, many legislators remain unmoved.
The authors of the Second Amendment did not foresee mass shootings nor terrorists bearing arms. Terrorists are not interested in one-on-one violence. They seek mass casualties as often as possible. The easy access to guns arms them with weapons of mass murder. Terrorists are likely to strike more frequently than disgruntled students or employees.
I hope it will not take the horror of increasing mass shootings for legislators to decide whether their loyalty lies with the gun lobby or vulnerable citizens.
36
@Nav Pradeepan
Terrorists in the 1700s did not bear arms? Are you sure about that? Terrorism is as old as humanity. The Jews revolting in Palestine under the Romans were, by definition, terrorists when they massacred Roman citizens. They did it with swords, spears, axes. Those are armaments.
The authors of the Second Amendment were, from the perspective of the British, a bunch of terrorists bearing arms.
But the authors of the constitution were somehow oblivious to this reality when they penned the 2nd amendment? I doubt that.
To answer the question posed by Mr. Kristof; I am afraid as close to never as we can get. As 'we' were the last country to ban our currently unsafe 737 MAX8's. 'We' will cling on to our assault rifles and our 30 round clips as we rush to win our race to the bottom.
The two major failings of our great country are our failure to reduce gun violence and the failure to guarantee necessary healthcare to all. On guns, it's not just the numbers killed but the constant fear of being killed, or abducted, raped, robbed, carjacked at gunpoint. It's the fear of our police that every car their pull over, every emergency call they get will result in their death from gunfire and they too often act lethally out of fear. We live in a state of high anxiety because our country is awash in guns. It is making us mentally ill. There will always be murders by some means. The goal should be to relieve the fear and anxiety that makes us all victims.
79
@abigail49 -- I'd put failure to do anything about rising CO2 as even worse. It's threatening humanity and much of life on our planet.
3
@Lee Harrison Definitely on the "F" list and also contributes to mass anxiety as well as hopelessness and sense of powerlessness.
1
The NRA is similar to Trump in that they are both fundamentally corrupt and focused on making as much money as possible. I'd go so far as call them both anti-American in that the former supplies weapons and encourages arming Americans who then go forward and kill thousands and thousands of Americans. The latter encourages violence, calls the press the enemy of the people, actively works towards dismantling the most essential democratic institutions that has made America the envy of the world--once upon a time. If that's not anti-American, I don't know what is. The thing is that both the NRA and Trump are supported by good, hard working Americans. Nevertheless, both the NRA and Trump need to be toppled by any means possible.
69
I am not against banning assault rifles, but It is difficult to imagine a law that would have less impact than banning assault rifles. The FBI Uniform Crime Report (Expanded Homicide Table 8: Murder Victims by Weapon) shows that rifles, including assault rifles, were used in 403 of the 15,129 murders committed in 2017. Rifles accounted for 2.7 percent of murders, but this includes all rifles, not just assault rifles, By comparison, knives were used in 1,591 murders, blunt objects were used in 467 murders and 687 American were beaten, stomped tor kicked to death by unarmed assailants.
We need to work on making Americans less violent.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
6
Our new member on the Supreme Court, Bret Kavanaugh, surely doesn't agree with you Mr. Kristof. From what I've read, he wants more guns on the street. He is one frightening human being.
1
Due to Democratic cowardice and Republican complicity, we've let the gun problem fester for decades. Now, there are groups even more radical than the NRA.
My fear is that even if--by some miracle--we enacted the same reasonable gun control achieved by most of the rest of the world, there would be pockets of armed resistance.
It could be the worst internal violence since the Civil War.
"But how many more people will die before the president and Congress act?"
They don't care how many citizens die. Firearms are banned in the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and, of course, in the White House. Only when shooters have total access to our elected officials will those elected officials care.
2
Unheard of levels of polarization preclude any chance of adopting progressive policies. Unfortunately, conservatives are obligated to vote for candidates with blocks of issues in their platforms. The overwhelming impact of racist, religious and sexual preference attitudes has been united with views on climate change, taxation, abortion, individual rights, and yes, gun control. While all polls confirm that a majority of voters want greater levels of gun control, nothing ever changes. We are trapped because gun control is lumped into the platform mix of issues, and conservative candidates will not vary their positions on any one issue for fear of losing support. America is doomed to continue to have more gun deaths than any other nation until voters come to their senses on all of the issues now dividing the country.
Let's start by voting out of office representatives who are in the
back pocket of the NRA. Let's realize that guns are being sold
out of the trunks of cars, in a back street at 2 AM. Let's support
the opposition to CCR and support Law Enforcement in their
efforts to control illegal gun trafficking across state lines.
No civilian should have a right to own an AR15. No parent should have to worry if their child will be shot in their classroom.
1
Not so fast Nickusha. We unfortunately have a second amendment that makes it impossible to so cavalierly change our gun laws. Add to that the corruptions of corporate bribery and gun lobbyists. It's a tough nut to crack. It's going to take a constitutional amendment to make any substantive changes. I can think of far more important issues to put my political aspirations behind, Citizens United for example.
1
As long as the GOP can use Scalia's ridiculous interpretation of the second amendment as a wedge issue nothing will be done.
The Bill of rights article 5 passed by the house in 1789 makes perfectly clear the second amendment is about the rights of conscientious objectors to not be compelled to violate their religious beliefs.
I do not know why conservatives feel it necessary to destroy your country except maybe they can make all of America believe in things that just simply ain't so.
1
In less than a week in a serious country with a truly concerned leader they will ban these God-awful things from their land.
Shows what real leadership unshackled by an incredibly selfish special interest group can do.
3
Yes, the consequences of unregulated gun ownership in the US are horrific. But we need to remember that the primary consequence is suicide, which comprise 60% of gun deaths. I like to communicate this in the following way: If you buy a gun, the most likely person to be killed by it is you, and the most likely person to pull the trigger is you. So you should not have guns in your home if you are trying to protect yourself and your family.
Gun regulations similar to what the other affluent countries have would result in 100,000 less Americans being shot and 28,000 less deaths each year than we have now. We don't have good regulations because our voters and government are controlled by big money. This is just one of the many ways that corruption has taken over and is destroying American life. Please -- fight back!
1
I'm glad you mentioned dogs in this article. I think the federal government needs to pass legislation to protect Americans from dogs. It makes no sense that the federal government declared dogs to be "service animals" but left animal control to local governments. There is no excuse for so many innocent Americans (particularly children) to be attacked by dogs each year. Over 4.5 million Americans are bitten each year. Children are being maimed and killed in their own home by a dog a parent brought home. What right do Americans have to put other Americans at risk with a dog? This is a serious question that deserves a serious answer, but the mainstream media won't ask it, because they're too afraid to. The New York Times is guilty of that. They know dogs are huge problem in America, but they won't even touch the subject.
Only when YOU care more than the gun lobby. Only when YOU lobby your elected officials 365 days a year (not just after a mass shooting). Only then will elected officials take action and enact gun control.
1
Logic, in this case applied well in Kristof's argument, means almost nothing in this issue. Fear drives this bus and the NRA has a mainline to it. Nothing will change until this terror organziation is unmasked.
I love my Prime Minister - not so much thoughts and prayers but real action.
4
When, on live television in 1916, I saw a man armed with an assault rifle get out of a car and kill five Dallas police officers on peace duty at a black protest rally, I thought for sure America would finally wake up and ban such weapons. At least, severely restrict them. Earlier that night, I saw in the crowd of onlookers a number of white men carrying similar military-style rifles. I couldn't help thinking, 'What's wrong with this picture? Too many guns! How do police know there might be a killer among them.' They don't - until it's too late. I fail to comprehend how a society with hundreds of thousands of armed police and the world's biggest military would still feel the need for personal arsenals.
Don’t call the president vote obsessed when we hear all the Dem candidates pandering to every group. What have any of them proposed for gun control? What has Pelosi proposed?
No guns, no bullets, very hard to murder a large number of innocent people. No, it is not easy to get guns illegally if they are not available this widely and easily.
Crazy people attack others but without their guns, they cannot succeed in taking so many lives. The Schrade about the Second Amendment has to stop too, until such time where forming militia becomes legal. Even then, the guns will belong to the militia not to the individuals as it is in the armed forces now. Get real.
I really don't understand why America can't do this.
Removing military-style semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines would still leave tens of thousands of guns available to those Americans who choose to own them.
Shouldn't the right of life matter more?
Restriction crazy Republicans need to be more concerned with public safety than abortion.
Pro-life? Gun control is pro-life.
108
@D. DeMarco The pro-lifers who are also anti-gun control are apparently only pro-fetus. They're all for us for the first nine months; after that we're on our own.
20
@D. DeMarco "Removing military-style semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines"
Devil is in the details. You have new guns sales, you have gray markets, you have black markets, you have millions of these guns and mags already out there owned and purchased legally.
And guns pretty much can last forever.
Confiscation and making legally owned ARs now illegal would be a non-starter, would never pass, so I think you have to grant those folks amnesty. Then we can:
1. Ban new sales.
2. Offer a buyback program.
3. Increase police presence, raids, stop and frisk, investigations in the top 50 high crime areas in the country.
4. Increase security and the borders and in our ports to prevent the black market influx.
5. Add a 10 year enhancement sentence to anyone convicted of a crime with an gun.
There are probably more things, and I think you have to address them all together, you can't just do one symbolic thing, e.g. ban new sales. Won't really work given the reality of the number out there both legally and illegally.
1
@D. DeMarco
It is not that this cannot happen, it will not happen because the majority of Republican lawmakers in the Senate, congress and DJT have been bought and paid for by the NRA who are firmly against ANY SENSIBLE GUN LAWS.
7
Mr. Kristoff you don't have more rigorous gun safety laws in America for the same reason that you don't have universal healthcare. In other western democracies governments are elected on platforms that will offer broadly popular programs to their citizens. In your country, your elected representatives are conflicted between doing that and protecting the interests of the oligarchs, corporate interests and lobby groups to whom they owe fealty.
10
Here in Florida, the N.R.A. has in effect inserted itself into the state government, though the new Commissioner of Agriculture, who is responsible for issuing concealed weapons permits is, surprisingly, a Democrat, and might perhaps put an end to the arrangement.
One of the biggest statistical things from the Australian gun laws is that the biggest change has been a drop in the number of gun related suicides.
1
I have do not have any hope for the United States enacting any gun safety laws while Mitch McConnell and the Republicans are in control of the Congress. This country has lost all the world's respect when it took no action when children were slaudered at Sandy Hook and one of their own members was shot in the face. Truly no hope.
4
The United States will never deal with its gun problem. There's way too much money to be made.
3
My family and I moved to Asia five years ago for my work. First to India and now in China. I owned guns when I lived in the U.S. for the purpose of self/home defense. I cannot begin to tell you how insane that seems to me now. I have not worried about gun violence since I left the U.S., as it is virtually non-existent in India and China due to incredibly strict gun control laws. The thought of a school shooter killing my children doesn't even occur to me, because it simply doesn't happen here. For most of my life in America, I couldn't conceive of a world without guns. Now that I have lived in such a world, I can't conceive of purposefully moving back into that insanity.
1
We will take care of it in 2020, when we have the White House, Senate and Congress. That is pretty much the same for all problems.
1
Mr. Kristof's analogy to cars is appropriate, but in ways that don't support his argument. Just as we have a fair number of illegal, unlicensed drivers, we will have illegal, unlicensed gun owners. And just as many people drive without seatbelts, we'll have many who ignore safety precautions for guns. Even insurance requirements would be meaningless. Responsible drivers and responsible gun owners will have insurance, but irresponsible owners won't. There are large numbers of folks in Ohio driving without insurance and we can expect the same with guns. However, unlike cars, responsible gun owners will rarely have an accident - Dick Cheney not withstanding.
But everything about New Zealand repeats what we have seen before. When there is a random mass shooting where we think "That could have be me or my family" we get outraged. But as for the much larger day-to-day carnage in the black community, the attitude is "Meh, that's not my world."
We have to first create a democracy in which people wag the politicians instead the other way around.
4
I applaud the steps taken in New Zealand to reduce gun violence.
However, in contrast to New Zealand, the United States has a 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. We need a serious debate about what that Amendment means in 2019, and whether, as Bret Stephens has argued on the Times op-ed page, it should be repealed.
2
@Down62
In Colonial times the law demanded that able bodied white men obtain a rifle and suitable clothing to defend the new nation as part of the State militias.
How the Amendment assuring that obligation be met became the nonsensical mantra of personal self defense is apparently lost on Clarence Thomas and those who claim that the Second Amendment pertains to anything else.
America's climb out of the gun hole starts with discussing the problem. The NRA says it is not proper to discuss guns so soon after a shooting. But since nine out of every ten days produces a multiple shooting some where in the US, which days are appropriate to discuss how to restrict killing machines from falling in to the hands of mentally defective murderers?
To be fair your Federal Governments' failure to enact meaningful gun-control far predates either the current Congress or the current Executive. This is not to dispute your call for them to distance themselves from their predecessors and take action merely to point out that their abject failure to do so thus far has long precedent in American history.
2
Thank you Mr. Kristoff, but sadly you can add these post massacre thoughtful articles to the rinse and repeat. Change is coming.
4
Parliamentary democracies can deliver change far faster than the US system can. Also with extended periods between elections, governments can make changes and voters can see the effects of those changes before going to the polls. This can appear to be good when the outcomes are something you agree with - gun control, universal health care, etc but bad if if its something you don't. However, it does seem that over time the will of the majority tends to win over the that of the minority.
3
Mr. Kristof makes a point when he respects responsible American gun owners by citing "gun safety" instead of "gun control." Most recreational shooters can agree that semi-automatic weapons have no place in civilian hands, such as full automatics, which no one seems to argue with. And as for those die-hards who resist any regulation; you have yourselves to thank, in large part, for the frightening militarization of the police. Among their justifications is the increased civilian ownership of military-style weapons. And for those "militia's" and you wanna-be soldiers, do you really think when push comes to shove that you'll stand a chance when the real soldiers and aforementioned police come after you?
4
I'd wait and see what reforms New Zealand implements, before getting too excited about this. And remember, they do not have America's second amendment, or the NRA, or a powerful gun industry lobby.
The rational way to stop mass murders is to strongly restrict repeating weapons with large or removable magazines. This must include semi-auto handguns -- they are very effective for mass murder ... look at the Virginia Tech massacre.
Very few murders, and so far as I know no mass murders (?), have been committed with traditional bolt-action hunting rifles.
Even the M1 Garand ... a clip-loadable fixed-magazine semi-auto rifle that was distributed to Americans as war surplus in enormous numbers (I had one) and was a popular deer rifle in its day is just about never used as a murder weapon.
Murders are mostly committed with handguns, and mass-murderers favor semi-auto carbines with exchangeable magazines (aka "assault rifles") ... but these days they've all gone "tactical" and they carry a semi-auto handgun too.
There's a big element of theater among the mass-murder crowd, and a big element of that theater in selling "assault riffles." There's no functional reason they need be black, there's no strong reason for much of the "style" ... and in fact many of the commercial AR-15 clones are artificially styled to look like "Men in Black" guns.
I've often wondered if guns only came in "my purple pony" dress, would there be so many murders?
2
@Lee Harrison
You touch on an important and, I think, often overlooked point — the many ways in which guns and gun culture (including gun hardware & accessories, “tactical” clothing & accessories, and “militias, for example) are fetishized. While I imagine most gun owners are responsible, there are clearly far too many extremists, cowboys, and Blackwater wannabes.
1
I'd remark to anyone reading this that I wrote it last night, and only this morning was it approved ... when we do know New Zealand is banning semi-auto weapons.
> New Zealand’s Dealing With Its Gun Problem.
> When Will We?
Never. Does "Never" work for you?
Because until we reform our political system so that a small but very vocal minority of gun proponents, gun manufacturers, and their lobbying arms no longer run the show, the answer is surely "Never".
9
I find it amusing that liberals need to be careful to talk of "Gun Safety" and not "Gun Control." How can one not laugh at the irony that the most Gun owners are likely the least concerned with political correctness?
People are dying unnecessarily. What I decide to call it really does not matter.
6
The Constitution and its amendments do not and never did give Americans the right to own guns and keep them in their homes.
In the United States, private ownership of guns once made sense, but as its population has increased, the position of the National Rifle Association has become contemptible.
We can no longer allow guns of any kind in our homes and schools, and it is long past time for our media pundits to recognize the urgent need to ban them.
8
@John Q
The world is not as you might wish it to be, as it is unlikely that those predisposed to crime will adhere to your ideals.
Consider a thought experiment. Two homes are adjacent. One has an NRA placard on the door, the other a "gun free zone".
Are you comfortable in that second house?
1
@timothygmd No, and that's because of the National Rifle Association. Here's a thought experiment for You: Imagine two homes are adjacent - no, make that Three adjacent homes. And they all have a "gun free zone" sign in front of them. Would you really feel unsafe knowing there are no guns? Do you really feel safe knowing there are all those guns out there? I'm for a gun free society. THAT' will be true safety.
2
@timothygmd No, and that's because of the National Rifle Association.
2
In my opinion the reason why we can't pass true solutions to massacres committed with legally purchased firearms is because anti-gunners screaming for gun control hold the ulterior motive of disarming the entire populace including law abiding citizens. How about instead of trying to punish law-abiding people who use or collect firearms for legal purposes such as sporting and defense of home and family, we focus on the real problem which is firearms falling into the hands of those with criminal records and those who have expressed desire to hurt others? How about we first do something to learn about firearms from personal experience rather from what the new media tells us?
2
@Justin
I am an east-coast liberal highly supportive of gun control. But I have no interest in make gun ownership illegal. I have a very high interest in regulating the type of guns civilians can own, including most types of semi-automatic weapons. Gun owners can feel confident that my brand of gun control will not force them to give up handguns and rifles that a legally owned by people of sound mind. And the whole concept of mental health is a red herring. Yes, we need to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people, but it is often impossible to know who falls into that category, and too often that means passing unfounded judgement on someone poor or of color rather than a white person armed to the teeth, but has not yet espoused violent thoughts until they go ballistic, such as the Los Vegas shooter.
@Justin -- most of the mass murders have no criminal record. Look at Pollock (Las Vegas Massacre, the worst.)
I'm not real thrilled with "gun collectors" right now; if by that you mean people assembling private arsenals of functional semi-auto guns.
1
In 1996 Australia had a mass shooting and a strict gun law was introduced and reduced mass shootings to zero. 23 years later , New Zealand follows suit.
7
The US will never ban semi-autos and high capacity magazines. Not as long as the NRA and the GOP get money from gun makers, the gun culture of paranoia and machismo exists, and people continue to worship the obsolete and grossly misinterpreted 2nd amendment.
It doesn't matter how many more mass shootings happen on US soil.
5
@Matt I gave up hope after Sandy Hook. If the NRA puppets (I mean politicians) can't be bothered to care more about children than their checkbooks.... what more is there to say?
If Newtown couldn't get Republicans to act, nothing short of getting voted out of office will. Unfortunately, gun safety is not a top priority in states which typically elect Republican senators. Even among gun owners who are sympathetic to changing our gun laws, the issue is never the central issue in a debate between candidates.
I'll give you an example. In 2004, while Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney signed into law legislation banning assault weapons. As an appeasement to gun advocates, there were some concessions to gun ownership in general. However, the law is considered relatively strict by national standards.
Fast forward to 2018. Mitt Romney is running for Senate in Utah. His position on gun laws went almost unmentioned throughout the entire primary and general election. Nobody cares about Romney's personal view on guns. They all know, while representing Utah, he's going to vote down any federal legislation to restrict gun access. The subject isn't even open for debate.
I'm not sure how you get around that sort of political reality. There is always going to be a strong presence in the Senate at least indifferent to gun legislation. Their voters don't care about gun laws because they don't view them as problematic where they live. Where do find the political urgency to change the law then? There's no leverage.
Hence, we're stuck.
3
The answer to When?, Nick, is: As long as a Republican remains in the White House, or Republicans hold a majority in either legislative chamber, gun laws will be addressed and changed the day after never.
7
When will we deal with the gun problem? When the following is changed to reflect today's society.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In other words, never.
3
My ancestors have owned firearms in this country since the 17th century. They fought French, Indians, Tories and Redcoats on their own front yards. Later, they fought rebel slaveholders. In each event, they ultimately won, yet they never owned an assault rifle. We have never not owned a firearm--we've used them to hunt for food, and to take varmints out of our gardens, yet we've never needed to own an assault rifle. We used to belong to the NRA, but we wouldn't belong now. We speak more convincingly with our mouths than with our ARs. Every child should learn range safety in the third or fourth grade, but nobody needs to possess an AR except when an active member of the Armed forces.
10
@William Burgess Leavenworth: I could not have said it any better. My English ancestors came to America in 1630 and followed the same rout as yours.
When I was younger I did my share of hunting and even did some competition shooting. But I never carried a weapon around in the city. It was a great mistake for the government to allow these military style guns and large capacity mags to be sold to the civilian population.
3
@William Burgess Leavenworth You know those wars and fighting you talked about was when the opposition had the same weapons. Nowadays, you'd be at the same disadvantage as taking a knife to a gun fight.
@William Burgess Leavenworth
You want every child in this country to know how to use a gun? You want every child to be happy about killing "varmints" in our gardens?
Seriously? No Child Left Not Behind a Gun?
As tragic as the murders in Sandy Hook, Orlando, Columbine, Las Vegas, and the rest are, there are far worse things that could happen in this country if the people were to be disarmed and put at the mercy of the Trumps and Clintons of this world.
5
@poppop
Fear of guns does not keep “Trumps and Clintons” at bay. If necessary, they can buy enough protection to keep themselves safe. The government clearly does not fear even masses of civilians with AR 15s. What does an AR 15 do to an armored vehicle? Or a F-35 fighter jet? Heck, even police now have armored personnel carriers. A Predator drone could easily ruin an armed person’s day.
About 100 civilians a day die from guns in our country. Statistics clearly show that owning a gun makes people in the house less safe, on the average. And carrying a gun around with you increases the chance that you will be injured or killed. A lever or bolt action rifle or a single action revolver will allow for fun at a range, or hunting for food, or protection from a bear. Heck, even allowing people to have semi-automatic weapons stored at a range, would allow that rush of ripping off 10 quick shots at a paper target. Installing identity locks on guns would make life safer, on the average, for all of us.
I have owned guns (I kept them under lock and key until I got to the range). I have fired an M16 during my time in the military. I support sensible gun control, as Mr. Kristof supports in this column.
@poppop -- if you think the possession of a semi-auto gun protects you from military dictatorship in the USA ... you're suicidally crazy.
Look at the experience of the Jihadis in Afghanistan and Iraq -- small-arms combat was suicidal, so they retreated to sniping, our military (and allies) won that battle, and they were reduced to IEDs.
Get real. Insurrections and civil wars only succeed with some combination of major factions of the military joining the insurrection, and foreign support for arms and supplies.
1
"How many more people will die before the president and Congress act?" It is a rhetorical question, Mr. Kristof. They will never act. The laws will never change until we have a Democratic Congress with a veto-proof majority and a Democratic president. Until that occurs, the will of a small minority of voters and donors will allow the slaughter of innocent people to continue.
It is the same perverse democracy that allows a candidate who receives a minority of the popular vote total to become the president of this nation.
7
A comment noted that people in Australia are reluctant to travel to US because of the level of gun violence. There are people in the US who refuse to travel to states that have laws
permitting open carry, stand-your-ground and zero effort for regulations that promote gun safety. Hopefully, this is a growing trend and states like Florida that depend on tourism dollars will step up to and push sensible changes.
6
Let's ban guns so we can create a huge black market for 3D printed and other home made firearms. A ban on crossbows in 1139 has worked out very well.
Who knows what new kinds of weapons these creative minds will come up. Lasers used by the military are getting smaller all the time.
Exactly like what Prohibition did for alcohol.
2
@mrmeat
I am sure they were assault crossbows when banned in 1139 and that the ban totally eliminated any future death by an arrow.
1
@mrmeat
It's sad that anybody can write such an obtuse comment, no doubt thinking that it's clever and wise.
Presumably, you are happy and contented by the death rate caused by the availability of guns in the USA.
I agree with Kristoff's recommendation for more gun safety here in the U.S. The key to reducing gun violence is to reduce the supply and ubiquity and easy access to firearms; economic studies show that states with high firearm ownership have much higher rates of gun homicides and suicides. How can we legally reduce the supply of firearms in the U.S. given the 2nd amendment?
There are over 300 million firearms in private ownership and annual sales of new firearms about 10 million. So to reduce the supply new sales have to be cut and existing firearms destroyed.
There has been a federal excise tax of 11% on new firearms and ammunition since WWI. This is constitutional since Congress imposed this under it rights to tax and it does not interfere with the 2nd amendment.
The firearms tax should be raised to $1,000 per new firearm sold and $1 per bullet sold. The revenue from this tax would be used to offer $1,000 to purchase any used firearm that will then be destroyed immediately. The goal is to cut annual sales of firearms by 90% and cut the inventory of used firearms by at least 100 million. The tax could be $10,000 per automatic assault weapon.
This approach uses the same public health measure of higher cigarette taxes to cut smoking deaths. Higher and even prohibitive taxes on new firearms should be part of the solution to U.S. gun violence.
4
@john
John, a dictator could not come up with a better way to suppress a populace than your points.
$1 tax per bullet, $1,000 tax per gun?
You want to reduce deaths, take a hard look at medically unnecessary abortions (not counting in the ones where there is a medical justification). That's 700,000 lives alone PER YEAR. Maybe put your $1,000 tax on those procedures.
Sure it is fine to cite statistics on shootings, but there are some other statistics that might be relevant. There are upwards of 300 million guns in the US, and in recent years, there have been about 30,000 gun deaths each year, with about half being suicides. Given the number of firearms, and the thinking that guns equal crimes, it is absolutely remarkable that there are not hundreds of thousands of gun victimizations each year.
I will assert that few of us have ever witnessed any gun crimes or have been victims of a gun crime, even though every American lives in states where every anyone is able to obtain a firearm legally or illegally.
Many of us have driven on the nation's congested highways through many gun-friendly states among thousands of cars with frustrated drivers , but how many people have ever witnessed a gun crime during our drives?
2
@Steve Brown Hey somebody with some sense on this post. I saw some statistics recently about how if you took out the top 10 deadliest cities in America, we'd be near the bottom of the list in gun violence. As you said, most Americans will never see gun violence in their lives, because most places don't have an issue with guns. It's a few cities and a couple of mass shooting that drive the propaganda wagon.
1
@Steve Brown
I have witnessed. Shooting from cars in New York City. Once on the Henry Hudson; once on Second Avenue near 96th St.
Had a gun drawn on me years ago by a kid in Central Park (I hit him with my ice skates.)
Next assertion?
@Steve Brown -- you're forgetting people who are shot but don't die. There are about 100,000 victims shot each year in the USA, with enormous costs and damages.
People arguing about "why the gun murder rate has gone down" usually forget the major advances in trauma medicine -- more shooting victims live. Some wish they hadn't.,
I've seen three gun crimes personally: one illegal brandishing, one illegal discharge ... and an outright criminal shooting were the victim did not die. (The perp served 4 years)
I know of two more bad stories with guns among friends and family. The saddest occurred to friends of mine, about 20 years ago. Young marrieds with a new baby they were living in a small rented house in an area of north Seattle of such "little boxes, all the same" homes -- not a bad neighborhood.
In the early AMs there was a lot of banging at the back door, the husband got his handgun from the drawer, the flimsy door burst in, and he shot and killed the young man who came in through the door.
It turned out to be the mentally-retarded 20-year-old who lived two houses down on the back alley, and had surely gotten confused. This was justifiable homicide -- do you feel good about it? They sure did not.
Two things Steve: people shouldn't have a gun (for protection) if they live in a paper bag.
Secondly, if you think guns are so harmless, then why not mandatory insurance under strict liability, for all gun owners?
2
Ban and confiscate. There is no good reason for citizens to own guns. The most recent meme on guns is that they help protect us against the government. Wrong. I am much more worried about gun rights people than I am of my government.
11
@SF If someone decides to enter my house at night while I'm sleeping, I'd like to have something to protect myself. A baseball bat or knife isn't going to cut it against a pistol. I don't need an AR, but I would like to have a pistol or shotgun to protect myself. Criminals don't follow laws - I do. And I'll dutifully lock it up when I'm not home. A gun ban will never fly in the US. Now, perhaps an AR ban? But you'll never take away folks pistols, rifles or shotguns. Don't bother to try.
@SF You apparently have no concept of our history. I doubt that your people were here for the two-and-one-half centuries of heavy lifting that made this country a democratic republic. I would support banning private ownership of assault rifle types, but I would require all adult citizens to have basic training and familiarity with the use of firearms. Where I live, I need a gun to rid my property of destructive pests like porcupines, and to take out potentially dangerous rabid animals, as well as harvest game in the event of a collapse in our national food distribution system.
Several rabid raccoons and skunks have been killed within five miles of our woodlot in the past year. You are welcome to let rabid animals bite your children, but I'll retain the ability to shoot rabid animals when they show up here.
Never!
The necessity of firearms as the first defence of individual liberty has been the basis of American national mythology since the American Revolution. Its inclusion in the Constitution made it an article of faith for many Americans.
The USA is now destroying itself because of the unforeseen consequences of its history and choices - trapped, it seems, in the pathology of its mythology.
11
There is an emerging and fast growing gun culture on the Left. Liberal-progressive gun owners have always been around, but since the election of Trump their numbers have surged. Groups like The Liberal Gun Club believe that gun ownership is a civil right equal to all the others. Personally, I belong to the ACLU to protect 9 of the 10 rights in the Bill of Rights, and the LGC to protect the other one.
I will have nothing to do with the NRA. Increased background checks and root cause mitigation, yes. Gun bans, no.
6
Not that I disagree that tighter controls on weapons would be an improvement, I think we have to be realistic as well. We have millions of semi automatic weapons, so how are you going to ban those already out there without confiscation? And so you ban those. Some who intends to commit a mass shooting simply buys a military style semi automatic weapon on the black market. Or, he (likely to be a he) carries multiple semi-auto handguns. Killers will find a way. Charles Whitman didn't have a single semi-automatic weapon. He fired one shot at a time.
As far as CT's homicide by handgun rate declining -- ah, that's a national phenomenon that's been going on since around 1990. False stat.
As far as screening goes. Sure, you don't want to sell guns of any type to someone who walks into a store wearing a t-shirt saying kill all people who aren't or something similar. But as much they get headlines and as horrific as they are, mass killings, stranger on stranger, hate killings, are rare events and accuratley identifying those who will commit such an act is virtually impossible. Sure there are possible signals and profiles but they aren't exact and what you would get are lots of false positives.
Moreover, a small, homogeneous country without our gun culture or a high murder rate is much easier to regulate weapons than the US.
So I'm with you in principle but just saying we need to isn't a plan.
@Ralphie -- two things:
1. psst: ammo ... without it a gun is nothing more than an awkward club
2. The UK and Australia both banned a lot of guns, undertook buybacks and having people turn them in. Not everybody did of course. But the gun crime rates fell quickly. Why?
Because grandpa with his illegal gun in the closet wasn't likely to use it, and even less likely to sell it to somebody who would. With the guns illegal selling one became legally very dangerous; if the perp you sold it to commits a crime you become an accessory, and they will rat you out.
Guns are still being turned in in Australia -- Grandpa died and the kids find it.
@Lee Harrison -- Yes, if you could control ammo that might be a start. But how would you do that? People can do their own reloading. If it even looked like there was a move to ban ammo, every gun owner would buy as they could immediately and all the ammunition manufacturers would up production. And ammunition is easier to smuggle in than guns. Smaller.
As for UK and Australia -- exactly how much did their gun crime rates fall? They historically have few gun homicides in the UK -- statistically a near zero rate. So I'm not sure how much gun violence actually dropped although it may be arrests for having a gun increased.
Comparing the UK and Australia to the US -- doesn't work for me. Don't think they are valid comparisons. I'm not sure what country is.
The biggest gun problem in the country isn't mass shootings although they are horrible. It's the daily massacre on our streets.
I think the final question posed here is the key one: How many more people need to die before action is taken? The New Zealand example is one the US needs to follow - desperately.
I've heard the argument that guns are so stitched into the fabric of American life that you can't compare the two: to me, it's a simple formula because both concern keeping people breathing. There is no more straightforward reason than that - if you put better controls in place, people will live on.
Hopefully the US can take a page from New Zealand's book here. Will they? Based on what we've seen for so long, highly unlikely.
4
@Chris Yoder -- I'm a licensed commercial pilot and when I was younger I flew military airplanes.
I am not "being punished" because I cannot own and fly an armed airplane.
You don't have a constitutional right to any gun you want, get used to it.
1
Historically, veterans who return from war face many difficulties from the direct injuries sustained to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We know enemy action can cause direct injury but what causes PTSD? I would maintain it is caused by living under sustained risk of death or injury and having to choose to cause the direct injury of others during conflict.
The NRA in concert with gun manufacturers want us to live in fear sufficient to arm ourselves. And arms in increasingly more of our hands increases the risk of their use while the 24/7/365 news cycle always keeps us aware of new killings and keeps us more afraid.
Despite Mr. Trump's statements, a US citizen is more likely to be killed by being crushed by a vending machine toppling on them than by the actions of a foreign terrorist.
It would seem we hate ourselves when we choose to stoke a PTSD incubator in our very country in the name of profit. It would be just like an airplane manufacturer making a plane which might send us hurtling to our deaths at random when training was insufficient to its new functions. Oh, wait...that's the Boeing 737 Max series...
First, we had the Greek tragedies, then the Shakespearean ones and now our modern versions. Will we never learn?
3
@Douglas McNeill
No, I don't think you will "ever learn".
The 2nd Amendment is a proud tradition, and Americans are arguably the only truly free people on the planet.
Thank God for the NRA, America's first civil rights organization.
The answer is this country is not going to do anything substantial to limit access to military style weapons and high content magazines. Our lawmakers are too beholding to the NRA who have been spreading lies for years.
9
"I suggest dropping references to “gun control” and instead speaking of “gun safety."
With all due respect, Mr. Kristof, why tiptoe around this? Gun owners understand all too well what we want, so it's no wonder they roll their eyes or get defensive about what we liberals say.
It's a lie to say, 'We aren't coming to get your guns," because that is precisely what many of us _would_ like: a buyback program similar to what PM Ardern has proposed today for NZ.
I wish we had courage to grab the nettle, too. But we don't. Instead we mumble about 'gun safety,' which will, in the end, accomplish approximately nothing.
10
@Kealoha
Thank you. A good article but I was also irked by this comment. Talk about worrying about the molehill.
Not in my lifetime. But I’m 77, so there’s hope for my grandchildren.
2
Repeal that piece of legislation that prevents statistics of gun related issues...once the real numbers get out in the open, a lot of peoples minds would be changed.
6
@Chris Yoder -- find that CDC study... it doesn't exist. What you are talking about is a study Gary Kleck (noted gun-advocate statistician) did using publicly-available CDC data ... this study was never peer reviewed, and Kleck subsequently "removed" the paper.
The statistics of defensive gun use are hotly debated; a major question is what constitutes legal "defensive gun use" and what is illegal gun brandishing?
How about we inject some reality into this discussion, and only count defensive gun use when a police report of the incident was filed?
If a citizen deters a crime then SURELY it should be reported, so the police can stop the perpetrator from further crimes.
If you are too scared that your gun use wasn't legal to report it ... then betcha it wasn't legal.
2
@Chris Yoder
How is "stopping a crime" proved? The bad guy walks into a shop, looking evil and for sure going to steal something, when the hero-with-a-gun pulls his weapon and says, "Hold it right there, buddy." Is that what you're saying?
Show us the studies.
1
Do we really have a "gun problem"? The numbers given here,
1.45 million deaths in 49 years, works out to about 30,000
deaths a year. That's less than the number of automobile accident deaths last year (about 40,000). If our society tolerates the automobile death rate, it can tolerate the firearms death rate. Each is less than one tenth the death rate by heart attack.
2
@Charles Packer
And what would be the auto death toll be if there was a "right to drive" and there were no road rules or controls on drink driving, speeding or even the ability to drive a car?
The death toll of auto accidents was horrendous 40 years ago. Restrictions of "driving freedoms" has saved tens of thousands per year.
Isn't it sensible to restrict dangerous activities in order to save lives?
22
@Charles Packer
You also have to keep in mind that more people drive than own guns. Yes there are more guns out there, but that's because gun owners own multiple guns. Also automobiles are used much more often for practical purposes (Such as getting to work), than guns, which are mostly used by enthusiasts for recreational purposes (or hidden under a pillow by those who think they need the "extra protection). So drawing your comparison does not really speak to the facts.
7
@Charles Packer
I would say this was surely a Donald Trump response. Lacking in empathy, cold, callous, unapologetic.
But then I saw punctuation and accurate estimates.
One persuasive argument gun supporters make is that of the Second Amendment in the constitution. Unfortunately, this maddeningly written amendment can be interpreted simultaneously in opposite directions when it comes to gun rights. The only definitive solution, in my opinion, is to re-write the second amendment to make it crystal clear as to the intent of its meaning or just remove it entirely if that is what is decided. We have added and deleted amendments to our constitution throughout our history. And while we are doing that, adding an amendment to get money out of politics should be included because even though a majority of Americans want some form of gun restriction legislation, our elected leaders are legally bribed by the gun lobby not to vote for any change.
14
@FXQ
The constitution is clear on a right "to keep and bear arms" and as a "owner" I cherish that right for many reasons and but I am aligned with reasonable controls (background checks, wait periods etc.). However anything beyond that is impractical as:
1) Repealing the 2nd amendment is virtually impossible
2) 44 US State constitutions include the right to keep bear arms in some form or other.
1
@FXQ When the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, there was already a long-standing requirement in New England that all able-bodied males over 16 keep a musket and ammunition in their homes, along with an edged fighting weapon. Only ministers and fishermen were exempted. BUT the militia was under the control of elected officers, and they in turn were under the control of the colonial governor and council. Nobody could wander around carrying a loaded firearm except when the militia was called out, or when hunting in season, and possession of a concealable handgun could be used to convict a suspect of criminal intent. Read the colonial laws in New England; they differed greatly from those in the slave South. There were free blacks and Indians among the Minute-men at Bunker Hill, much to Washington's consternation, when he took command of the Continental Army in Cambridge. He came from an entirely different cultural background.
1
@michael cascio No, it is not clear as you state. What is clear is the right of a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms.
Can we decide that homicides are wrong and figure out how to limit guns to trained officials? No one has a right to shoot a crowd of people in five or 6 minutes. I want to praise New Zealand for their rapid response. It shows they care about their people.
24
Yes, even the US can have effective gun laws. We just need to change those in power who make our laws, to ones who will work to protect the people, not lobbies.
19
I disagree with the folks writing “Never.” The politicians are lagging behind the American public who have already decided that we need to limit and/or remove weapons of mass destruction (AR-15’s and their ilk) from society and seriously regulate access to and storage of other weapons. The statistics are clear on this and on the desire for gun safety reforms. Nothing changes until it does.
5
Money and political power over lives.
That’s what America is all about these days from guns to climate change.
And apparently at least 45% of the electorate is just fine with that.
14
The only interpretation of recent events is that the weapons dealers forgot to purchase the legislature in New Zealand. They already own the GOP in the United States, sadly.
29
@Norwester, but remember that many of us live in the country. We have to keep varmints out of our gardens, and keep rabid animals out of our woodlots. That doesn't require AR-types but it does require firearms. We need to get the current leadership out of the NRA, and force a divorce between firearms manufacturers and politicians.
If you want to change gun laws in this country then pass policy that is counterintuitive: Make is so easy to purchase a firearm where every minority group and even illegal aliens could purchase a firearm without a background check or with any from of ID. Do that, Trump will use his platform on Twitter to overturn the 2nd amendment overnight. The most fundamental aspect of gun ownership is the cool seductive feel of having life and death over someone else who is unarmed. When everyone is armed then the balance of power changes drastically in this country.
6
Never. The last time American politicians actually made rational decisions in the national interest was probably back in the mid-20th century. Since then, we've been running on autopilot. At noon (EST) on January 20, 2017, it failed.
13
Instead of any real changes in firearms legislation when a tragedy happens, politicians in the USA never fail to offer their "thoughts and prayers". I usually feel sick to my stomach when "thoughts and prayers" are supposed to provide some sort of solace following a tragedy. Gun safety does not have to infringe on the rights of serious gun owners.
9
Answer: Never. The US is utterly hopeless. Contrast to the quick action in New Zealand today. If nothing happened here after Sandy Hook, i don’t expect any improvement.
39
@Jason
Sandy Hook and the disgusting response to it by the gun lobby was when I pretty much decided to leave the US. Never regretted it. The gun situation is an utter and continuing disgrace. The pathetic reliance on an outdated and misinterpreted amendment is a national embarrassment.
NOTHING in the Second Amendment prevents strict gun control, including a ban on assault weapons like New Zealand just enacted. The Second Amendment was intended ONLY to ensure a well-regulated citizen militia. Art. II Sec. 2 of the Constitution makes the president the commander-in-chief of the militia. Art. I sec. 8 states that the Militia’s purpose is to "enforce the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Congress enacted the Militia Acts pursuant to those Constitutional provisions.
The Second Amendment was never intended to establish a right to be armed for personal protection. In fact, at the constitutional convention, when the Anti-Federalists tried to attach self defense and hunting language to the amendment, they were overwhelmingly defeated.
From 1791 until the travesty Heller decision, courts consistently interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting only a right to have guns for militia service – and that otherwise the government was free to restrict and regulate weapons possession and use.
The smoke-and-mirrors NRA itself had no problem with this correct interpretation of the Second Amendment, and was in favor of gun control, for more than a century until it got taken over by the gun manufacturers in the early 1970s and started spewing pro-gun, fake-history propaganda.
74
@Critical Rationalist
The militia clause is a supporting, not conditional or limiting argument, for the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The phrase "well-regulated" in the 17th century meant practiced in the use of arms, not heavily legislated.
Up until the last 50 years, the American people had little problem interpreting the 2nd Amendment as a personal right. Only the last couple of generations of pseudo-intellectuals feel that it's a heavily restricted freedom only for use for a uniformed militia person. Ridiculous! (Think Thomas Jefferson and James Madison intended that? It'd not be worth putting down on paper were it so.)
Given that, very formidable firearms could be restricted, just not the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms openly in public. A state or the federal government could restrict AR-15's, but they'd be wrong in forbidding a person to walk down 5th Avenue in New York City carrying a loaded musket.
Heller was a good decision. So was the 2nd Amendment.
2
@JacksonJohnson
Nope. The framers of the Constitution, particularly the Federalists (including George Washington) were afraid of mob rule. They even encountered it a few times (the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion). So--the Second Amendment was designed to protect the government from these crazy mobs, not the other way around. The framers of the constitution would be mortified at how we interpret the second amendment today, and would rightly terrified of the masses of dangerous weapons circulating throughout the public.
7
@Bret
The whole Bill of Rights was an enticement to get all the states to ratify the Constitution. You do that with guarantees of freedom, not restriction.
The framers would be "mortified" of the types of weapons we have, but I'm guessing they'd frown at a guy be arrested in NYC for owning a musket.
1
Nick. The difference between the US and NZ is simple. We have a constitutional right to own firearms. Period. Full stop. In terms of your auto analogy, i do like one perspective. The ability to drive state to state legally. Try that with a legal firearm! Roger
2
@Roger Gibboni
A right to own guns? I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of this.
It can't be the Second Amendment since it doesn't mention ownership once. The word 'keep' doesn't mean 'own', e.g. Genesis 4:9.
13
@Roger Gibboni
The second amendment does not give a private citizen the right to bear arms. It gives the states the right to form militias, which are obsolete now that we have country wide police forces and the national guard.
And even if the second amendment did provide the right to bear arms, which it doesn't, there is more than sufficient grounds to overturn that amendment in the national interest.
The constitution as it was written says that African Americans were only 3/5's of a person. That concept was rightfully abolished, even though it took a civil war to do it. Somehow, the rights of people to stroke their egos through the use of deadly weapons seems to pale in comparison.
14
@Roger Gibboni
The difference between the US and New Zealand is simple. New Zealand is a democracy. The US is an Oligarchy, and increasingly an authoritarian one at that,
16
One of the starting points to enacting gun laws would be to access damage caused by guns. In all gun related articles the only figure I find is gun related deaths in an year and list of major mass shootings. Someone needs to collect all the data in one place, it should at least include per year average data for:
-Number of deaths by guns
-Number of gun related injuries, accidental and intentional plus the money spent on hospital treatment and whether any injuries were permanent
-Number of robberies committed at gun point and the financial loss incurred
Contrast this with number of crimes prevented/arrests made because of use of guns by private citizens (not private security) which is the justification given for using guns besides hunting.
All this information should be available in police reports+hospital records but I doubt such an initiative would be allowed off the ground.
4
@RS
We already have gun laws. We have traffic laws too and people still get drunk and kill with their vehicles.
I'm a Canadian going through the process of securing my first gun license in Canada.
So far I have attended 2 full day courses, passed 2 written exams + 2 practical exams and sent in my application to the government with my test scores. I then have to wait a legal minimum of 28 days before the authorities open my application, review it, call my references and run a criminal background check. Once that's all done, it will take another 2-6 weeks before I have my license.
I was pleasantly surprised at how rigorous the testing was. And I have no problem waiting basically 2 months until my license is granted.
It seems self-evident there should be a rigorous licensing requirement before owning a gun in the 21st century. How could anyone realistically disagree with this?!
Obviously, this sort of licensing regime won't stop criminals and it won't likely prevent tragedies like what happened in New Zealand. But, you can't tell me it won't bring down the immoral numbers of gun deaths in America each year.
25
@JOHNNY CANUCK
That's nothing compared to the UK system, where you have to complete a six month training package / probationary membership of a gun club before you can apply for a rifle/handgun license. (Shotgun licenses are much easier, being Shall Issue).
The upside is that the UK licensing system completely prevents mass shootings. The mass shootings that have happened in the UK occurred when the police were lazy and did background checks instead.
That's right. The background checks that US citizens believe keep their families safe enabled mass shootings in the UK. Go figure.
3
@Francis King
Just no freedom there. I remember reading one commentator who said "Britain is no place for a free man these days." Seems to be true.
I also heard the U.K. pistol team (as in Olympic) has to travel outside their county to practice. Silly.
Yes, the UK restrictions may prevent mass shootings, but the violence simply channels itself into other forms, such as the 1,000 knife crimes/month in London alone. 1,000 knife assaults! Never heard of that. A perpetrator would be a fool to try that in Texas.
1
@JOHNNY CANUCK
Sounds like the conditions of a miserable nanny state, those licensing requirements and waiting periods. (Though, I have no issue with safety training, maybe that could be mandatory.)
Why New Zealand can do what the U.S. hasn’t been able to: Change gun laws in the face of tragedy--WP-------------"NZ's gun lobby mainly represents a core of rural supporters, whereas more than 86 percent of New Zealanders now live in urban areas and form a largely liberal majority.....Whereas In the United States, the ratio of citizens living in urban areas is slightly lower. More importantly, however, the U.S. system of representation and the way congressional districts are drawn increase the significance of rural Republican voters disproportionately. That helps explain why the NRA can pressure politicians into following its demands, even though NRA supporters account for only a fraction of all U.S. voters."
9
I am not a gun owner and never have been. My father didn't own a gun and his father didn't own a gun. So, I have no passion for guns. That said, according to the CDC, between 1999 and 2015, more Americans died as occupants of a motor vehicle (motorcycles excluded) than were killed by a firearm in a homicide or by law enforcement. Furthermore, between 1999 and 2015, more Americans died as a result of a motor vehicle traffic-related accident than were killed by a firearm (suicides included). As long as we have a second amendment and statistics like that, I don’t see a whole lot changing in the way of gun regulations in the United States.
https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
And what of heart attacks? They kill far more than either. Perhaps rescind seat-belt laws because heart disease takes more lives?
2
Before the radical right and the gun lobbies took over the NRA, it was an organization teaching gun safety.
I doubt the NRA can walk back its corrupt path into the arms of the Russians seeking to twist our institutions, but it is time to set up another gun safety organization, of national scope, with classes and drills.
A gun is an instrument which can cause death and destruction. While I live in a State that allows concealed carry without a permit except in places specifically prohibited, I carry a firearm only when it makes good sense. For self-defense in populated areas, I have some very unpleasant alternatives, which should be non-lethal.
But then I am trained.
With that second amendment to the Constitution as interpreted by a conservative court after many years of meaning States can keep National Guard Units, we have a problem and an opportunity. I want to preserve the right of ownership, but not let anyone untrained touch such an instrument.
Licensing... as an Amendment, not of the gun but of the operator. Whether someone with a license to have a firearm has one or not can be a private matter, but the license would be like a drivers license--including suspension/revocation for cause, as in domestic violence, reckless display, threatening with a gun, unsafe practices resulting in injury, etc. There should be an insurance requirement. Capitalists might find such palatable.
7
@michaelglennmoore
Think about why there are places where you are prohibited from carrying your weapon. Would that be because the gun is capable of injuring or killing someone important?
Self-defense in populated areas. Bullets flying. You're trained? Can you guarantee not to hit an innocent bystander in a crowd during a firefight?
Bosh.
In Japan they have strict gun control and the suicide rate is higher than the USA
In Mexico they have gun control and the homicide rate is much higher than in the USA.
Thank God for Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington et al
For giving us a written Constitution with a Bill of Rights which limits the power not of the people but of the Government.
In the United States we have thanks to our founding fathers forethought the right to free speech, the right to be free from having the Gov't seize private property without due process and fair payment and the right to self defense.
In New Zealand the citizens of that once great country are about to lose several of those...
Every day I thank the good Lord he made me an American
and I'm not all that religious!
1
@Java Junkie
"In Japan they have strict gun control and the suicide rate is higher than the USA"
Reducing suicides is not the only reason for restricting guns although it will help. Also the biggest complaint of the gun complaint of the gun control advocates is against military style weapons. Nobody commits suicide with an AR15.
"In Mexico they have gun control and the homicide rate is much higher than in the USA."
You have to justify gun control by comparing homicide rate with Mexico? Comparing the richest country in the world with one of the smaller economies which is plagued by drug cartels and most homicides are results of cartel activity. Care to compare with any other country with a standard of living comparable to USA?
19
@RS
"Comparing the richest country in the world with one of the smaller economies"
Ah Left Wing racism rears its ugly head once again. The Standard Gun Grabber line
'In the Civilized World... the gun homicide rate is ... so much lower in White Europe"
Let's compare Apples to Apples and stop with the racism shall we.
A human life lost is a human life lost
It doesn't have more value because it was saved in Europe vs lost in Mexico
We lose ONE soul to gun violence that is a tragedy and whether or not that happens in Chicago or Memphis or Christchurch or London or Soweto doesn't really matter
It's a tragedy
If were going to count tragedies let's count them irrespective of the color or religion or economic status of the the victims...
Please!
@Java Junkieä... feel free to explain this to the loved ones of the folks who died during those latest shootings. Being a true American also means to take care of your country first. My Dad always told me... „just because he does something stupid means you have to follow“. So let‘s be opened minded and try to fix this issue...
„
without the weapons of mass murder, 50 New Zealand worshipers would still be alive; 17 Parkland, Fla., schoolchildren and staff members would still be alive; nine Charleston, S.C., churchgoers would still be alive; 11 Pittsburgh congregants would still be alive; 58 Las Vegas concertgoers would still be alive; 26 Newtown, Conn., first graders and adults would. …“
Weapons such as pistols should pass muster as well as hunting rifles without magazines. Shotguns, semi-automatic rifles with magazines should be banned. Registration of all gun sales is necessary. Then we can re-evaluate the results to tighten restrictions further if necessary. Our Congress has an obligation to promote public safety and that means more regulation of gun sales to provide that security.
2
@Chris Yoder
Where is your proof Bubba?
This fact: 1,004,500 killed in this nation since 1970 with guns. This includes accidents, killings and suicides.
1
It's when situations like the one in New Zealand happens that we see the real benefit of the 2nd Amendment.
In New Zealand a country of ~4-5 million people there are reportedly over 1 million guns in circulation
That likely means there are at least 1 million gun owners
Because of the actions of ONE foreigner a million people are very likely to lose the basic Human Right of Self Defense.
Not only is the Gov't of New Zealand intent on taking away the right of self defense they apparently are also going to seize private property with NO payment. WOW!
Here in the US we got rid of the British system of "collective punishment" 200+ years ago and installed a Constitutional Democracy
Our rights don't depend on the whims of which Government is in power
They're enshrined in the Constitution!
Thank God for Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin et al!
2
@Java Junkie
You may know much about your own constitution but you obviously have no idea of the ways, customs and law of my country New Zealand.
The majority of guns owned in New Zealand are for sport hunting and pest control. Of these the majority are unsurprisingly in rural areas where they are needed - for shooting introduced possums and other pests, or for hunting game like ducks, deer etc. it’s not unusual for gun owners to own a shotgun as well as a .22 etc, depending on their use.
If you took a straw poll of my fellow countrymen and women you would find ‘self defence’ as a rare justification for having a gun. I don’t know of anyone in my small rural
Community just under two hours from Christchurch who would consider their guns in that regard.
Given that over half of the population of the country live in three major cities, your notion that over 1 million kiwis own guns is also way off the mark.
Ms Ardern has also started today that a buy back scheme will be started for those who own now contraband weaponry.
You may mock other nations whose rule of law derived from the Westminster model but you should also realise that such democracies can also reflect the collective will of their nation when it comes to substantial changes to legislation rather than relying on or being hamstrung by a document formed in a time when today’s weaponry, technology and attitudes were inconceivable to your founding fathers
148
NZ is NOT taking anyone’s right or ability to self defense. Guns are not being banned, just guns that are infinitely more effective at killing people then the ones that were in use in the year 1776. I bet you have no problem with “the wall” which will require the taking of property by the government through imminent domain. The weapons they are banning are not defensive weapons, they are offensive weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.
1
@Java Junkie
"Because of the actions of ONE foreigner a million people are very likely to lose the basic Human Right of Self Defense."
When you need an assault rifle for self-defense, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the situation. Here in Amerika, the degree to which 'the right to bear arms' has been distorted and used to justify an obscene proliferation of weapons upon society should be evidence enough that something needs to change. Hiding behind the 2nd amendment will never alter the obvious truth right in front of us that there are simply too many guns...and sane countries such as Australia, Japan and now New Zealand are pointing the direction that all nations need to go. The 2nd amendment is the cancerous cell in our constitution, and it's looking terminal at this point for the US.
1
New Zealand’s biggest gun problem is gang related. Many gang members are licensed to own guns. And those who are not generally obtain guns by stealing them. The new gun law is unlikely to deter gang members and licensed owners are likely to be theft victims more often. Poorly designed gun laws passed in response to the latest notorious crime may well make things worse, not better.
2
@michjas I don't really follow your point. The desire is to avoid a catastrophe like Friday again. And if they can acquire assault weapons through a buyback or amnesty led campaign, removing them from circulation, then they limit the amount of these guns that can actually be stolen.. let alone purchased legally.. as they were in this case. At the end of the day, the less on their streets the better.
15
Not too likely - fewer automatic weapons in the hands of law abiding people will result in fewer guns being stolen and falling into the wrong hands.
6
You can not compare the two countries...
The United States has a Constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, New Zealand has no corresponding right.
While a ban on NZ may prevent legal purchases in NZ, such a ban could not be enacted in the USA for the aforementioned Constitutional right mentioned above.
Besides, New York and Chicago have the strictest gun laws in the country, and some of the highest levels of gun crime. Simply passing laws does not fix the problem.
3
@LegalEagle I don’t think your last statement is right. Two studies I am aware of, by the Boston Children’s Hospital in 2013 and 2016, found that US states with stronger gun laws have fewer gun related deaths. So even with your constitutional impediments, restrictive gun laws can work to save lives.
12
The strictest local guns laws don’t mean a thing if you can get unlimited guns, in some cases without any background check or registration a few hours driving away. That is such an overused and lame argument.
3
@LegalEagle, even Scalia in the Heller decision said that the individual right to own a gun is not absolute. New Zealand's ban on assault weapons would be constitutional in the United States (and in fact an assault weapons ban was in place until it expired in 2004).
We can argue about whether Heller was correctly decided, but you can't deny that for over 230 years the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean that states had the right to maintain militias, not that there was an individual right to bear arms. However, you're conflating a ban on assault weapons with a total ban on guns. That's a neat trick that the NRA often pulls, but it's a straw man. No one is suggesting a complete ban.
16
I believe it's true that a majority support 100% background checks, training, and licenses. As well as a ban on assault weapons. But that gets lost in tribal fault lines. From that perspective the bigger problem is building the bridges over the tribal fault lines - a prerequisite of which is the will to do so.
And even then there are other hurdles to overcome. Neighborhoods just a few miles apart might have a difference in robbery rates of 100 times. Generally less wealthy and more working class people choose those areas partly because they are affordable. Many of those people feel they need guns for self defense. And they have 100 times more reason to feel so. It starts to get complicated doesn't it?
Some pragmatism and an ability to listen to and care about others even if they disagree is required.
@Craig H. Unfortunately 100% background checks is code words for outlawing private gun sales which is somthing that would not garner majority support. Federally Licenced Firearms Dealers (FFL’s) are the only ones authorized to used the FBI NICS background check system. You can’t start building the bridges until you start clearly stating what you want. When somebody says
“ I want to outlaw the private sale of firearms. Here’s what that means” then the conversation can start. It used to be called “close the gun show loophole”. Now it’s called “universal background check”.
@CommonSense, universal background checks would not outlaw private gun sales. We have universal background checks in California. If you want to do a private sale here, the buyer and seller go to a federally licensed dealer to access the background check system. If you're at a gun show, it can be as simple as crossing the aisle.
You're misunderstanding the law.
3
@Craig H. You're wrong. There already are 100% background checks just fyi. Dont mention gun shows because they have background checks too. Do research yourself. As for banning "assault weapons" give me a description of what an assault weapon is then we can talk about your proposals. But for the sake of discussion I assume you mean the AR15 which is the most popular rifle in the United states. So no the majority would not support a ban on them. But education is the first step. Yours. Education on gun stats, gun violence, deaths, and self defense usage. Not just the talking point people throw out.
The laws here have been changed quickly because 1. We don’t have an NRA (or equivalent) 2. We don’t have a Republican Party (politics in NZ largely operates in the centre) and 3. We certainly don’t have a leader like Donald Trump.
179
He’s not a leader- he’s a mistake. Hopefully we recover and correct course. Thinking of my good Kiwi friends at this time.
5
Too right - let’s keep it that way!
4
@Bryce
And it certainly doesn't have the equivalent of our Constitution and Bill or Rights
The focus initially should be on preventing repeat of Las Vegas type massacre where shooter could legally acquire an arsenal of high power assault weapons and killed so many and injured hundreds in a short time by just changing guns - effectively being faster than swapping magazines.
If not outright ban, we at least need to collect information of purchases to detect people who are stockpiling a large number of firearms.
6
Sometimes you need to see things through another lens before the reality really comes home to you. We've been living it every single day for so long. I mean really once we let those little tiny kids get mowed down at Sandy Hook without doing one single thing it was really all over for us. We just keep plodding along. Impotent while our neighbors die. How can it be a Democracy if a majority of Americans know something is wrong but feel helpless to stop it?
But right here in our face is a government in New Zealand reacting as a government should. To safeguard it's citizens whatever the threat might be.
I'm the kind of sap who sometimes cried during the National Anthem because I believed in us if not for who we exactly were but what we wanted to be. Now I'll cry because that dream is no longer a reality. It really hasn't been for quite a while. When you lose something incrementally you just adjust mentally until it's gone. This is what has happened to America.
25
Muzzle loaders were the primary weapon when the 2nd Amendment was affirmed.
To this day, I would have no problem, when hunting, if I were limited to a single shot weapon; double barrel or over/under weapon or a bolt action firearm.
12
@Dave
......and the Second Amendment cares not about hunting, but rather our Constitutional RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms, the right of the PEOPLE, shall not be infringed. Consider a Navy Seal, Ranger, or Delta Team member with a muzzle loading musket......
This is us, this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and our Constitution which protects all People in the USA.
Our problem in the USA is that parents, teachers, and for many, there is no authority. While in the past, children were reared in a home with authority, learning right from wrong, the "Golden Rule", participating in positive participative community organizations as the Boy Scouts which taught not only right and wrong, but also being a positive example of leadership for others and community service.
Today, video games are reality, parents and teachers have no authority to control or teach youth, and even positive information about firearms safety is prohibited, all the while we ignore the problem and look to strip constitutional rights of the individual in favor of a false narrative of safety for all.
1
You conveniently left out “a well regulated militia...”
You also left out that the second amendment was there because the federal government didn’t have a standing army. I think we do have a pretty well funded and trained armed forces now. The second amendment is effectively obsolete. Now, I don’t think we should ban all guns but we can regulate which guns are safe for our society and which are not. The SCOTUS has already ruled on that.
11
@Rick, I promise that parents and teachers have the authority to teach and guide youth. Of course we have problems as a society, but they're no worse than we had in the fifties. The problem is that we have more guns, and more lethal guns. Like a previous poster, you're doing two things: 1) assuming that the 2nd amendment is absolute and that Heller didn't allow for any gun safety laws and 2) conflating the banning of assault weapons with a complete ban on guns. Nobody is talking about banning all guns.
3
Needless lives lost to the 'right' to carry a weapon of unimaginable horror, when welded by those who hate crosses all boarders, jurisdictions and countries - irrespective of the population size.
To change takes will and leadership - again key elements of humanity that are unaffected by population size. I stand firmly behind my elected (NZ) members of government who are making a stand and enacting a change that will long lasting benefits beyond my generation and into the next - and beyond.
They are us.
25
@David (NZ) Hitler did the same thing. He then killed millions afterwards.
In the USA we have what's called the 2nd Amendment. Which can't be changed.
New Zealanders do not have a Bill or Rights protecting individual citizens from government powers such as our 2nd Amendment right of individuals to defend their lives and their property. A slick tactic to oppose the Amendment as a “gun safety” rather than a “gun control” reform fails to recognize that “gun safety” begins only when one owns a gun to keep safe.
Gun restrictions like New Zealand’s do not recognize the limits of goverment protection at any given time. Armed worshippers at the site of the mosque attacks, acting as trained and armed police, would have prevented mass casualties. Jewish Synagogues in response to threats here have begun hiring private armed security to protect worshippers, as is their Consitutional right. Law enforcers can only respond after the fact of a threat or injury, just as our fire departments responds only to fire alarms after a fire emergency.
Vast differences in location of crime rates present different criminal threat levels to individuals. A sole proprietor of a drug store next to a police station may not need a gun on the premises to deter a robbery, but one in a rural community would be wise to have one on site. Owning a firearm — a protected right, not a privilege — has been decided by our Supreme Court’s Heller decision. Our Constitution does not give our government the power to override it. Reformers here of our Amendments must follow the political process for amending them.
3
@Bayou Houma wrote:
"Owning a firearm — a protected right, not a privilege — has been decided by our Supreme Court’s Heller decision."
In that same decision, Justice Scalia wrote:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
He wrote more about the limitations on the Second. It's not unrestricted.
We must have a better balance between the inalienable right to life and the limited right to own and use firearms.
14
@Bob
The restrictions referred to in Heller were already in place and were mentioned to clarify that the ruling would not affect them.
1
@Bob
"He wrote more about the limitations on the Second. It's not unrestricted. "
And he provided absolutely no constitutionally-based analysis to support that conclusion.
We used to say during the Vietnam War that the Vietnamese being "Asian" and living in a place with many people , "had less regard for human life". Actually that's true in the U.S. While the second amendment doesn't necessitate mass shootings if we were concerned enough about needless deaths we would long have amended it if necessary. This is a country with a large GDP and GDP/Per Capita, and a large country. Otherwise, he U.S. is not an advanced country and it has proven time and time again that it has only marginal concern for the average citizen. For a country which used to call itself "the arsenal of democracy", the impotence of the U.S. in the face of easily preventable deaths brands us as "the slaughterhouse of democracy". As NZ has done, this much is easily solvable. Let us hope that some day we will rise to New Zealand's respect for human life. I will not hold my breath.
11
New Zealand can act quickly and decisively in part because it is a country of just under 5 million people. It's a country with less people than any of our major cities.
1
@Gregory
Population size had nothing to do with the decision by the NZ government. Leaders from across the floor agree that things need to change and there are no bodies lobbying for gun freedom here that they are beholden to either politically or financially.
7
The politicians are also not paid by the gun lobby. That sure helps.
1
@Gregory
What does population have to do with the price of fish???
Like the US, NZ has one head of state one, one legislative body (parliament) and one government. Much the same as the US.
It’s not so much the leadership but that the real political will - by which I include the citizenry - for gun control does not really exist in this country as a majority.
Instead, the reaction to gun violence is fear, and to acquire more guns.
However, there is hope with our youth, already victims of gun violence, and who will surely face the consequences of climate change, another emergency with limited action in the US - when their power grows in age and number, then perhaps things will finally change, if it’s not too late.
5
@ml
Wrong! The vast majority of people in this country want effective gun control. The only reason we don't have it, is because our government isn't being run "for the people", it's being run for the profit of self-serving crooks with single digit IQ's.
It's a pity that in my town, the police can't be relied upon to come quickly in an emergency; I wish we didn't need guns to feel safe.
2
@Hector
The police have no constitutional obligation to keep you safe.
That's why people get concealed carry permits.
See:
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
The overnight change in gun laws in New Zealand proves once again the enlightenment of our Constitution. It prevents dictatorial changes to basic freedoms during difficult situations when emotions run high.
6
@Alan Klein
Quick note - Unlike the USA, gun ownership in NZ is a privilege, not a right. To us, this change to gun laws is not restricting our basic freedoms, because surely the greatest freedom is to be alive.
31
@Alan Klein
Can a US citizen mount a .50 calibre machine gun on top of his SUV to make a "technical"?
Both the US and the impending NZ laws impose limits on gun ownership. It is not basic freedom versus tyranny but choosing where to draw a line.
6
The NZ constitution is perfectly enlightened. It provides for free and fair elections and those elections are overseen by an independent electoral commission with a remit to prevent gerrymandering and voter suppression. If New Zealanders don’t like the decision being made they can vote the government out at the next election. As most know, Australia changed its gun laws twenty years ago and those laws remain widely supported. Indeed the one party wanting to change them does poorly at the polls.
14
Gun regulations similar to what the other affluent countries have would result in 100,000 less Americans being shot and 28,000 less deaths each year than we have now. We don't have good regulations because our voters and government are controlled by big money. This is just one of the many ways that corruption has taken over and is destroying American life.
21
Well said. Corporations rule. The people are pawns.
@Garraty Incorrect. Name 1 gun law on the books now that has prevented a death. Just 1.
@Garraty that's being dishonest with gun stats. 30k people did by firearms annually 20k are by suicide. So magically those people will die by some other means. As for the violent crime deaths you are right they wont kill themselves with guns just other means like knives ask the UK. So yea saying there will be 28k less lives lost is an outright lie and manipulation of the actual facts. Nice try though
Bravo for NZ acting quickly and decisively to ban military style weapons that no citizen should have. We need bold leaders on both sides of the aisle in the US to help us to draft similar legislation. However, before we start bashing the US for inaction we need to understand some very significant differences here and avoid simplistic comparisons & unfair conclusions.
1. We have the 2nd Amendment (which others have noted). And, unfortunately the SCOTUS, in a wrong but still binding decision, misinterpreted the “militia” part and “right to bear arms” by separating them not reading them together.
2. NZ has a parliamentary government so that the PM is also head of the legislature. There is no separation of powers so no need to reach consensus w/Prez, Congress/SC.
3. The US is a vast and diverse nation that was settled in many parts by those who needed guns for food and safety. Though neither are true now, there is still a huge gun culture and heritage in the US, right, wrong or indifferent.
4. NZ is a country of only 5M of whom 74% share a common, European background and also very similar views, religions, etc. The US has 350M people representing hundreds of countries, dozens of religions and a multitude of different backgrounds and views.
Thus, a true comparison with NZ is foolish and intellectually dishonest. However, that said, it doesn’t mean we can’t do anything and shouldn’t try. But we ought to know what we are really dealing with before we get on our high horses.
10
@D Voice Of Reason, while I agree with most of your points, you make a couple of claims that I disagree with.
What does a nation's size and diversity have to do with whether or not we can enact gun safety laws? Are you suggesting that minority populations are more attached to gun culture than white citizens? Or that size and diversity hamstring democracy?
Australia and Canada both have gun heritages similar to the United States, but only we have a problem with gun deaths. In my opinion that problem has a great deal to do with the gun lobby (NRA) and the money being made from unregulated gun sales.
4
@D Voice Of Reason
1. Amendments can be amended if there is the political will. The second amendment is not an immutable law of nature.
2. You do not even have a basic understanding of how a parliamentary democracy works. The prime minister has to convince her cabinet, then appear in parliament and argue her case and win a majority on a bill. Look at Theresa May's plight if you think the parliamentary system doesn't require engineering a complicated political settlement. The U.S president has far more "dictatorial" powers through executive order.
3a. I assume you know about guns. Then you know that hunting requires no more than bolt action rifles, and certainly not high capacity magazines. Semi automatic small calibre( .223) AR 15s are not even legal for hunting in most states.
3b. One needs guns for self defense only if the criminals have access to a lot of guns. No sane German or Brit would say they need a gun for self defense because civilized people do not wear guns as if they were fashion accessories.
4. If you were ignorant in the earlier points; here you are sliding into sinister territory. Indeed the U.S is a very diverse country, but almost the entire NRA membership, the AR15 toting crowd, and dare I say all the mass murderers have the same race and sex. So it is really not a diversity issue.
We are a violent evil country both at home and abroad. It's time for our total collapse and so thank heaven for Trump. He's making it happen. Four more years and the world will be free of our nefarious influence.
Britain is joining us. Nice not to be alone.
Compulsory Gun Insurance will slow down gun violence. Make gun owners pay insurance $100 per month for each gun they own and gun ownership will slow down. Less guns, less gun violence. Compulsory Gun insurance creates a new industry and provides victims of gun violence a file suit. Once insurance companies get involved gun laws will pass through Congress with ease.
America has a violence problem and gun are used to mediate it. Control guns and will control violence.
Gun owners are the problem!
21
@concord63
That's an interesting idea. I'm surprised we haven't heard more of it. You would think the massive Insurance lobby would be all over that one.
3
Yes. It's a problem. The only bright side is that most of the gun deaths are self inflicted. We can do better.
@concord63
Unconstitutional.
1
Enough is enough already. Time to outlaw these weapons of mass destruction. All semi-auto and automatic long guns should be banned and current owners should be well compensated for their “loss”. Only bolt and lever action long guns should be allowed and magazines restricted to ten rounds. These weapons are sufficient for hunting and target shooting. Pistol magazines should also be restricted to ten rounds. Can we all be reasonable for once.
20
@Indy1 Supreme Court jurisprudence does not support the banning of classes of firearms under the historical analysis of US gun law regimes.
2
@Gary, if that were the case, then many states would be sued for the laws on their books. Any right to own a gun isn't absolute.
@Indy1
So how would these rules have stopped the Navy Yard shooter or the Va Tech shooter?
Hunters safely use long rifles and shotguns. Shotguns are great for home defense. No citizen needs a military style assault weapon.
Enacting common sense gun controls will improve public safety while not compromising the 2nd Amendment. These gun controls include:
1) Universal background checks for all guns sales (including private shows and second hand exchanges),
2) Mandatory (minimum 7 day) waiting period,
3) Minimum 21 years old to purchase all firearms (like alcohol and tobacco),
4) Ban sales of semi-automatic military style weapons,
5) Ban gun accessories that mimic automatic weapons (e.g. - hi-capacity magazines, bump sticks).
The 2nd Amendment has been regulated for improved public safety since the 1930's when WWI trench-clearing machine guns were banned because organized crime was using them for armed violence and murder. No citizen needs an AR-15 or similar assault rifle that designed for killing humans on the battlefield, not hunting or brandishing on Main Street USA.
36
@Question Everything
So, a Remington 740 is ok? What is the functional difference?
Is it less lethal? Was it designed to grow flowers?
Are folks killed with knives, revolvers, shotguns, etc. less dead?
3
@C Wolf
Using you're argument, everyone should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. After all, nothing should be banned just because it's extremely lethal right?
@C Wolf, can you name a mass shooter who used a Remington 740?
The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters for a reason.
Last week, the Times published a summary of gun regulations in serveral countries around the globe. Several policies were common among many: (1) a significantly longer waiting period before approval; (2) membership in a shooting club; (3) storage in a secure location outside the owner’s home; (4) a serious mental and physical evaluation by a doctor; (5) rigorous training before the permit is approved. None of these measure should run afoul of the Second Amendment. Why should we not be talking about these measures as steps toward reasonable gun safety?
29
@Ockham9 Requiring a gun owner to store his firearms away from home would, in fact, run afoul of the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in "Heller", which held that citizens cannot be prevented from keeping loaded firearms in their homes.
In a country with 390 million firearms, gun laws are difficult to enforce. Further, given the number of states with few restrictions--such as Oklahoma, where soon one will no longer need a license to carry a concealed weapon (with 15 or 16 other states having already enacted the same law, sometimes referred to as "Constitutional carry"), it is difficult to imagine that a federal law rejected by gun-rights states would be capable of being effectively enforced by federal agents alone against citizens not also engaged in some other type of serious criminal activity such as drug trafficking. We already have county sheriffs openly declining to enforce state gun laws in Illinois, Colorado, Washington and New Mexico, similar to states which do not allow their law enforcement to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Several states have enacted legislation prohibiting state law enforcement from enforcing specific types of federal gun laws if ever enacted.
The U.S. is not Australia or New Zealand, which have a homogeneous society, small populations, and nowhere near the number of guns as the U.S. The only thing that will curb gun violence is a huge change of heart.
3
@Duane Coyle, I think your fatalism is unnecessary. Also, I've never understood the reasoning behind the claim that large, diverse populations can't enact gun safety laws. Wouldn't the same reasoning hold true for car safety regulations?
You argue that local sheriffs would refuse to enforce federal laws. I think the victims of gun violence in their jurisdictions would have a good case for suing the city or county. A few expensive lawsuits might change some minds.
1
@SandraH. My reaction too. The UK has a large (for its surface area) diverse population, but realively low gun ownership (0.4 per 100 people). Just because people ignore laws doesn’t mean that they should not be enacted. So-called constitutional carry is an absurd and radical idea, opposed by responsible police chiefs across the country. And Heller was a reckless and unwise decision, part of a growing trend by the Court.
3
Better late than never to be sure, but I was frankly shocked to learn that New Zealand had ridiculously dangerous gun laws which resulted in a heinous atrocity on a scale that I thought only America was unlucky enough to endure. I know that New Zealand and Australia, to name two relatively new countries, were founded by settlers that were hearty stock who embraced a sort of cowboy-type attitude towards life but I never imagined that they would NOW be looking to ban weapons that they never should have allowed into their society in the first place. So yes I most surely admire that they're moving fast to correct the damage that was done and wish we could do the same but I repeat that I was horrified that another country allowed the proliferation of weapons of war, resulting in mass slaughter, when I expected that they would have known better.
2
@ManhattanWilliam I think "ridiculously dangerous gun laws" is putting it too strongly. NZ you apply for a license. It takes time. A gun vetter comes to your house, sights the gun, examines where the gun will be kept (must be secure), and interviews your spouse if you have one, and kids. That's pretty tough, but it doesn't catch the person who is not on the radar or who doesn't set off any alarms.
There will doubtless be a lot of second guessing how this shooter got the license. He must have seemed credible. The great thing about the new laws is that even for the credible person who slips past the radar, they won't be able to modify - buy bigger magazines or the likes of bumpstocks. Sure maybe some will be smuggled in, but it all just became a lot lot harder.
11
@Darren
The problem is that for many of the 'disaffected,' their attack is their first act.
Still, the Secret Service recommends at least schools do a Threat Analysis and try to identify disaffected kids early and help them.
Otherwise, we need more comprehensive programs to ensure community safety. Ban the guns you don't like, and they simply get other guns or different weapons.
@Darren. Incorrect!
NZ gun laws concentrated on licensing an individual, not the type or number of weapons one could own. There is no gun register at all and a lot of military assault style weapons are available. So, if a person has not been assessed as a danger to community, he or she can go crazy with their gun purchases.
It is more prudent to ban certain types or weapons and have a weapons register, than rely solely on the character of the individual. People can change, get radicalised, develop a mental issue. Preventing automatic weapons and large capacity magazines from being available for sale is a sensible measure. I applaud the NZ government for the intended new laws.
3
I am amazed that New Zealand got this done. Let's follow her lead! Right now, they are smarter than we are.
19
@George
Right now? How about on most things for an extremely long time. New Zealand has been smarter than the US for decades.
First country to give women the right to vote
No nuclear
80% Renewable energy
Coalition MMP government
3% of the budget for defense, not 33%
25
Every country has people with "issues" that make them try to take it out on citizens around them. Even here in Japan where I live there have been mass killings, involving vehicles and knives. The issue in the US is that we have undertaken an experiment that it is OK for ordinary civilians to possess high-capacity, semi-automatic weapons. This experiment is not going well. Simple regulations on these specific weapons (and their ammunition) would go a long way to reducing the casualty figures for rampage shootings.
16
In addition to the 30,000+ annual gun deaths in this country, there are likely 100,000 annually wounded. That is a lot of early graves and a lot of emergency rooms slick with blood; a lot of funerals and a lot of maimed people unexpectedly entering a recovery and rehabilitation program to try to lead a normal life. In addition, that is a tremendous loss of productivity for our country.
All semiautomatic firearms should be banned in this country, as they were in Australia. Most Americans support that kind of measure, yet our state and federal legislators make no effort. None whatsoever.
24
The NRA calls the shots LOL.
Here's another idea: Repeal the second amendment and treat gun ownership as a privilege, not a right. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but hey, as has been said before, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. And no, I could not care less about the "gun rights" of gun owners. Not when we continue to have mass shootings without end.
"You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
91
@jpritchard
Write your state and federal legislators, they both have the power to propose the appeal of an Amendment to the US Constitution. I have written to mine several times asking that they propose the repeal of the Second Amendment. Sadly, all of my legislators are cowards who cling to their offices.
6
We invaded Iraq ostensibly on the basis to remove weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Yet we protect American citizens' rights to own weapons of mass destruction. New Zealand's decision to immediately ban assault weapons is admirable. By the way, they also provide healthcare for all citizens.
55
Our political system is stuck. It is dysfunctional. Sane, reasonable gun control laws are considered beyond the pale.
13
They have already announced a ban on semi-automatics 5 days after the shooting.
This is what a civilized country does. No caving to an all powerful gun lobby.
Like many, I continue to be sickened by the GOP's refusal to do anything that sets reasonable limits on who can buy a gun, what guns they can buy,and where they can buy them.
If this isn't the definition of insanity and cynicism, I don't know what is.
198
I agree 100%, ChristineMcM!
Let's remember that New Zealand and Australia are relatively new countries so they haven't had time to be corrupted as the United States have.
However, Robber Barons are busy buying up as much property as possible in New Zealand - so they can get control - and Australia can brag about Google founders and Murdoch being "their boys".
Hopefully the Good People of New Zealand and Australia will keep their eyes wide open and not allow the Koch Brothers and their Robber Baron brethren to buy their governments. That is how they destroy the lives of 99.9% of us.
5
@ChristineMcM
I'm not only sickened by the GOP refusing to act, but also the people who vote for them and the people who do not vote at all. Imagine that you learn that a teacher committed severe abuse against your child at school, then to see that that majority of the people (principal, other teachers and administrators, and other parents) either side with the abuser or say nothing at all. That is the state of our country right now.
We have the GOP leaders who do nothing, we have the GOP voters who keep them in office, AND we have a very large number of people who don't vote at all. More than bad intentions, the true evil is the majority of people who DO NOTHING.
And then add to this voter suppression, gerrymandering, corporate lobbying, etc. The entire system needs an overhaul if we are to achieve progress.
2
New Zealand can now serve as a “control” in the great gun experiment. In the USA, the NRA enforces a national no-gun-free zone. In New Zealand, the assumption is that a bad guy without assault weapons means more good guys staying alive, with or without weapons. Let’s see where the next mass shooting happens. I hope it happens in neither place. But the likelihood is that it will happen again in America, and not in New Zealand.
13
We're due for one any day now. It's been a while.
Efficiency is the enemy of gun control (and that is what you want, not just safety).
If you had a rigorous unfriendly bureaucracy vetting gun-license applications, demanding forms from doctors, local law enforcement etc. etc. etc., the number of weapons held would decrease dramatically.
Sometimes bureaucracies are your friends.
14
@Joshua Schwartz People like you are the reason why we can't pass laws that require licensing. You just want licensing for the wrong reason: to disarm people through government overreach.
@Justin People like me think that the only people who should have weapons are military, police and other trained professionals whose job it is to protect. Most others are not trained sufficiently and pose a hazard to themselves, their families and others, with a weapon.
1
I think it's time to turn gun control over to the private sector.
Don't stop reading.
While there is a federal mandate for background checks, there is a compliance problem. Those who suggest we adopt European style gun legislation forget about State's rights. European nations are monolithic vis a vis their political divisions; individual states are still subject to national laws, so a single policy can be enacted nationwide. Not so here. In the US, a person on probation for domestic violence in Ohio, can buy a gun in Mississippi, and the likelihood of those court records turning up in a background check are slim.
But wait.
Companies like Amazon or Google are able to know what color your underwear is, or send an ad to your phone for the store you're passing. It seems that these geniuses could fashion a database that holds complete, up to the second, info on court records, arrest history, mental health evaluations, maybe even threatening emails or tweets. A data base like this could be used to do a thorough background check in minutes – just like getting a credit card.
And it could be easily monetized: a small fee for processing or a surcharge on the price of the gun.
Before you yell about privacy – that information is already out there, and it's the kind of information that needs to be available to a background check.
If Jeff Bezos can make a few more bucks off gun control, who would begrudge it? The private sector is more efficient than government, they keep telling us.
5
@michaeltide, aren't you proposing that we privatize the NCIC background check system? I'd prefer to keep it with the FBI. There are some reporting problems, but these would exist with a private system.
@michaeltide
I want the corporate sector less involved in government than they already are; not more.
Don't forget the gun manufacturers are corporate private sector monsters. We are not gonna let the fox police the hen house.
States rights has been an excuse for moral depravity and downright stupidity for far to long. Time to wake up and join the civilized world.
NRA being powered by older white men. Younger American buying fewer fire arms, cuts into manufactures profits.
Natural progress of life, NRA diehards pass of from this life. Society changes along the way, US Constitution belong to people of US of A, not to lobby groups, people will reflect on provisions. Originalism reading set up country for civil war in long run.
US Constitution is read using the live tree analogy, great deal of progress will be made.
2
During several visits to Australia I have discussed this issue with my friends there. Two aspects are of interest. One is that a number of well-traveled Australians have told me that they either have not or will not visit America because of our level of gun violence. I have never seen an analysis of the impact of this issue on our tourism industry, but I suspect that it is significant. The other striking thing is their disbelief that after all these deaths and injuries and all this time we cannot or will not come up with an effective response.
They think that we are crazy. They are correct.
418
@Richard Williams MD
I'm Australian and agree 100%.
1.I'd love to travel to the US but this is a definite put off.
2. I can't believe something still hasn't been done, it's frustrating to watch these continuous reports of shootings but only hear in response about this "right to bear arms". It was vastly different times when that was written, I would think the potential to save 13,000 lives a year (or even a fraction of that) is worth rethinking how applicable this old right is to people living in the US today. I truly hope for the sake of our friends in America that something changes sooner rather than later.
47
@Craig It also says "a well organized militia" and I see no evidence of anyone doing anything to organize gun users in the US at all. Just have a look at "gun fails" on youtube and there's all the evidence you need to see that many people should not own any weapons at all.
25
@Richard Williams MD
Your comment is timely as I was about to comment that whenever I think of traveling southward to holiday from my home in The Great White North, I’m brought up short. Paranoia on my part? Undoubtedly. But still. I’m not “packing.” I don’t “pack.” No one I know here does. We don’t, because the law, for the most part, doesn’t allow it. But the U.S.? Concealed carrying of weapons may be legal in...which state did I just cross into and what are the gun laws here...?
My fear of going South seems to always include that somewhere - usually a gas station in my imagining - I look at some wrong guy or his vehicle in the “wrong” way and “Bang!” It’s so incredibly easy. I used to think a motto for the U.S. was “Don’t just stand there, sue someone.” Now it’s “Don’t just stand there, shoot someone.”
19
This article uses ginned up statistics. If one were really interested in changing public opinion on the issue one first has to be honest. Stop using suicides to more than double the numbers. The vast preponderance of actual firearm homicides have been on a 30 year decline, just like Australia, just like Connecticut. Mass shootings are extremely rare, despite the media. More typical is a young man of color in a zip code with extreme poverty. We need to stop hiding from the sad fact that we've abandoned whole segments of our society to an impoverished bare existence without a future.
11
@somsai
I agree that a fundamental problem that must be addressed, which is ultimately more important than gun laws, is inequality and poverty. But that smacks a little bit of whataboutism. Yes, inequality is a huge problem in this country, but America's obsession with guns is twisted, unnecessary and socially and psychologically damaging on an enormous scale.
28
@somsai
We all want safer communities.
But what about the 36,000+ traffic deaths? The 47,000 poisoning deaths? Or the 40,689 suicides?
Or the 480,000 who die from smoking each year?
Or the 30,000 who could be saved with first aid in the 147,000 trauma deaths?
Let's save all preventable deaths.
1
@somsai
You don't get that the burden of suicide due to instant gun access is massive? Have you ever talked to the family member of someone who shot themselves in what after exhaustive investigation appears to be a moment of desperation? A moment that might have passed if a gun had not so readily available. Please do some in-depth research before you discount accidents and suicides and shrink the gun problem down to mass shooters. The gun violence problem in the US is way bigger than that.
7
Speaking of numbers: since 9/11, shooting deaths in the United States have amounted to the equivalent of around 170 more 9/11s.
And speaking of following the same regulatory model as automobiles, you left out an important component: mandatory insurance. You can bet that once the (private enterprise) insurance companies get on the job, they'll support their actuaries with the kind of research that lawmakers banned from government funding. And they'll calculate their premiums accordingly, which will be all to the good. We're always hearing about "responsible" gun owners. Surely they wouldn't possibly object to paying insurance based on how many weapons they own, and on the fire-power of each of those weapons.....would they?
22:40 EDT, 3/20
31
@mancuroc The problem with mandatory firearms insurance is that insurance does not cover intentional acts, only negligence. Rendering it useless.
3
@David
So, are you saying that if one person intentionally injures another with a car, the victim is not covered by the perpetrator's insurance?
2
@mancuroc David is correct. A person's homeowners or renters insurance covers the damage caused to a third person by the negligent use of a firearm, but not intentionally injuring another person using the firearm. In fact, it is against public policy to insure damage from an act intended to cause harm. This is also true with one's car insurance. I am not covered by my car insurance if I intentionally hit someone with my car--only unintended accidents are covered.
So, legally speaking, everyone who owns a home and has a homeowners insurance policy, or rents an apartment and buys renters insurance, is already covered by liability insurance for the negligent use of a firearm. But in most states guns are not registered (as they are in New York), so it is impossible to know who owns a gun and who doesn't. And, relative to the often-heard auto- registration argument, even though cars are registered, an amazing number of owners of automobiles don't carry liability insurance beyond getting their tag. Because this is such a problem, we are allowed to buy what is called "uninsured-motorist" insurance from our own auto insurer to protect ourselves from people who drive around without auto liability insurance.
You can pass laws, but that doesn't mean people are going to obey them or they can be effectively enforced.
2
Shortly after the Parkland school mass shooting, Trump met with the prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull declined to offer Trump any advice on gun control despite Australia's success in reducing gun violence. Australia has some of the world's toughest gun-control laws, enacted after a gruesome mass shooting in Tasmania in 1996. There have been no subsequent mass shootings in Australia since then. Australia has banned all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. The country tightly controls gun licensing and gun ownership.
Trump has suggested arming teachers as a way to reduce gun violence in schools. This is a really terrible idea. If a situation occurs on a campus, people without sufficient tactical training will have guns drawn. The police will not know what to do when they arrive.
If Americans do not want guidance from countries that have been successful with gun control, then why not look within? Consider the state of Hawaii. Gun ownership is strictly regulated. It is very difficult to obtain a concealed-carry permit. Hawaii did have a mass shooting in 1999, but generally gun violence is rare. Why not adopt the Hawaii model?
And assault weapons cloud the issue. Most gun violence is due to ordinary handguns. We need to get them off the streets.
Everyone has a mobile phone and can call the police. "Good guys with guns" rarely, if ever, solve problems. Evolution away from mass gun ownership is the only sensible path.
41
@Blue Moon Hawaii has one distinct advantage - it is a group of islands. You can't get around their laws simply by driving into the next state and you certainly cannot bring your guns on a plane when you fly to Hawaii. That makes it much easier to have effective control.
2
@Michael O'Farrell
"Hawaii ... is a group of islands."
True, but Hawaiians have proactively enacted rational legislation for gun control that has effectively promoted public safety. More U.S. states should follow Hawaii's lead.
The U.S. passed legislation for a federal ban on assault weapons that was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994. It expired in 2004 in accordance with its sunset provision and was not renewed.
Assault weapons terrify the public because they have been used in mass shootings. They should be permanently banned. They have no legitimate use in hunting or for self-defense. The Second Amendment was not written with assault weapons in mind. It deals with individual possession of firearms for those in militias, the equivalent of the National Guard at the time ("a well-regulated militia"). The Constitution was not written with the intent that ordinary citizens would possess weapons to be used to overthrow the government. Who would write such a Constitution? And the U.S. military possesses far more powerful and sophisticated weaponry. It is completely irresponsible and dangerous for the NRA to promote individual ownership of assault weapons.
Assault weapons also deflect attention from the firearms that wound and kill the most people: ordinary handguns.
Guns in the U.S. act largely as status symbols, like SUVs and McMansions. Most people do not need any of these things.
We need to strictly regulate gun ownership. That is the only sane path.
2
@Tom Oster
Are you in the wilderness a lot and may need to shoot your horse, or a snake, or a bear? Do you hunt for food? Do you live in a sketchy neighborhood? Are you being stalked by an ex? Are you making bank deposits at 3 am? OK, you may need a gun.
Are you worried about an intruder in your home? In an average neighborhood, probably not a problem. Will your kid find the gun and accidentally blow their friend's face off? Will you accidentally shoot your teenager making a surprise visit from college at 2 am? Maybe. You probably don't need a gun.
Do you keep a gun in your car because someone might incite road rage? You shouldn't have a gun. Do you want a gun mainly as a toy? You don't need a gun.
Some people need a gun. Most people do *not* need a gun. We have too many guns out there ... way too many. They should be strictly regulated. And get rid of the assault weapons, completely and permanently.
2
From a non-U.S. citizen; all I can tell you is it almost defies sanity how much the N.R.A. and their ilk controls this whole gun debate in your country. The whole Second Amendment argument is a direct result of your Revolution in asserting the whole self-determination in your constitution. Fine. But it was meant to assure no "foreign or domestic power" would either threaten or take away your right of self-determination. Fine. It was never meant as a means of attacking fellow citizens as a means of silencing them or questioning their patriotism. That to me is exactly what the N.R.A. and their apologists are doing these days. The "right" to bear arms is now the "demand" to bear arms. To the point where many have a virtual arsenal in their homes. As if they were already in a war. Paranoid is the only word one can use to describe such thinking. Right wing militias talking openly of declaring civil war on anyone who does not agree or support them. This is simple madness. Sadly; no matter how many mass murders result from this; there only seems to be more and more extreme rhetoric coming from this camp. Can there be a sane debate with paranoid extremists. The answer sadly seems to be; Absolutely Not.
120
@Greg Hodges we are a very powerful country that does what it wants. Unfortunately we are a country that is very ill in its thinking and has done a lot of damage to itself and others over the years.
3
@Greg Hodges
Everything you stated is sadly true for us here in our great nation. What’s amazing to me is that the vast majority of us don’t own a gun. None. No guns. It’s the few who demand to bear arms that are getting to decide our gun laws. My consternation is why? Why do those small, small minority Americans get to make life for the rest of us non-gun owners miserable?
5
So proud of NZ for passing tough laws within 1 week of the shootings. It can be done!
223
@Darren
The United States had an assault weapon ban from 1994-2004 but the Republican party let it expire in 2004.
Apparently we forgot about this as we still vote for Republicans whom I hold responsible for every assault weapon attack since 2004.
11
@Darren Just not in the United States.
1
I love it when folks compare countries like New Zealand to the United States and wonder why we can’t be like them. New Zealand has 4.8 million people. That’s a suburb of some US cities, not a country. The US has 327 million people and more than 150 million guns in private hands, by some estimates. What works for New Zealand is not going to work in a country whose history is intertwined with firearms.
2
@Carl I don't like to admit this, but I agree with you. The Second is at least partially connected to slavery - gun ownership pleased slavers - easier to pursue runaways. Now that we're bound and gagged by the ill-conceived, badly written Second I don't see any big gun reform happening. Not to mention the NRA's power over our legislators.
4
@Carl @J.Sutton
And that is really sad. The constitution is for the people, not the other way around. If the beacon of democracy in the world is so flawed, what hope do we have in other parts of the world. In fact, people should realize the ill- and evil-conceived pieces of their history and do away with those. But in the country, where Confederate statues are still loved by many and white-supremacists are called "good people" by the President, there isn't much hope.
10
@Carl Those schemes may work in relatively ethnically homogenous countries but the US is diverse nature of the population makes it a different animal, so to speak.
1
New Zealand is dealing with gun problem as a reaction to a shooting massacre in a place of worship. Too little too late. So far a lot of talk. Let us see what actually happens. When will we? Never because both parties refuse to act. No matter whether it is a president from the democratic party or Republican party nothing changes and the democrats with congressional majority have failed to make gun control a priority instead they are futzing around with petty issues. At least speaker Pelosi has the good sense to not waste time on impeachment.
3
@Girish Kotwal, the Democrats in the House just passed two gun safety measures--universal background checks and closing the Charleston loophole. You're making a false equivalence. Gun safety is a Democratic priority and has been for some time. The problem lies with the GOP.
1
@SandraH. How much of gun control legislation is going to be enforced and how much has real practical value has to be seen. Where there is a will there is a way. If gun owners can easily break laws that are not practically enforceable then what kind of equivalence is there. We should no by experience that the false equivalence is between legislation and enforcement and law abiding persons don't break laws. It is the criminals and maniacs who are a law unto themselves that break any and all laws.
1
Because New Zealand doesn’t have a 2nd Amendment in its Constitution guaranteeing its citizens a right to bear arms. You know the Constitution, that pesky little document that our rights are based on? And those first 10 Amendments called the Bill of Rights? Yes those. It is no accident that our forefathers included this Amendment. And it wasn’t because of the militia or because we were a frontier county. Not to say those things aren’t true. But the reason it’s the 2nd and not the 5th or 6th Amendment is because if it’s importance. Our government was founded out of the forge of fire by Revolution. Our founders always intended to allow an armed citizenry as a counter balance to the centralization of political power in this new country.
12
@Mike L Actually, our founders' intent expressed in the 2nd Amendment was to maintain an armed citizenry to come to the aid of our government when it was under attack and not as a "counter-balance" against it. As the New York militia did during the Revolutionary War in the Battle of Saratoga. This is why the 2nd Amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.
it is not referring to citizens rising up against our government.
133
@Mike L No. That's not a second amendment issue. I'm so tired of folks thinking that it means we can arm ourselves to the teeth without taking any responsibility for regulation, education, insurance, etc.
27
@DB and that was when we did ,however rise up against our government,the crown. New Zealand ,however has never been in that kind of a predicament .
1
"We" won't. There is no "we". Millions of Americans take pleasure in making sure that consensus on guns won't happen, no matter how huge the majority is in favor of sane regulation.
The question defies any answer. You build the collapse of your argument into your argument. A more realistic question is, "why don't the people who want sane, reasonable measures for gun regulation all join the NRA and take it over?"
2
@Next Conservatism Those opposing guns could create their own interest group in DC to create change. But they don't. Yes the NRA is over the top in its logic free defense of current guns laws and regulations. Please try to address the 30,000 annual suicides and other 10,000 guns deaths. Closing the gun show loophole may not do it. There is a middle ground. Experiment and see what happens. This is the classic public policy example of partisanship and polarization. Skip the rhetoric and dog whistles and compromise solutions are there in front of all. Try some of them out.
3
@Next Conservatism
There's no "taking over the NRA from the inside." The last time this was floated publicly, one of the board members said "If they want to join the NRA, let them join. We'll take their money." There are 76 board members, and only 25 of them can turn over each year. Only those members that have been in good standing for five years can vote. Then there is the "Nominating Committee" which vets board candidates. So even if you dropped $50M in dues to get 350,000 dissidents to vote for the board members of choice ... who are those board members? There's been some theories floated, but what would most likely happen would be failure after 3 years of trying and a pretty huge windfall for the NRA so they can keep doing what they doing with even more energy. So .. I don't think so.
1
@Patrick Dynes, please be more specific. I think universal background checks is a pretty sensible, moderate idea. What to your mind would a compromise solution look like?
Kristof is late to the game with the "gun safety" dodge.
Jonathan Alter first mention it about 4 years to Chris Matthews,saying that gun owners wouldn't catch on.
Underestimating people is a fatal flaw of the left.
There are more reason to own firearms than not.
Gun safety in the real meaning involves a learning curve that can be complex.
People like myself,who.have carried/used guns all their lives,take the time.
I had to carry guns by necessity for 30 years and have chosen to for 23 more.
The NRA actually provides excellent safety and proficiency training,completely apart from their political activity.
I joined 30 years ago because they have an interesting magazine.
The government can never seize the guns in circulation without a terrible,bloody confrontation.
Does any same person want that?
People who smugly talk about such a thing most likely have never been in a war or other deadly event.
Semiautomatic carbines from the WW 2 era were common with 30 round magazines for decades.
I bought one in 1964,when I was 18.
Took it home on the subway in a case and no one gave a second look.
Mass shootings were very rare until the late 60's/early 70's.
School shootings almost unheard of.
Aside from mass closure of secure mental facilities,I can't explain what changed.
Anyone who advocates "gun free zones" is misguided.
Just study Virginia Tech to see where all the fail points existed.
Life(and death) turn on a dime.
No rhyme or reason.
8
@joe, why is talking about gun safety a dodge? Aren't gun deaths a public health issue? Don't we talk about airline safety and automobile safety? Let's call the problem by its name instead of dodging the issue.
I think what happened (beginning in the 80s) was that assault weapons like the AR-15 became popular and the number of guns in circulation soared because of NRA scare tactics. Also, the NRA ceased to be a gun owner club and became the lobbying arm of the gun industry.
1
@joe
Literally every point you make is refuted by history. The fact that you are in such deep denial and are willing to continually enable the murder of innocents in order to keep your toys is terrifying.
We also have a violent media problem. Much of it needs to be restricted or banned. Most people realize that.
7
@cannoneer2, violent action movies are screened worldwide. If they were the cause, our problems with gun violence would be universal.
Let me break it to you. We won’t. We as a country are too stuck up as a people: laypersons, media and establishment. We excel in empty exceptionalism and boisterous and hysteria-based policy making.
As long as the print media and other media chase ratings, citizens United is not vanquished, people languish with poor healthcare, outrageously expensive colleges, widening income inequality, we won’t.
6
Why can't US leaders learn from experience? Obvious.
Compare the many countries with strict gun laws and better general citizen safety than we have, on HOW THEY FINANCE THEIR ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. Have weapons lobbyists been allowed to "call the shots" in their politics?
An international journalist of long standing like Kristof should not avoid these comparisons.
Here, legalized donations by gun makers and their lobbyists have shaped our gun politics, while for years the bodies of the dead and injured pile up.
Yet our 'free press', so proud of its protection from govt censorship, isn't free enough to get to the bottom of the crucial issue---big money as a norm in America. And legalized further by the Supreme Court in 2010 Citizens United.
I haven't seen a NYT columnist or a cable news pundit/host ever even mention our big money election system, or drawing this cause/effect chain of causation to most of our society's ills they lament in their commentary.
Tell us---what are the rules in other democracies on how elections are financed? Do they turn them over to wealthy corporate mega donors? Discuss how many countries ban the paid campaign advertising that floods US media and manipulates our public opinion.
Could Kristof-- concerned about justice and the well being of average citizens-- ever branch out to tackle how our democracy is undermined? How election financiers invest in our elections for good returns, while voters can't afford to compete, so lack influence?
25
The right for the majority of citizens to feel safe in their own nations and for government to ensure all citizens are safe and free from gun shootings takes precedent over any 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to own a gun, owning a gun is a privilege and not a right. It's a human basic right to feel safe in your own nation and it's the governments job to make laws to protect it's citizens. Semi automatic and automatic weapons are designed to kill humans. There must be some human rights law to get rid of all those automatic and semi automatic guns if the government is too immoral to do anything.
63
@CK
Exactly. Isn't safety the greatest freedom of all?
I'm a U.S. expat, and in my 20 years in Japan I have never seen a metal detector outside of an airport.
I board bullet-trains, go to concerts and stadiums and museums, without passing through a metal detector, without being wanded, without being frisked, without my bag being searched.
Is America really The Land of the Free? I feel oh so much freer in Japan.
1
@CK
Gosh, the Second Amendment only grants privileges, not rights?
Anything else in the Constitution that's only a privilege? Am I merely privileged to speak freely, to vote, or to have an abortion?
@CK Semi-automatic weapons and high capacity shotguns turn shootings into mass shootings.
1
Great article. If not now when America will wake up. If the deaths of 1.45 million amount to nothing, how many millions more need to die for taking at least some concrete steps in this regard ?
21
@Sivaram Pochiraju if we humans were a bit kinder to each other maybe our history would have been less bloody. But no so here we are.
America has a built-in argument against gun control, the Second Amendment. No logic can change that fact. Being able to point at your Constitution and say ‘this is my undeniable right, my right to bear arms’ has no argument, does it? There appears to be no way forward for the United States on the gun control issue unless your constitution is amended and good luck with that.
Other countries, such as New Zealand, look, then act on what guns, especially automatic weapons, can do to innocent people. It takes real courage to take politics out of gun ownership. We do not yet know the push-back in New Zealand will be, but my sense is that clear minds will prevail and change will come quickly there.
The United States is a very long way from any meaningful gun control and the NRA will see that it never will.
32
@Holly New Zealand has had three attempts to introduce gun legislation and each time strong lobbying frightened off the politicians. However, this time they a "carpe diem" moment and the push for change is irresistable. We in Australia, had our "moment" some years ago after the Port Arthur mass shooting. It was significant that it was a conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, who introduced the legislation - that alone flattened much of the opposition. You do need to be aware though that shooters' lobbies (funded in part by US arms manufacturers) have been pushing back and nibbling away at the edges of our gun control laws. It is to be hoped that the tragedy in New Zealand has put them back in their box.
6
@Holly: that "built-in" 2nd Amendment argument withers away and dies if one does not accept the logic which insists that the phrase "well-regulated militia" really means "pretty much anybody". The 2nd Amendment came with a qualification, and it's high time the qualification was applied.
The Second Amendment is not absolute (the Supreme Court has ruled as much time after time), and there has been sensible legislation passed previously, so why not now ?
Essentially because republicans (and some Democrats) have blockaded any attempt at regulation for a generation now.
I have never understood why such a tiny organization holds such sway over our entire body politic, when logic would dictate that millions more could join said organization and change the rules from within. End of the problem and conversation, as well as the carnage.
It is the same for our voting. Elect in enough true Progressive representatives and Senators to change the laws (even the Constitution) and an end to problem, and the carnage.
It should be a litmus for any candidate.
17
@FunkyIrishman
A generation of possums. We have plenty of gun regulation. We have background checks now, today, since 1998. We have gun laws today and restrictions on their sale. I can't walk around my town with a gun without someone calling the cops. I'll be stopped and this is a so-called "open carry" state.
2
@AGM
Look at this way. The country is a patch work of laws that leads to the least resistance. (just like tax law where red states offer little or no taxes, so businesses will naturally emigrate there)
If a state has no strong laws for background checks and the like, then naturally the firearms are going to be purchased there and transported across state lines. There are loopholes for firearm shows and the like as well.
We do NOT have adequate laws across the board - which is what is required. (federally)
13
@FunkyIrishman
Background checks are federal and universal across ALL states. The requirements are the same in every state. There are federal laws against trafficking in guns and against unlicensed dealers. Guns sold online and in guns shows are required to have a background check today, right now. There is no loophole. Private individual sales of personal weapons is permitted, but not engaging in a business of selling guns even on a small scale. We have laws now. Look them up. They are federal laws.
In an earlier editorial on the litigation over the Sandy Hook shootings, much blame was attached to the manufacturer's advertising - which was oriented towards the military cachet of assault rifles. But what about the "First Person Shooter" video games that are rampant, and which the Christchurch shooter created a real-life version? Or all the military and violence oriented TV shows and movies? I don't watch much, but the teasers I see on the TV's at the gym are full of automatic weapons, explosions, and general mayhem.
Yes, let's address background checks and similar common sense regulations. But don't forget everything else going on in American society that is contributing to the problem.
6
@J. Waddell
The causal link between violent media and physical violence is unsubstantiated by any credible studies. It's a myth kept alive by moral panic and defensive gun advocates looking for any answer that doesn't entail sensible gun legislation.
Ask yourself: why does the USA have so many more violent fatalities than all comparable countries with the same access to violent movies and games?
7
@J. Waddell Oddly enough, we have those games here in Australia. Lots of them. But, for some unknown reason, we don't have gun massacres here anymore, and I have no idea why not...
1
@J. Waddell You should watch anime, some of which has even children "solving their problems" by blowing away their enemies with increasingly wicked-looking weapons and teaching viewers that this is the best way to solve their problems.
Good piece. Except for blaming those calling for reform for sometimes being “unhelpful” by using the wrong words. Really? So if we propose universal background checks as “gun safety” rather than “gun control” the gun lobby might come around? Stop blaming both sides for the failure to enact common sense change. The blame falls squarely and entirely on the gun lobby and its paid toadies in the Whitehouse and Congress.
161
@Rich Casagrande
I could not agree with you more. It's not people who want gun reform that is the problem. Anything we say will be attacked and pilloried among gun nuts. So what difference does it make. We just have to outvote them.
3
Wait a minute, what new laws has New Zealand actually put in place? So far they are doing exactly what we do - talk about it.
I’d be surprised to see them end up with a substantially different result. We’ll see if the NRA and the second amendment are really the problem. Good luck, New Zealand!
1
@Peter New Zealand (our downunder 'cousins') are moving as swiftly as Australia did many years ago following a similar event in a major shake-up of gun laws; enacted by a conservative government! The current societal 'temperature' and political momentum in New Zealand (Jacinta Ardern as PM) will see them carry out on their promise. Trust me.
While their rate of death by guns was remarkably low, the results from the Australian experience provide the evidence - no more mass shootings.
15
@Ron
Don’t get me wrong, that’s what I’m hoping for.
Mr. Kristof’ celebration just seemed a little premature. Part of being an American in 2019 is not being optimistic that government will act in the best interests of common people.
@Ron
I am a responsible gun owner and hunter. I want AR15s banned. I hate the NRA. The militia and warrior culture on the right is terrifying. I want age limit raised to 26 for handguns and semi auto rifles. I want universal background checks, no more gun shows, and private sales without a background check should be criminalized.
I hate what gun culture is becoming. I know many survivalist types out here in Utah. They are paranoid, angry, afraid, armed to the teeth, and in many cases, well organized. They are political and I believe a reckoning is coming.
You just can't dump this many military spec rifles into a divided, misinformed, and scared populace without unwanted outcomes.
It's a scary situation and I feel so conflicted about owning guns. My rifles, inside my safe, are even stored disassembled. Ammo is locked up separately. I do carry a large caliber handgun sometimes because the scariest encounter I ever had was a grizzly near Island Park ID.
I know we can strike a balance that protects our freedoms out here in the American West while making America safe against psychopaths with AR15s. I know we can craft regulations to reduce suicide by handgun. I know we can make it much more difficult for criminals and terrorists to get guns.
We need to act, now.
319
If responsible gun owners are not willing to step up and take the lead in solving our gun problem, it won't get solved. I have a relative who owns many guns. Whenever someone suggests something about our gun problem, he immediately becomes defensive. To him, there is no problem. Only people that should not have guns that are doing bad things with them. I won't hold my breath that anyone from the NRA or Gun Owners of America will take the lead to address an obvious problem.
12
@Tom what would you like responsible gun owners to do to solve our murder and suicide problems?
@poppop: well, seeing as that when most home weapons are used they are used to kill the owner or a member of the owner's family, how about requiring that all weapons be stored in locked containers, with weapon, breach and ammunition located separately. Pulling out a loaded weapon and using it can be the result of an momentary episode of rage or despair: having to take the time to reassemble and load the weapon allows the opportunity for some rational thinking to kick in.
1
With the National Rifle Association in effect running the United States Senate, nothing, Mr. Kristof, nothing will be accomplished in the way of "gun safety." All one has to do is watch the town hall video of Florida's Marco Rubio angrily justifying the "contributions" made to his campaign by the N.R.A. And reflect upon the president's words to the national convention last year: "You got me elected." So with the Senate in thrall to essentially Murder Inc., nothing will be accomplished.
The contrast between New Zealand and the United States could not be greater. A killer slaughters 50 innocent citizens and the prime minister immediately says that "a change is going to come." And surely the parliamentary body there will pass legislation to make her vows come to pass. Here, though, after the horrors that you enumerated, we're still riding the treadmill of indifference.
I recall President Obama's tears after Sandy Hook. He was mocked and scorned in the Senate for his display of genuine sorrow for the parents and friends of those who were likewise slaughtered. And America, outraged, eventually resigned itself to shrugs as Wayne LaPierre rolled out his bromides and platitudes and defiance. What we need to do is to outlaw political "contributions" by weapons lobbyists; make it a federal campaign law violation for any munitions manufacturer to attempt to influence laws that affect the safety of everyday Americans.
Sadly, sir, we're not there yet. And I fear we never shall be.
296
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
Now explain why this issue of weapons lobbyists and mega donors "calling the shots" in our gun laws--and politicsl generally---is mostly ignored in our news media.
This is the number 1 story, underlying all, affecting our very lives and safety---plus our health care, education, taxes, jobs, etc.
Why does the media lament the results but never discuss the cause? And show how we citizens can't afford to compete, to influence our politics?
22
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
The gun lobby is Exhibit A is why we need laws that make our elections publicly funded, with no corporate, organizational, union, religious, or PAC contributions allowed, and a low three-digit limit on individual contributions per campaign.
As our representatives demonstrate time and again, it's impossible to represent anyone but your campaign funders. We need to make the public the major campaign funders.
51
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
The NRA dramatically changed after the 1977 Revolt at Cincinnati when gun rights activists took over the annual meeting. Since then, the NRA wa transformed into a lobby group that doesn’t represent its original purpose or its members.
Polls show 80+ % of NRA members support common sense gun controls. NRA leadership will not let wishes of its membership be acted upon because that might reduce gun sales. The NRA flagrantly lies when the public discusses common sense gun controls by suggesting the government will take all guns from the citizenry. The NRA stokes fear and refuses to discuss how to reduce 30,000+ gun deaths in American annually.
Try watching NRA-TV sometime. In one if its shows about firearms aimed at women called “Love At First Shot,” firing an AR-15 was described as “a nice, light poof of happiness.”
America has 300 million guns in circulation. Half of them are owned by 3% of the population. The "good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun" is an obvious myth. Ask law enforcement if they want everyone armed. Mass shootings, where four or more people are killed, are reaching pandemic levels. Common sense gun controls are needed.
Hunters safely use long rifles and shotguns. Shotguns are the best weapon for home defense. No citizen needs military style assault weapons or accessories (e.g. hi-capacity magazines, bump stocks) that makes semi-automatics perform like automatic weapons.
13
Part of the problem is that it is a really hard problem to regulate. Cosmetic factors do not make certain guns significantly more dangerous, but this is what many people focus on - especially those not familiar with guns.
Dick's Sporting Goods made news when it pulled AR-15s from its shelves. But if one looks on Field and Stream shops (part of Dick's) web site, there are a few semi-auto rifles that fire small ammo and one that fires a 7.62 x 39 mm round. This is the same round fired by an AK-47, and it comes standard with a 20-round magazine. If this is what's for sale at the national chain that "banned assault rifles", what will other sellers come up with to work around hastily-written gun laws?
10
@Alan -- no need to be coy .. .you're talking about the Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30.
Brevik used a Mini-14.
The solution is no removable/replaceable magazines ... and no rule beaters like "bullet buttons."
3
@Alan, I think you underestimate gun reform advocates. They tend to be pretty aware of what makes certain guns more dangerous, and it isn't cosmetics. I don't think it's that difficult to figure out.
@Alan: not a problem at all. Bolt, lever or pump action only, and a five round limit on magazine capacity. Nothing cosmetic about any of that, and there is absolutely no legitimate reason why any civilian requires any more firepower than that.
Before we start singing praises to New Zealand let's see what their citizens say and do. Let's see which politicians are bought and paid for by gun manufacturers. They could have the same problems that the United States has had in regulating firearms. The one difference is that they don't have the second amendment. This amendment and its interpretation has become the source of more anguish in America than any other amendment in the Bill of Rights. The NRA has people convinced that arming good people with guns will stop all the bad people with guns. Would that it were so simple.
One big difference is that the head of state in New Zealand promptly condemned what happened. She didn't equivocate and say that there were good people on both sides. She did not pretend that what happened was anything less than a horrible tragedy. For that she deserves a ton of praise.
86
@hen3ry Also, they are a much smaller country without a history of gun violence. And they have a parliamentary system of government.
5
@hen3ry Et voilà, you now have your answer. As of 3pm NZ time:
- order in council by the governor general (i.e. the cabinet) making it effectively impossible to buy military-style automatic weapons until...
- a draft law with the support of all political parties banning them goes through a sped up parliamentary process
- a review of gun licensing for everything else
- an amnesty and $100m buy-back and then destruction of military style semi-automatic weapons
- increased fines and/or period of imprisonment for contravention
- and the police minister pointing out that in New Zealand gun-ownership is a privilege rather than a right
I'm not a demographer, but I am pretty sure that the support for all of this is overwhelming. My guess would be that most Kiwis support gun use in farming, hunting and sports, but are repelled by anything else.
28
@hen3ry
They also have a government that represents the will of the vast majority of it's citizens, rather than defying it on behalf of the vested interests. The US had a government like that once upon a time.
24
As an Australian (since our gun laws are frequently cited in American gun articles) I just wanted to share one thought. We have rather stringent gun laws which appear to be working. I also have a work colleague who owns 19 guns. He is quite happy and society is happy too. He is a frequent shooter and a happy contributing member of society.
My point is that it is possible to craft sensible gun laws that allow those who want a gun to get a gun (or 19 guns) at the same time. The challenge is to design laws that preserve basic rights whilst protecting your children.
I feel sure that a nation that can put a man on the moon can rise to the challenge of crafting sensible, widely accepted, gun laws.
We wish you all the best with this considerable challenge.
192
@Brett Morris
In Australia the homicide rate was falling prior to the ban and post ban it continued to fall at pre ban levels
i.e.
The ban did NOTHING
@Java Junkie
Wrong. “Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides,” University of Sydney.
“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.” Harvard Injury Control Research Center
Do a little research before you comment on things you do not know.
18
@Brett Morris What guns ? Hunting guns ? Sport guns to shoot target ? or military guns ? War guns ?
1
Which do you want? To pass some gun laws that will, at best, have only a minimal effect or defeat Trump?
There are 100 million people in the US who have a gun in their homes. Virtually none of them never create problems for anyone, and they know it. They will support fiddling around the edges of gun control, but will never back anything meaningful, because why should they?
13
@Dan
Because their relatives, friends, and neighbors as well as themselves are potential victims of gun violence.
@Dan
"They will support fiddling around the edges of gun control, but will never back anything meaningful, because why should they?"
because they will begin to realize that one day they may be praying quietly with their back to the Church door when......
@Dan -- I've owned guns, technically still do (an Arisaka 99, WW II antique). I had a job where carrying a hand gun and being bonded for it was a requirement.
I'd be happy to have very strict gun laws -- licensing, registration and an insurance requirement for anything other than bolt-action rifles and break shot-guns.
I'm tired of seeing all the murder, and I am outraged that every worthless loser goes down to Guns-R-Us, loads up and then tries to beat the record for how many innocent genuinely worthwhile people they can kill.
Basta.
1
How do we stop Trump and his base's authoritarian ways?
Really, the only way to override Trump and his base on:
the billions of our hard-earned dollars spent on a border wall that has not been shown to provide any increased security of our borders,
the trade sanctions that hurt American companies and American consumers more than any 'benefits' derived from such sanctions,
the disrespect and denigration of immigrants or for that matter any people of color or of 'different' religions,
the trillion dollar cuts to medicare,
the deregulation of worker health and safety and environmental health protections,
the removal of support for health care insurance for everyone,
the tax cuts for the rich at the sake of adding trillions of debt on the backs of future generations,
the disparagement of our allies and the glorification of dictators,
the championing of gun manufacturers over public safety, and
the continuous sale of access to America's public officials, offices, and systems which diminishes America's prestige in order to add money to Trump's bank accounts, is to...
Vote Trump Out on November 3, 2020.
Then, and only then, will America start on the path back towards global leadership towards values that are actually, distinctly American.
18
@Ed
Wow. It only took three posts to start the Trump bashing.
@cannoneer2: hardly surprising, seeing as how much the bashing is warranted.
1
To answer your question bluntly: 1) because the United States has a culture of violence and 2) because you, as a country, have never wanted to confront this culture. A "gun ban" whatever that means will not solve the problem by itself. Only once most Americans admit these facts, then they will be able to decide democratically what must be done to solve the problem.
45
@Bernard Masse
I think you are on to something there. The effective solution might "infringe" on the precious First Amendment, and there are many who are content to wail about the easy access to guns who will absolutely resist any other course of action.
@cannoneer2 And the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment for that matter. Open everyones homes to arbitrary searches now and then for banned firearms, compel gun owners to waive or water down their right to self incrimination if it concerns an issue of gun ownership.
@Bernard Masse....sure, who could disagree? But what does confront the culture of violence mean? How? Who?
The public may try to decide democratically, but what does that mean if they're manipulated by propaganda linking guns to freedom, and regulations to big govt interfering in their lives?
And even if they 'decide', their decision can be ignored an blocked by the high-profit gun makers and the politicians they're legally allowed to make dependent on them.
It's complicated.
1