Why don't the Blue States lead by example?
No guns, no fossil fuels, no beef, no straws, no plastic, state health care, abortions, no guns...
&
The Red States: can have their beef, their fossil fuels, private health care, no abortions and plenty of guns...
*Beto should move to California. He'll love it there.
4
if gun control is the secret, why do we see so many mass shootings in Calif? They have very strict gun control laws.
Maybe Mr Blow has to think out of the box, instead of his constant parroting of the party line.
I will bet anything no matter how tight laws are made there will continue to be mass shootings.
7
I'm behind Beto all the way...
9
And who is going to take on Marion Hammer?
1
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. Blow. Let's just say it and do it! Right out there. The triangulation makes me sick. What if? What if? What if? We've had enough of that pussy-footing around. Pass the laws; do the public health research; track the results. Wash, rinse, repeat. Enough is enough.
5
When you are all through with the emotional rush, if you are truly interested in savings lives, please Google “leading causes of death in the U.S.”
5
I believe gun controls are great but cultural changes are better. We live in a society that promotes my pistol is bigger than yours hence I'm a bigger and better person because of size / ego.
Cultural changes really start from education. The more informed we are as a nation, better decisions will be made by we, the people.
1
About the time of the Sandy Hook massacre, we had a similar situation here in London. Mentally ill individual, living with mother. Sadly, she grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed her mother to death. Then headed out to a busy area near a Tube station and, sadly, managed to seriously injure 2 individuals before being wrestled to the ground until the police arrived.
While I have the upmost sympathy for the mother and two injured individuals, the damage that a mentally ill person can do with the weapons they have legal access to in the UK seems much less than the damage a similarly mentally ill person can do with the weapons they have legal access to in the US. The two injured individuals in London were not Kindergarteners.
7
All of the craven politicians and commenters here should learn what an assault weapon is before commenting. Some have talked about "assault weapon type" guns. What is that? A gun that looks scary?
The fact is that assault weapons are those that are automatic fire. No such gun is legal without special registration; however, during the 1990's, gang bangers were using machine guns to gun down their opponents and "business partners." Rarely was a strict sentence handed down by the judge.
In Montgomery County, Md., judges always throw out the gun charge in felony cases.
But why go after what are non-assault weapons like the much maligned AR-15? Very few people are kille dby this weapon. Indeed, of the 15,000 allegedly murdered by guns, very few are by "assault type weapons."
Furthermore, 99%+ of gun owners never misuse their guns or commit a crime with them. Why punish them? Why not go after the criminals? We don't get rid of cars or tax them out of existence because they are used to kill 30,000 people a year. We don't ban doctors and nurses who kill 150,000 a year through medical malpractice.
Instead of banning or taxing guns because liberals don't like them, why not go after the violent video games, movies, and tv shows that bathe our young in a culture of violence?
Also go after the judges and the Soros backed prosecutors who refuse to crack down on criminals.
And isn't the NYTImes building protected by armed guards as are the anti-gun politicians and actors?
9
Criminals commit crime. That is a statement of fact. Murder is illegal. Burglary is illegal. Rape is illegal. It is illegal for a criminal to own a firearm. These illegal acts are still carried out by criminals. Adding more laws to burden the responsible and non criminal majority does nothing to stop the irresponsible irrational criminal. In fact it emboldens them because they have no fear of immediate repercussion. Nobody Wants to talk about how to ACTUALLY deter criminals from committing evil acts.
Look at Prohibition of alcohol. What did that accomplish? It gave birth to bootleggers and mobster rule. The criminals flourished and the law abiding citizens were caught in the cross fire. War on drugs. Black market flourished. Law abiding citizens caught in cross fire.
Laws dont stop crime. Programs to help mentally ill people do. Mentors helping youth get through this difficult life do. Counselors who Help families remain in tact do. Instead of focusing on making laws that nothing to shift the state of mind of an individual in crises, how about focusing on these things instead.
6
Criminals commit crime. That is a statement of fact. Murder is illegal. Burglary is illegal. Rape is illegal. It is illegal for a criminal to own a firearm. These illegal acts are still carried out by criminals. Adding more laws to burden the responsible and non criminal majority does nothing to stop the irresponsible irrational criminal. In fact it emboldens them because they have no fear of immediate repercussion. Nobody Wants to talk about how to ACTUALLY deter criminals from committing evil acts.
Look at Prohibition of alcohol. What did that accomplish? It gave birth to bootleggers and mobster rule. The criminals flourished and the law abiding citizens were caught in the cross fire. War on drugs. Black market flourished. Law abiding citizens caught in cross fire.
Laws dont stop crime. Programs to help mentally ill people do. Mentors helping youth get through this difficult life do. Counselors who Help families remain in tact do. Instead of focusing on making laws that nothing to shift the state of mind of an individual in crises, how about focusing on these things instead.
3
May I point out that the figure of 39,733 deaths in one year, 2017, compares very badly to the Vietnam War's total casualties of approximately 55,000 over about 8 years? This insanity is much worse than a full-scale major war, and what have you done about it?
The question is as usual whether America has any clear vision on a very serious issue, and the answer is as usual no, it doesn't. Politics never solves anything. Prior to the cold dead heads taking over the GOP circa 1980 and taking absolute political precedence over the American people there simply wasn't a problem on anything like this scale.
The media hasn't helped change mindsets. Every cop show and every movie is an ad for guns. Guns solve everything. You're a hero with a gun. You're a bad guy with a gun. Even the image of the gun is based almost entirely on fiction, and guns are an article of political and conservative faith? Maybe a reality show with a few ever-so-witty massacres would make a point, but obviously not much else does.
A deep hole has been dug, and nobody can see the obvious? Sandy Hook should have been the "Enough!" moment. It wasn't. That alone should get people thinking.
3
This is an emotional issue, not a rational one. And, of course, vice-versa. Regardless, it must be done and it must be done now.
If not now, never. Shoulda, coulda, woulda just doesn't work anymore.
Vote.
5
The issue isn't really about fear of the NRA. It's about constitutional reality. District of Columbia v. Heller not only established an individual right to bear arms, but it also established that you can't issue a broad blanket ban on a huge, nonspecific class of guns. "Handguns" in that case. Or in O'Rourke proposal "military style." What does that even mean?
This is not to say that specific laws that ban certain definable features of guns (semi autos, say) or gun accessories (bump stocks) couldn't work. But while O'Rourke might be truthful when he calls for banning guns based basically on "you know, those scary looking ones that nobody could ever legitimately have a use for. You know, the ones I mean. The ones like porn. The ones you know when you see." this is not something that could ever be rendered into a meaningful law, let alone get by the supreme court.
3
Criminals commit crime. That is a statement of fact. Murder is illegal. Burglary is illegal. Rape is illegal. It is illegal for a criminal to own a firearm. These illegal acts are still carried out by criminals. Adding more laws to burden the responsible and non criminal majority does nothing to stop the irresponsible irrational criminal. In fact it emboldens them because they have no fear of immediate repercussion. Nobody Wants to talk about how to ACTUALLY deter criminals from committing evil acts.
Look at Prohibition of alcohol. What did that accomplish? It gave birth to bootleggers and mobster rule. The criminals flourished and the law abiding citizens were caught in the cross fire. War on drugs. Black market flourished. Law abiding citizens caught in cross fire.
Laws dont stop crime. Programs to help mentally ill people do. Mentors helping youth get through this difficult life do. Counselors who Help families remain in tact do. Instead of focusing on making laws that nothing to shift the state of mind of an individual in crises, how about focusing on these things instead.
1
The gun rights community is going to read this in exactly the way it is meant: the Democrats are going to confiscate guns. They will start with "assault" rifles and, once they've established the principle, the gun registries and background check data will be used as tools to confiscate the rest. You may expect some serious blow back from those who, like me, do not consider the second amendment as a Constitutional orphan.
3
Agree 100% with Mr. Blow and Beto. But we don't need studies to know what works; all we need is to look at other democracies with low gun death rates (all way lower than the U.S. rate) and see that the one thing they have all done is enact strong gun control laws.
2
I would like to urge the author Charles Blow, and politician Beto , and the US public in general, to read up all they can on the Australia politician, Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, who in the late 90s, put his job right on the line, defending his government's decision to ban and to buy back assault rifles in Australia, immediately after our horrific Port Arther massacre in Tasmania. Tim died very recently; there are lots of excellent recent articles to read about his heroism.
4
To me whether or not to implement strict gun laws boils down to how willing are we to sacrifice our own desires for the greater good and our fellow man?
2
As far as I know a rocket propelled grenade has never been used in a mass killing in the United States. Interesting that what is not allowed is not used.
4
This could be the watershed movement we desperately need. I have gun owners in the family and have finally found the courage to stand up them after giving into intimidation for so long.
Thank goodness that someone like Beto has come along and is breathing life, talking gun sanity, and has the guts to say what so may of us are thinking.
6
Don't miss the fact that the bad guy with a gun in Odessa was first encountered by - not one - but TWO good guys with guns. Not only were they police officers but were professionals highly trained in use of weapons, how to handle violent situations, etc.
So much for the NRA's "...All it takes is one good guy with a gun..."
7
If the ten million or so assault rifles were bought back, it would cost ten billion dollars. It might not be a big ask if instead of donating to their usual charities we could ask our resident billionaires such as Gates, Buffet, Bloomberg, Bozos et al to donate to the Free America From Massacre cause. All of their money spent on a voluntary buy back scheme would of course be tax deductible. It just might surprise a lot of people how many of these military weapons would be recovered. The government doesn’t have to get involved - no laws against these guns passed. It would be a private initiative, as in the Walmart announcement. Government has proven to be ineffective, with all due respect to O’Rourke - the vested interests are just too deep. Time for Americans, from citizen to corporations, to get this done ourselves.
2
The founders feared a standing army and thus set up a militia system. The second amendment allows gun ownership for purposes of a "well-regulated militia." Our free-for-all gun policies aren't supported by the Constitution, as even the most conservative of Supreme Court justices observed.
Bravo to the columnist for this truthful and courageous look at the issue.
8
Often when gun-rights supporters make the claim that they need their guns for self protection, opponents will fire back: call the police. Well, we know that the police mostly show up after the crime.
But there is something much bigger. We as citizens are not entitled to state protection from private violence. In other words, if you are being attacked by a non-state actor, there is no duty on the state to intervene on your behalf. Sure, some of you may say that this cannot be, but I direct you to DeShaney v. Winnebago County, a Supreme Court case from 1989, or, Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales from 2005.
5
Politicians, and columnists, need to be measured by how they gather information. If they do this solely by reading headlines, then they are POORLY informed. If they proceed to recommend public policy based on their poor information gathering, then they are UNQUALIFIED for the job.
And that's the case with both Beto, and Charles Blow.
Deaths from "AR style assault rifles" are LESS than 2% of all gun fatalities annually. Anyone who thinks this is a national emergency is plainly foolish. More than 20,000 people die from suicide (by firearm) annually. THAT is a crisis, but neither Beto, nor Blow, are raising alarms about it. And it's unfortunate, because black men are disproportionately affected by this.
Going further- more than 10,000 people die as a result of DUI/DWI each year. That's more than 50X the number of deaths from ANY kind of semi-auto rifle. Americans are 50X more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than an assault weapon. Yet- We see no blaring headlines about this, nor politicians hollering to reinstate Prohibition. Plainly, America is being purposefully misled.
With this single article, we see a compelling reason that Beto O'Rourke is poorly qualified for any position requiring critical analysis. He relied on poorly qualified information to wade into a hotly debated issue with weakly formed proposals.
6
Beto is exactly right in his philosophy and approach to the AR15. It isn’t simply the number of deaths but the sheer terror of possibility that accompanies such shootings.
Suicide? Statistics? There are folks working on that all the time, perhaps with mixed results but the point is they are trying.
Beto is willing to try, and so am I.
4
Please stop bringing facts to the table.
Another article in today’s NYT advises that medical malpractice is the 4th leading cause of death. So we can either deal with the reality that swimming pools and medical mistakes are far more dangerous than “assault rifles” (whatever they are), or deal with less emotionally appealing, but more significant causes of death.
3
About 51 Americans are killed each year in mass shootings. Banning assault rifles might produce a small reduction in the number of mass shooting deaths, but killers denied assault rifles will resort to other types of semiautomatic rifles or handguns.
Today, Texas responded to the El Paso and Odessa/Midland mass shootings with nine executive orders that might prove more effective that an assault rifle ban because it may reduce the number of mass shootings.
The executive orders issued by Texas Governor Greg Abbott are online at https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/EO-GA_07_preventing_mass_attacks_IMAGE_09-05-2019.pdf
Can we please get more journalism in the NYT about the fact that so many of the mass shootings in the USA are performed by insane fascists/proto-fascists? So many of these people are inspired by the same books and the same people; many mass shooters, including the Colombine kids, have been inspired by Timothy McVeigh--the Oklahoma City bomber--who was, in turn, inspired by The Turner Diaries.
Why isn't more reporting done on this? Every time a shooting happens, everyone cries out "Why does this keep happening?! If only we knew what was causing these people to do this!" and immediately placing blame entirely at the feet of gun access--which, I obviously agree, should be limited, and people shouldn't be able to purchase semi-automatic rifles--but there's more to it than just that. It's also being done by predominantly the same group of people--utterly crazed proto-fascist terrorists.
2
Let's not forget to mention that there's not a single pro-gun rights member of Congress who doesn't take money from the NRA. Their opinions are bought and paid for. Every publication - including the Times - should regularly publish how much each of them gets each year, and if they are quoted in any story about guns, that information should be provided. Getting input from a republican on guns is worthless - you might as well just quote Wayne LaPierre.
3
Here in California our genius governor just signed legislation officially letting its citizenry that we need not be inclined to help a police officer in distress. Officers are on their own and so are we as Californians. Owning a high powered weapon just became a no brained here.
6
Try to keep up, Mr. Blow. The triangulation means changing the constitution.
Meantime AOC and Beto are in complete denial about the use of guns for self-protection and the loaning of guns for sports.
Considering Beto’s dismal polling numbers maybe he should pivot to straws, light bulbs, and cheeseburgers?
3
@Charlie
“A well - regulated militia” means that guns can AND WILL BE “regulated”.
3
The only item here that’s even arguable is large capacity magazines. Otherwise, responsible gun owners know how much nonsense is in the ban-guns position. (Illegally owned guns far exceed lawful ones Being used for murders, Pistols are actually far more common as a criminal weapon, rifles are a minuscule amount of gun murders, most murders are among young gangsters (of all races) who know each other, suicides are 2/3 of the number usually cited, etc.)
Beto has done the Republicans a huge favor by sucking the air out of the room for the Democrats with his confiscation plan. All of the Democrats will jump on this bandwagon.
And Trump just gained 10K’s of votes across the middle of the country.
There is no net vote gain to be had by taking Beto’s position. There are lots of votes to lose. Gun owners are not squishy on these issues. And the Dems are about to lose them.
Running up the score in liberal coastal precincts is useless. It’s the cities and suburbs of flyover states where this election will be won or lost. And in Florida.
The Beto position just threw lots of votes over the fence at the other team.
Hope you enjoy a 7-2 Supreme Court, because that’s what you’re going to wind up with. Four more years. It didn’t have to happen. But it will.
3
Why would anyone need an AR15? If you think you need it for hunting, you are wrong. What you need is target practice. If you think you need it to "Defend Liberty" you are silly. You can't stop a trained soldier unless you are one.
Every avid owner of an assault weapon has dreamt of using it. The second amendment was not written to realize such dreams. A buy-back program is eminently reasonable. I would support it.
4
Repeal. Join the civilised world America. Kick the macho John Wayne I-have-my-rights violent habit once and for all. Use the ballot box to do it. Otherwise what good is your democracy? Mom people want the gun scourge to end. Some democracy. The next big lie, Mr. Blow.
4
Trump is the ultimate liar and hypocrite here, followed very closely by every legislator that lets him/herself be bribed by the NRA.
If having Americans and their children slaughtered weekly by other Americans with military weapons is not enough to get these feckless cowards to do more than useless "thoughts and prayers", what is? Tell me! Speak up you sniveling cowards!
5
A good number of those mass murderers are young and buy their assault rifle just before they kill. Yes, ban sales of all semi-automatics and large-capacity devices: in generic terms; anything that can kill several people in a short passage of time.
The Republican Party and the NRA are joined at the hip and need to be negotiated with to resolve this.
So, set a 10 year moratorium of no new gun regulations in exchange for that ban, waiting period, red flag temporary confiscations, gun education, collect gun related statistics and the few other sensible controls in current discussion. Clearly, this would take considerable negotiation but seems doable.
Work on understanding the suicide problem and improve the conditions that drive people to that action: alienation, mental health, PTSD, financial stress, desperation, etc.
Maybe a Congressional committee on Suicide or Secretary of Human Well-being?
Or trade the Republicans for one of their issues like letting them take full responsibility for mapping out and implementing a humane but fiscally responsible solution to stabilize the immigration problem.
And stop the feckless handwringing procrastination!
2
Anyone interested in reducing violence, including gun violence, should watch One Punch Homicide. It's getting great reviews and can be seen free online.
1
Beto O'Rourke is the candidate I'll vote for in the Primary and hopefully in the general election in 2020. I totally agree that all assault weapons such as AR15 should be sold only to the US military Never to private citizens. These weapons were designed to KILL people. If you're not going to KILL people you don't need an assault weapon or bullets designed to do maximum damage to a body internally.
3
the 2nd amendment does not specify what arms are permitted. The stupid argument of no restrictions would allow citizens to own nuclear bombs. so Automatic weapons designed to kill people are fair game. Hey everyone is entitled to own a single shot musket which would be consistent with the 2nd amendment when it was written.
4
Here's a lie we can stop in its tracks right now. The NRA claims that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If this were actually true, then we would send Marines into combat without any guns and save a lot of taxpayer money. Of course that would be ridiculous, and we all know why.
Guns are machines designed for the purpose of killing people. People who wish to kill themselves or others choose to use guns because guns are the most efficient and effective means available for killing people.
This is the central truth that the NRA continually seeks to obfuscate with its carefully crafted lies.
6
Thank you Mr. Blow. And thank you Beto O'Rourke. This plan is solid, right and needs to be implemented. I have just upped my estimate of Mr. O'Rourke. Climate change may be the most important issue affecting us all, but out country's gun madness is a very close second.
3
I didn't know anything about Beto O’Rourke so I looked it up at Wikipedia. I was impressed and I agree with his ideas about the violence problem in this country.
3
The compulsory confiscation of semi-automatic rifles would be the worst public policy since prohibition. These firearms are responsible for a very small percentage of the total homicides by all means in the United States. The result would be more unnecessary bloodshed and a obvious overreach by the Federal government. The exercise of unlimited state power is the sine qua non of Progressive Democrats.
2
The mass shooting phenomenon in America is very revealing. First, most of those doing the shooting either legally own their guns or could have: no significant criminal record. Second, if African-American’s were doing the shooting, we would definitely be talking about race, but because it is mostly White men, we aren’t talking about it. If lesbians were the ones doing the shooting, Faux News would be having Hannity saying things like lesbians are violent. Because the group that is doing nearly all of the shootings are those with privileged identities, those don’t get talked about and are barely mentioned.
One of the frequent benefits of a dominant identity is to go unexamined, unmentioned, unchallenged. I remember the backlash disadvantaged people got for saying, “check your privilege” to those with privilege. The backlash was so severe, I hardly hear the phrase anymore. Challenging a dominant identity is fiercely defended against.
But when are we going to start talking about how perhaps White men shouldn’t have access to firearms?
Are White men not responsible enough to own a firearm?
Are White men not in control of their behavior enough to own a firearm?
4
Guns aren't a 'health' emergency, they're a violence & murder emergency. Cancer is a health emergency.
2
You are RIGHT on target. Thank you for so eloquently expressing what I have been thinking, and for formulating this point of view, which is not likely to be popular, but needs to be asserted.
3
Aggressive limits on guns and ammunition. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.
2
How is it responsible to sells guns? It may be legal but it’s anything but responsible to make a living dealing in tools of terror, death and destruction.
Mom and pop retailers, Smith and Wesson, the NRA are all equally morally corrupt and irresponsible.
2
"“I want to be really clear, that that’s exactly what we’re going to do." Right on. Law a-bidding citizens need freedom from guns.
7
I would feel better if anyone proposed something that would actually reduce mass shootings or even retail gun crime based upon the incidents cited. I can't think of any.
Most 'assault style weapons' are not used in shootings of people. Most shooters have worn camo gear and shoes, so should we ban that for other than the military? I would not support gun registration because it enables confiscation. Background checks are a good idea if and only if you had a reliable check system that police departments and courts actually updated. But that wouldn't stop many shooters. There will always be a black market for guns. Red Flag laws are easy to abuse. Accusation is not sufficient to take away a right. Nether is that someone 'feels uncomfortable' about you. Certification of knowledge and competency like a driver's exam would be a good idea. So would common standards for concealed carry.
2
Sonce nothing is perfect, let's do nothing!
Sidebar: the way "military-style assault weapons" has been legally defined, they've been used in the vast majority of mass shootings for a few years now, so not sure at all where you got that one.
5
Okay, so what do you suggest? The NRA and conservative law makers refuse to even allow a study of the issue. Apparently, we're supposed to fatalistically shrug our shoulders and wait for the next shooting.
3
@Paul George...."Most 'assault style weapons' are not used in shootings of people."......Assault style weapons are very definitely the choice of crazy people intent on committing mass slaughter. It has happened over and over again. That more Americans are killed by other firearms is a totally inane and completely dumb argument. The fact is that some people are killed by assault style weapons and there is absolutely no rational purpose for a private citizen to own one.
5
NRA folks I talk with say that our rights come at a cost.
And 40,000 deaths annually is the price we pay for their second amendment rights.
Seriously.
To that I add the emotional cost and dollar cost of being the only first world country that needs armed guards and active shooter drills for our children.
And I tell them, the founding fathers would know this is wrong.
11
Unfortunately, and despite popular demand, the U.S. is controlled by the radical Right, and no one in this right-wing administration, or among elected Republicans, has the nation's public health in mind.
The Republicans are all about decreasing the quality of life for all, just so the few already-wealthy can become wealthier. They are the party of reducing Social Security, Medicare, free education, destroying pristine environment and killing endangered species so a few can obtain more fossil fuel.
They are the party that eliminated clean air and water protection so factories and chemical companies can pollute these resources.
"To promote the general welfare", and "to promote...science", as outlined in the Constitution, are the last things on their agenda.
This party seems to have a death wish for Americans, which runs through all their legislation. Gun deaths mean nothing to them.
They prefer power, winning, being in control, wealth for the few, with the help of the NRA, Big Pharma, ConAgra, Big Chema, and fossil fuel-rich donors.
They must be voted out.
As to gun owners -- they've never lived in an America without guns. They have no idea how great it feels to live in a gun-free society, as in Europe. Moreover, Europeans disdain gun violence and America's "cowboy culture".
Getting Americans to stop loving well machined death weapons, to not choose violence and killing, to lose that killing mentality, that will be the hardest sell.
4
The template for this exists on auto safety regulation.
Registries for titles, transfers, and licences.
Liability insurance for safe use and secure storage.
"Rules of the road" for safer use and safekeeping.
Be sensible. We must reduce gun mayhem, primarily acts of impulse and opportunity.
6
All those are handled at the state level.
There might be an interim step or a "mid-range" solution for owners of military style assault weapons short of outright confiscation. Owners agree to place them in the custody of a licensed gun range for permanent safe keeping and storage. Owners can shoot their weapons there but may not remove them from the range. Any weapon removed results in confiscation and severe penalties for the owner and the range. Bullets fired (outside of the range) that are traced back to the weapon also incur criminal penalties and confiscation. At least the owner can maintain ownership and enjoy recreational shooting while the public has some guarantee the weapons do not end up at the scene of a spree killing.
3
@SurlyBird Aren't putting "interim step or a "mid-range" solution for owners of military style assault weapons" like putting restrictions on abortions?
Abortions still happen. Shootings still happen. Is the goal is to drive both to zero?
So, the 2d Amendment was adopted to protect the right to target practice?
3
Why beat around the bush with limits on magazine capacity, etc. Democrats should simply come out for repealing the Second Amendment, like they are finally doing with the Electoral College.
6
@Chorizo Picante The Democrats are for a lot of things. They are not much of the "gitter done" types.
If they were going to repeal the 2A, they should have started after Sandy Hook. That was 5 weeks before Obama's second inauguration. Obama wasn't much for taking charge and leading from the front.
To be fair, the Democrats won't propose this. They will suddenly have a warm place in their hearts for the 99.99% of gun owners that don't do mass shootings. Whichever candidate proposes this will the poster child for how not to get elected.
Americans aren't stupid. If the Democrats want to delete one amendment, they'll find another that has to go or be changed. Like the electoral college.
1
These days even the most deluded would-be "civil discourse" advocates cannot pretend that calling a lie (or liar)directly when there is a lie (and liar) de facto is the epitome of civil discourse. There may be in some fraction of such cases a degree of ambiguity owing to the whole matter of intent with respect to self-deception, but really now, how many of even these cases can get away with rationalizations that amount to a claim of ignorance, when obtuseness has never been logically acceptable as a defense.
And that whole corrupt and absurd notion that there is no suchathing as "truth", regardless of the total mass quantities of believers in such nihilism, is utterly certain to destroy us, if all those innumerable other popular forms of nihilism don't do the job.
Thank you, this needs to be said again and again. No place for military weapons in civilian society. Buy them Back!
5
All these discussions are moot since costs of making a firearm at home are fairly low now - 3D printing took care of that. So banning anything will just shift it underground and will channel the production into uncharted territory - carbon bodies with sophisticated ceramic barrels and firing pistons, not detectable by metal detectors, owned by criminals and killer-wannabees. Do you really want that? Has banning heroin help your kids?
Yes, banning heroin is in fact very helpful in keeping it away from a lot of kids.
2
There is absolutely no good reason for civilians to own military-style assault weapons. The second amendment should be updated, made relevant to today’s needs and weapon technology – or deleted entirely. In what scenario would a bunch of yahoos carrying such weapons be a useful defense? Easily overpowered by more advanced technology and they would end up killing a lot of innocent people.
Here’s what we truly need protection from: industry lobbyists (and their politicians) who brainwash folks into voting against American self-interests.
4
One point that I feel most commenters and this article is missing is that it is not just about the numbers. The worst thing about gun violence and mass shootings in particular is the terror that it inflicts on our daily lives. Nowhere is safe. Schools, stores, theaters, concerts, festivals, sporting events, even simply driving down the highway are all unsafe. This is madness. We are living in a nightmare driven by a small percentage of citizens who cannot give up their fetish for death sticks.
8
I'm incredibly sick of hearing craven politicians like Ted Cruz use the example of my hometown, Chicago, to make the case against logical gun control policy.
Cruz and Trump often talk about how restrictive gun laws fail to prevent gun crime in Chicago, but don't bother pointing out that those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court years ago. It's probably no coincidence that Chicago's gun violence went up very quickly after the laws went away, just as crimes with assault weapons rose after the Bush administration let the ban on assault weapons lapse in the early 2000s.
Also, 60% of guns used in violent crime in Chicago come from nearby states that lack responsible gun control. Do the Republicans think there's a wall at the Illinois border? Until the Senate moves on universal background checks and states crack down on rogue gun dealers, those weapons will continue to wreak havoc in states and cities even when they're able to implement gun control measures.
Republicans: Stop lying about my home town!
Americans: Stop taking for granted what Cruz and Trump say. They're distorting the facts. Look up the real facts and make sure you can't be lied to by demagogues.
128
@D Rosenberg The problem in Chicago has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with gangs. In fact, most of the "victims" of Chicago's homicides have prior records of violent crime. The CPD did a study on its city's homicides back in 2011, which is linked below. It's admittedly lengthy, but revealing. Look at the report's pie-chart on page 53 for details on the perpetrators, which clearly shows Chicago's real problems.
https://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2011-Murder-Report.pdf
4
@D Rosenberg: And everyone, please stop trying to convince us that gun control will do anything to get 40,000 people a year from trying to kill themselves or whoever it is they want to kill!
1
@Independent Observer
I see, so according to your pie chart, the problem is brown and black people. Lovely.
Yes, the violence is gang driven. Yes, the gang presence is mostly limited to certain communities. None of that repudiates Mr. Rosenberg's points about the availability of guns, exacerbated by Republican policies.
16
This article is an example of why there will never be the kind of reform O’Rourke and his like are demanding. Praying for a slippery slope that accelerates the eventual confiscation of all guns while cataloguing every single law abiding gun owner in some government data base,
will never happen and shouldn’t. God forbid the government should ever have that much control of the population in any respect and let’s not forget lots of Democrats own guns too.
6
@JAC.... "Praying for a slippery slope that accelerates the eventual confiscation of all guns"....There is not now, nor has there ever been a slippery slope leading to the confiscation of all firearms. People who consumed by the slippery slope paranoia need to consider seeking psychiatric help.
1
I am a gun owner. In fact I own two AR 15's and several hand guns. I am all for better background checks. But we also have a mental health and culture problem. But how does taking away my guns stop the killings in Chicago, Baltimore and St. Louis? Gun violence over the Labor Day weekend left seven people dead and an additional 34 wounded in Chicago on the South and West Sides. All pistol shootings. The weekend violence occurred as Chicago police added an extra 1,000 officers to patrols during the three-day holiday weekend. Other holiday weekends this summer witnessed similar spikes in gun violence. Over the Fourth of July weekend, 68 people were shot, five of them fatally, and on Memorial Day weekend, 41 people were shot. How do we stop black on black murders? Both cities have some of the toughest gun laws in the country. Where are the plans to stop the violence? Are you really suggesting that gangs in the cities are going to sell back their guns to the government? Where are the black leaders in the cities demanding this happens? Good luck making this happen.
8
@Just 4 Play...."In fact I own two AR 15's".....Why do you own an assault rifle? Do you anticipate a need to kill lots of people quickly? That is what the weapon is designed for. Why do you need an assault rifle?
1
I too think Beto's plan is sound and should be implemented. The fact that this would deny assault-type weapons and certain types of ammunition to responsible gun owners in not relevant. I had demonstrated over many years that I am a responsible person but that does not mean I can purchase any number of military weapons that are available somewhere in the world. Could I feel that my rights under the 2nd Amendment are being denied? Certainly but why should my feelings matter? The risks to many far outweighs any rights that I might have or think I have. What might have been permissible previously can no longer be tolerated for many sound reasons. Changing the law to speed up the execution of mass shooters as some gun apologists propose is pathetic. That is another example of proposing something meaningless to avoid addressing the real problem of too many guns in our country.
2
I am in favor of an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines for the same reason I am in favor of bans on TOW anti-tank weapons and shoulder-fired Stingers. They have no legitimate use in a civilized society.
The same cannot be said about all firearms, and even liberals like me have to concede that the Second Amendment means something.
As a practical matter, inflammatory talk about spreading oil on the slippery slope won't help get common sense legislation passed. I witnessed a truly disheartening sight this weekend at a Bass Pro Shop. A father buying his young son a BB gun set, which included a handgun and an assault-style rifle. Why does an 8-year old need to play with an assault-style rifle? What kinds of fantasies does he need to play out with it? As a not-quite bleeding heart (I am not a pacifist and I believe in a strong defense in a dangerous world), I wonder when our society will grow out of the Rambo thing.
But for now, those who would wish for and work for reasonable gun regulation need to understand that very large numbers of our fellow Americans have a very different view.
1
As horrific as mass shootings are, they comprise one half of 1% of gun related deaths in the US. As the LA Times analysis notes, they have increased dramatically in recent years. As the article notes, the shooters receive $75 million in free media coverage. They convene in chat rooms and compare notes on kills. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-01/mass-shooting-data-odessa-midland-increase. So if you eliminate assault style weapons will stop only a fraction of gun deaths. I'm not opposed to reasonable gun control, but the problem is a very complicated one.
4
The total negative effect is not measured solely by body counts. The damage to a sense of safe community is extraordinary.
4
@John: See Steve's (also from Texas) comment above.
@John.... "So if you eliminate assault style weapons will stop only a fraction of gun deaths.".....So? Are you opposed to stopping those deaths?
2
I would like to see a massive campaign to "de-mythologize" gun ownership, similar to the campaign to de-mythologize smoking in the 1980s. Those images of Joe Camel and The Marlboro Man dying of cancer effectively undermined the "cool" image promoted by the cigarette companies. Gun makers and the NRA have conflated gun ownership with "manliness" and "patriotism", and a relentless campaign of fear and paranoia has duped the public into amassing the largest arsenal of deadly weapons in private hands of any country in the world. An equally-relentless marketing campaign, including whatever gruesome imagery of gun violence is available, could help to inform the public and shame politicians who cower in the face of the gun lobby.
4
This sort of talk makes some gun-owners insane with fear. You should read the angst on some gun forums. It's fun.
FWIW, Reloader, hunter, and handgun shooter here, and I'm not scared that the guns I use for sporting purposes would be confiscated. That said, there's simply no reason for a civilian to own an AR. They are fun to shoot at a range, but to what end? I have debated that with zealots for years; their best defense of "tactical rifles" is that they might help fight a tyrannical government one day.
I'm pleased that O'Rourke is stating the obvious here: buy 'em back and ban future manufacture. It may not happen, but I wish we'd at least tax the heck out of high-cap mags and guns, new or used, sold anywhere, anytime and make it a felony to trade or sell them without state and Federal paperwork. I'd accept that as a compromise, because we live in an insane nation where a 17-round 9mm handgun can be had for under $400, an AR for under $600. If you cannot defend yourself or hunt with 10 or fewer rounds, there's something wrong with you. As firearms maker Bill Ruger put it, 10 are all a law-abiding citizen needs.
I cannot say that on the gun forums, but I do enjoy watching these zealots gnash their teeth.
96
@Peak Oiler If Beto O’Rourke ever gets the chance to implement his plan it will be a disaster. I wish NYT columnists would occasionally read the articles that paper they work for publishes. In 2015 the NYT addressed the consequences of what happens after politicians call for new gun restrictions. More people buy guns. In December 2012, President Obama asked for new buying restrictions after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The next month gun sales exploded...2 million new guns were purchased...double the usual amount. In 2015 President Obama tried to make it harder to buy assault weapons after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif. Gun sales the next month shot up with 1.5 million news guns being purchased. Fear of gun-buying restrictions is the main driver of spikes in gun sales. The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens, while criminals, terrorists, & deranged people always find ways to obtain guns illegally. It, therefore, seems to me that the focus of politicians and others should be not on trying to get all guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but to focus on keeping guns out of the hands of those most likely to use guns unlawfully. This is easier said than done, but trying to curb misuse of guns will almost certainly be more productive than the current futile efforts to ban guns altogether. Go here to read more https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions.html
10
@Peak Oiler To be clear, why is it "fun" to read the angst on some gun forums? You want a change in policy, to some that's a threat to their way of life. How is there any fun? Is angst in others a good thing? Do you wish not only to win politically but also to triumph over your opponents on a personal level? Please explain why.
2
@Bill Brown,the fewer restrictions there are on law-abiding citizens, the easier it is for criminals to get their hands on guns.
But anyway, criminals aren't causing the majority of gun deaths, law-abiding citizens are. When they decide to kill themselves with their easy-to-hand and highly lethal gun.
7
Charles wrote: Two weeks ago, the USA Today editorial board complained, “Anything smacking of confiscation would breathe life and energy into the not-from-my-cold-dead-hands crowd, endangering law enforcement and likely putting a full stop to any further gun safety measures.”
The phrase "endangering law enforcement" is shocking. Am I correct that USA Today believes that antagonizing gun owners will endanger law enforcement? If that isn't the best excuse ever to eliminate every weapon in the USA, I can't think of a better one.
2
Go Beto! He may not win the nomination, but he will influence the discussion. T We need a real discussion. Are that many guns necessary? There are real lints to supposedly the 2nd amendment "rights" - it is not absolute. And those limits need to be pushed. Open carry? Really. So how do you tell a "good guy" from a "bad guy? What nonsense. Anyone showing a gun in public is a threat.
1
This whole argument is RIDICULOUS!! The argument should focus on keeping gun of all types out of the hands of criminals.
Nearly every country in the world manufactures it’s own weapons. Smuggling those guns across open national borders would be impossible to stop. All the while we talk about disarming law abiding citizens.
3
@Ronald A Fish
First of all, some people aren't criminals UNTIL they commit mass murder - in fact, of the 291 mass shootings in this country so far in 2019, I would wager that only a fraction of them are committed by known criminals.
Second, what "open borders"? Most things smuggled into the US from south of the border come by plane, truck, or tunnel. The borders, contrary to what the GOP will tell you, are NOT "open". There are ways around the physical borders, even Trump's "big, beautiful" wall, but they are NOT open. And Canada only manufactures small arms, not weapons of war.
4
I will never understand why US citizens seem to think that prayers can fix everything, when in reality no-one has ever proofed that god actuallly exists. Yet after all the killings that is the only thing the politicians can offer. Trully sad.
1
Beto seems to want to lose by a wider margin than Hillary Clinton did.
3
Although I commend Beto on this, his stance is nothing new. There are plenty of Legislators that have had similar views only to be blocked by NRA backed politicians.
They could use Beto’s help in the Senate though. Beto 2020 Texas Senator!!!
I’ve come to the conclusion that most people are just terrible people. If it feels good they feel entitled to do it or think it, (mostly) as long as nobody standing right in front of them is hurt. Explains guns, explains Trump, explains all manner of hypocrisy and inconsistency in positions (my government benefits are fine; yours are drain on us all).
Sad!
1
The NRA created gun crisis in this country is institutionalized white nationalism and, in effect, a slow genocide of the lower classes which is, in effect, the unspoken agenda of the fat cats.
Fascism is insidious and infiltrates the body politic like a virulent cancer. The gun crisis is an easily visible manifestation of the disease. Trump is another one.
O’Rourke is right and we will eventually get there, but not in my lifetime. It will take many more thousands of gun deaths and a legislative branch that works for our people, not special interests. My guess we are talking about decades.
While driving in Pennsylvania, I saw a bumper sticker that read "when guns are outlawed, I'll become an outlaw". I wonder if he would still think that if his own child was a victim of a mass shooting. This country's obsession with guns is sick. There is no need for military style weapons. No logical need whatsoever.
3
Blow supports strict gun laws or so he claims.
He opposes forceful punishment for violating those laws since it contributes to "mass incarceration".
If the enforcement of strict gun laws results in a racial disparity of those punished, he will claim racial injustice.
3
Great column. If all of the people who claim they need a firearm, say a pistol, for self protection in their home, and all of the people who buy hunting permits were able to get their one or two hunting rifles without massive ammunition magazines, I suspect the number of guns in America would be somewhere in the 10's of millions - still crazy, but why, why why are there 400 million guns in this country?? You can only be aiming and firing one at a time. What is the extreme threat that causes a person to want to own 29 guns (as a parent of one of my kids' friends has)?
1
Just a thought...
If I was a licensed gun dealer, I would be rooting for the elimination of the “gun show loophole” to drive more business my way. Of course I would never admit that to my customers.
1
I respect Beto for what he said. He is a person of honor. This country has a gun fixation. It is a non-negotiable because it is endangering all our lives. He is telling the truth.
1
The NRA, appropriately called a domestic terrorist organization and a tool of gun sellers, has successfully convinced millions of Americans that even the slightest, most sensible gun control will inevitable lead to a gun ban. We license cars and dogs, we should certainly license guns. It's easier to buy a gun than a firecracker.
Someone remarked, "If you agree with me 80% of the time, we are allies. If you agree with me 100% of the time, you need your head examined."
Mr. Blow, I probably do agree with you 80% of the time. But on this particular position, firmly no. Please allow me to explain.
I give Mr. O'Rourke points for honesty. But his position will drive away many law-abiding gun owners who would otherwise support more safety legislation--e.g., more thorough background checks--but who have been afraid that the underlying goal all along has been ban and confiscation, which is a self-defeating non-starter.
I grieve for innocent lives lost, no matter whether the cause is natural disaster or human hate, greed, or mental illness; that bell tolls for all of us. And I don't have all the answers or a grand solution. But as Justice Holmes wrote, "Hard cases make bad law." I wish some of my fellow citizens would concede that there are other valid points to be considered, which all too frequently are met with a closed mind and, sadly, even knee-jerk scorn.
I won't restate the numerous constitutional and policy points in my own words here, but I plead with my liberal brethren--those who otherwise support individual freedoms, including the expansive readings of individual Constitutional rights by the Warren Court--to lend an open ear and open mind, at least this once, to a rational argument from the left:
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html
Thank you.
2
O'Rourke is not really a viable candidate and this enables him to speak clearly regarding the intent - confiscation of weapons by the government.
Have to admit it is refreshing to hear it clearly stated.
1
I sure wouldn’t want to have to give up my home defense revolver. But I don’t see any need for assault weapons like the AR-15 to be accessible to anyone who isn’t in the military, police, FBI, DEA, etc. No civilian should be able to own one. It’s only purpose is to kill many people quickly. That’s not needed for home defense or hunting. So kudos to Beto O’Rourke for speaking so clearly, firmly and passionately. He’s starting to sound like a true patriot.
1
According to the CDC in 2013, for example, there were over 2,801,000 death is in the US from ALL causes. 503 were from mass shootings. That's .0179%. The CDC also notes that the number of non-gun suicides for example is almost the same as for gun suicides. Meaning that if you want to die, you will find a way. The same with mass destruction as we saw at Oklahoma City. How many of us were upset when the government confiscated private property in Connecticut via the Kelo case? That was a property case so it's not the same but it's similar in that the government intervened to take private property. Let's take breath and be rational before storming into a policy that may bad in the long run. Are there some loopholes to close in our gun laws, yes. But we need to think long and hard before enacting confiscation.
1
I use my "assault rifle" as my hunting and ranch rifle. A standard capacity 30 round magazine to protect livestock from coyotes and the ability to shoot a deer at a couple hundred yards.
When did we start blaming inanimate objects for the sinful/immoral actions of an individual or group?
Do we blame food or utensils for obese people?
Vehicles for deaths by automobile?
The sun for deaths by skin cancer?
Alcohol for the drunk driver?
Anyone remember 9/11, they used planes.
Let's start looking at the underlying issue as to why an individual can/would put such little value on another's life.
9
Actually, the answer is Yes to all those questions due to human motivation, self-control, decision making, fallibility, mental illness, greed, profit hungry, sloth, etc. cause food producers to use their commercial expertise to sell cheap high caloric sugary and fatty foods in place of nutritional foods: obesity. Cars and roads are made safer yearly but high speeds increase accidents and motorcycles are just as dangerous as ever. The ozone layer is being decreased by human produced causes diminishing its sun radiation protection causing melanoma deaths.
All those health and safety problems are human caused and/or within human control. We need to act based upon our shared values.
2
Well part of the reason people may feel that human lives have such little value is the fact that Americans value guns much more highly than laws that would reduce gun deaths.
2
@Joel H
You say yes, then shift the blame back to humans. I think we actually agree that human beings are destroying this world for instant gratification and then shift the blame to the easiest out. Right now, it's guns.
It should be Opioid/drug addiction and mental health, which directly affects more of the population than firearms.
https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/gun-death-rate-2017-increase-cdc-suicide/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/29/upshot/fentanyl-drug-overdose-deaths.html
1
Why didn't anyone have this idea before?
Everyone stopped drinking and alcoholism disappeared completely during Prohibition. And the war on drugs is even more of a success than the 6 Day War.
Of course we will have to get all the criminals in the US to cooperate with the new gun laws meant for law abiding people.
And nobody would ever dream of 3D printing firearms.
I know this law will work because in 1139 crossbows were banned by the Pope as being to powerful a weapon for the unwashed masses to have.
2
"The people resisting regulation say that any new legislation is a slippery slope for an aggressive agenda to massively restrict guns."
And yet somehow we managed to ban Tommy Guns during Prohibition without fear of a slippery slope. Somehow we managed to keep the machine guns out of "bad guys with guns" hands, even to this day. Can't we learn something positive from our prior experience with successfully limiting access to weapons of mass killing?
2
Automatic weapons and sawed off shoguns were not being used by people other than criminals. There was no use of these weapons except for crimes.
The civilian semi-automatic weapons are popular and rarely used in crimes. This ban will overcome the barrier to banning popular weapons.
@Michael Ando Sorry, but I'm going to nit-pick here. Tommy guns (fully automatic weapons, that is) were banned in 1934, which was after the repeal of Prohibition (ratification of Amendment 21 in 1933). :-)
the right to bear arms was for single shot muskets- NOT AKR
military weapons, which are for the military. There is NO
excuse for a civilian to own, possess, use or keep a
machine gun. TAKE THEM NOW, as did the Aussies.
Worked for them. will for us.
Lifetime hunter who never saw a military weapon while hunting.
5
Thank you Mr. Blow for this outstanding article. The discussion should continue to be central. I appreciate the freedom to protect myself and property with firearms and understand the responsibility that precious right entails. I also understand that the NRA has held our leaders hostage for far too long. Below are five simple steps toward a more sane national gun policy. Obviously implementation is an up hill skate but an open and recurring dialogue is a beginning.
1. Require each and every firearm to carry liability insurance as with automobiles.
2. National Gun license mandate with safety test requirement
3. Severe fines for violations of the above
4. Outlaw high capacity magazines.
5. Voluntary Federal buyback program for assault weapons
2
More than 80,000 people a year die from automobile accidents in a product that the best minds in the world have worked over 100 years to make safer. There are half as many automobiles as there are firearms in the United States yet the death rate in automobiles is twice as high. Think about that for a second. Let it sink in that a product, designed to be safe, kills twice as many people in the U.S. as a product that is designed to be lethal. Outside of a few major cities, that have banned firearms,, there is no gun violence crisis in the U.S.
This is a manufactured crisis. First the left goes after the First Amendment and now it is going after the Second. 13,000 violent deaths a year from a product base of ~400,000,000 is a statistical blip that cannot be "fixed". As England has learned, deprive violently mentally ill people of firearms and they change to bombs and knives or whatever is handy. Violent death at the hands of another human cannot be solved by banning firearms.
3
Gun safety, total support for Israel in the middle east whatever they do, immigration reform. updating our healthcare system. On these issues we are worefully backward. When we will emerge from our third world status on these issues seems like never. I hope I am wrong.
1
When New Yorkers routinely ignore state law requiring registration of assault weapons (estimated compliance rate: 4%), does anyone think that gun confiscation would work - even if you could get it passed into law? It's not the NRA that politicians need to worry about, it's the voters.
How about we start by rejecting the concept that the right to own guns - any guns - is, or more to the point should be, a Constitutional right.
For over two hundred years, it was generally accepted on the left and the right - including by none other than former Chief Justice Warren Burger - that whatever else the impenetrable Second Amendment meant, it did not confer an individual right to bear arms. Just because a group of four particular far-right justices managed to convince one other "moderate" justice (Kennedy) to go along with them and overturn two hundred years of precedent does not mean that we must now, and forever more, bow down before the Second Amendment as if it enshrines some fundamental liberty like the right to life and liberty. Yet, almost all of our politicians, including those who favor modest gun control steps such as banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, feel compelled to at the same time make clear that they "respect" Second Amendment rights.
Well, I, for one, do not respect any Second Amendment individual right to bear arms. The concept that a society that calls itself a democracy DOES NOT have the collective, legislative right to regulate the sale, ownership or possession of weapons that can end lives is abhorrent enough, but the concept that a democratic society SHOULD NOT have such a right is absurd. And IF that is what the Second Amendment means, then it should be struct from the Constitution just like slavery was.
3
How many terminally ill people committing suicide via gun?
1
I live in an area where militias and anti-government sentiment is very strong. People here will view a mandatory buyback plan as a seizure (which it is), and many, maybe most, will engage in armed resistance. Even a lot of the Sheriff's offices in the west have vowed they will side with gun owners, not the government.
They march around out in the woods, have "war" games and are not only prepared to fight government forces, they're eager to do so. They can't wait. Yes, they'll lose to the awesome might of the government's hellfires, drones and so on, but with up to 10-million fanatics with assault rifles, what will the cost be?
3
@Jim Most of the U.S. military people I have known are gun lovers. I am fairly sure that the majority of the military personnel would mutiny before attacking those with whose beliefs they share. We are hostages.
1
I've lived in suburbs full of gun paranoia because of Television saturation, and in the country where guns are prevalent and shootings far less. Citing your statistics, as many die of guns as the risk of general anesthesia and likely more from medical mistakes and communicated diseases. I don't spend my life worrying about dying. I spend my time living. Beto must watch a lot of TV. He's young. I understand.
2
It's long past time for people who own AR15s and assault weapons to get a new hobby. These guns were made to kill people and used by the military. I'm tired of being held hostage by the NRA and selfish gun owners. This isn't about defending us, we have a military to do that. Something the forefathers did not have.
10
@Connie Hunt. So those in Chicago should be defended by the military?
Look, if Dems settle for background checks, Donald just might arrange that, given 95% of the people want that fixed.
That takes the issue away from Dems and hands a victory to Trump.
Far better for the Dems to call for banning military style weapons, limiting magazines, licensing, registration, safety training, and mandatory insurance.
Dems ought to grab hold of the issue and be proud.
2
I believe that there is a place (which should remain) for responsible gun ownership and legal use in our society. I Also believe that the reckless wanton use of firearms (and any other methods) is abhorrent and Needs to End - be stopped.
breakdown the numbers paragraph omitted due to length..
So- although the common means of causing death -
guns are not the problem and realistically cannot be controlled in a manner which will end all of this Madness.!
To address the Madness - We must forthrightly identify the (several) factors within our society that cause so many people to seek illegitimate use of guns. And diligently establish programs that will (help people and our society as well) address, cope, heal from the Pain and Confused decision making that is causing families, communities, our society as a whole, so much pain and feeling hopeless and frustrated.
Reducing and largely eliminating these issues are possible - there are currently those among us with the knowledge to engineer programs, and to demand! government support in necessary areas to be effective in these multiple areas in our society. Cultural changes require leadership and the vision of a better place to be, for individuals and for our society - ....
Besides the obvious danger guns present, there is a hazardous/dangerous materials situation.
Gun Owners should be required to let their local government know how many bullets they have, so Fire and other emergency responders can be safe.
2
I can sympathize with candidates terrified of the power of the gun lobby, because in some congressional districts or Senate states that lobby can destroy a career in one vicious outburst of slander and defamation. Nonetheless, what Mr. Blow says is also true, namely, that this country needs to produce politicians who are willing to tell the American people the whole truth, which is exactly what he and Beto O'Rourke say about guns.
The idolatry of these weapons simply cannot be tolerated any longer by a society that intends to protect its own citizens.
2
Let me be clear to all the candidates running, this approach will get my vote over any other national topic. I am tired of worrying about my kids every time they go to school or any public event. I can hardly watch the news as mass shooting has become an almost daily event.
I don't want to become callous and think this is not a problem we can solve or that it won't happen to anyone I know. The fact that it happens even once is unacceptable and regulation is the only reasonable answer, period. No sane citizen needs an assault weapon.
10
Cogent, brilliant, persuasive!
2
Gun culture can be changed, but it will likely take two generations of Americans, assuming we start right now.
2
the first step should be a non-political one..the adoption of child proof smart guns that can only be fired by the authorized user The RFID versions work, the fingerprint don't and a troublesome NJ Smart Gun Mandate that angered the right has now been amended. This would sharply reduce chid gun accidents, most schools shootings involving underage shooters, domestic violence gun grabs, suicides involving a third party firearm and the 80% of gun crimes involving somebody else's firearm..a company called LodeStar Firearms is reportedly set to introduce next year a 9mm smart gun
1
Oh no they will NEVER do gun grabs in America.
O’Rourke didn’t skip a beat: “I want to be really clear, that that’s exactly what we’re going to do. Americans who own AR-15s, AK-47s, will have to sell them to the government. We’re not going to allow them to stay on our streets, to show up in our communities.”
Mr. O'Rourke you are WAY outnumbered. More and more EVERY day!
But estimates that the civilian figure could be 5 million or more appear to be conservative and would exceed the estimated number of all weapons in the military. At the same time, those are semiautomatic weapons, not fully automatic like those used in the military.
I SAY GOOD LUCK.
2
How do we fulfill the 2nd Amendment guarantee of a "well regulated militia" if we regulate it?
2
On the issue of violence and homicides in the US, all the emphasis is put on the number of guns per capita. However, if we rank the number of homicides per gun, the US is ranked 13 (4.2 homicides per 100,000 residents, 112.6 guns per resident) of 171 countries, with Iceland ranked 1 (0.3 homicides per 100,000 residents, 30.3 guns per resident).
In advocating the prohibition of "assault kind" semiautomatic rifles, and handguns with large capacity magazines, the intention is to reduce the number of casualties per mass shooting, as if 10 victims of a single attack is much worse than 10 victims from 10 attacks. It is not worse for the victims, that's for sure. A well prepared attacker can kill and wound many bystanders with a shotgun. Are we going to ban shotguns?
What America does not want to face is that homicidal violence and disregard for life is an intrinsic part of our culture, so if we want to look at the source of wanton killings we must look into a mirror. But we don't want to do that, the issue is too complex and the easy knee jerk approach is to ban the firearms and feel good that we have done something about the problem. Pitiful but true.
This can be solved only with education and a society-wide commitment to curb a culture that has gone haywire. It will take generations and will be difficult to do without trampling liberties and against the allure of profits. No candidate is willing to lead real change.
3
@Jorge
Ah, but we know that gun ownership is heavily concentrated among people who own multiple guns. Only about 30% of Americans own guns. That's why the homicides per gun is relatively low - it's hard to use more than one gun at once.
So I can see an argument why the number of guns doesn't really tell us anything about the danger of those guns. I'd submit that people who are stockpiling them are dangerous nuts, and allowing them to do this feeds their delusions. But my more defensible point is that gun ownership/violence is not the totally diffuse, normal, widespread, ingrained thing you make it out to be.
1
So let’s improve things by giving away more guns to everyone and decreasing that murder/firearm ratio.
A responsible gun owner would support restrictions and regulation. The truth is that a person cannot oppose regulation and still claim to be responsible. It is my firm belief that responsible gun owners do support reform.
2
@willt26
Why, just because you want them to agree with your position?
Why is gun ownership so important to some Americans? Are they all such devout supporters of the Constitution that they cannot abide what they consider any infringement of the second amendment heresy? If so what about the rest of the Constitution such as Amendments 13 -15 or 25?
If after 243 years we are so afraid of government tyranny or have so little regard of laws and the justice system that we are willing to sacrifice nearly 40,000 people a year just to assuage our fears....are we really a country of laws and reason?
5
The ardent supporters of the 2nd Ammendment are close to becoming - in my opinion - a terrorist organization.
The word terrorism is intrinsically difficult to define, but consider this: Every decade 350,000+ people are killed in the US by guns. The use of guns has now lead to institutional training on reacting to active shooters in work places, schools, public places, etc. When people go to a public place or event, they are (or should be) vigilant in recognizing threats, and also protection / egress routes. We are losing civil liberties(!) while hiding behind the 2nd amendment [people being arrested for wanton threats made verbally/electronically/etc. - loss of 1st Ammendment rights].
Guns and their use have made our lives worse, and we are conforming to living with that worsening. There isn't a person remaining in the general population of the USA who hasn't been impacted by guns in some manner.
People who stand behind the 2nd Ammendment above all else are directly supporting violence within our country, and are using the violence to bouy political support of the 2nd. That is very close to a definition of terrorism.
5
In NH we have as dense a concentration of 2nd amendment freaks as anywhere, but we struggle, beyond the shouting, to ponder which gun problem would be solved by which law.
Background checks would not solve the mass shooter problem as AK 15's are now so ubiquitous and can be buried in backyards, if we stopped their sale tomorrow, there would be plenty available. Limiting ammunition might help that one.
Stopping guns in street crime, in home shootings, in home accidents, suicides, all different gun problems requiring different solutions. What Beto is doing is bumper sticker stuff.
Every journey starts with a single step. Any time a thing is changed what existed before still exists. If people could only achieve easy things we would still be in caves.
2
Law abiding gun owners, like myself, should not fear gun control. I was in a shooting clinic in Southern Wyoming recently. Trump country. Safety is paramount. However, paranoia is also paramount. I heard talk about how unsafe "liberal" San Francisco and "communist" California is and how threatened they felt even with their concealed carry. Fear drives them and that is not a healthy reason to own a gun or conceal carry.
I did a defensive pistol clinic and shot a pistol for the first time. I was shaking when I picked up the pistol. By the end, I was comfortable loading, cocking and shooting accurately enough. But I was not competent with the pistol. I could not have shot under stressful conditions. Even so, I could have used my certificate to apply for a concealed carry permit of a loaded gun.
This is one area that needs to be addressed. One of the cardinal rules of gun safety is that you don't carry a loaded gun - so why do we have such a cavalier attitude toward conceal carry?
I remember a USA Today columnist that wrote about getting a conceal carry permit after a mass shooting. It was motivated by fear. This man had no other experience with guns and was uncomfortable around guns. This is exactly the person who should not have a conceal carry permit. I don't want to be collateral damage with anyone who fantasizes about protecting themselves or others with a gun.
Anyone who conceal carries should have to go through rigorous training and testing first.
145
@Mama Bear
You are wrong about safety requiring 'never carry a loaded gun'. Maybe in the indoor range before you get to a station.
If you do any hunting, you'll always be carrying a loaded gun.
3
@Mama Bear
The comment "I heard talk about how unsafe "liberal" San Francisco and "communist" California is and how threatened they felt even with their concealed carry" is most enlightening.
People carry guns because they perceive other people carry guns. Its a dragon chasing its tail, an addiction on a national level where the treatment for the fear for one is the cause of the fear for another.
Living in Australia where nobody carries a gun, nobody feels the need to own one.
One solution for addiction is cold turkey - that takes guts.
35
@Mama Bear Sorry, but NO concealed carry is ok with me. To those people I say, get a life.
5
It is the guns, it has always been the guns, and the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the jettison of context (helped by Heller)
The logical extension of NRA arguments to protect their members 2nd Amendment rights is our future means public buildings shopping malls, schools will be retroactively fortified and new construction will meet standards set up by the defense department so defensive strategies can be deployed to frustrate attackers. All clothing will be Kevlar. The "well regulated militia" will now mean teachers, store clerks, clergy, any one out in the public will be armed and required to go through specialized military training to defend against ambushes. All vehicles will be designed like tanks (to prevent what just occurred in Odessa). And everyone will be certified as a "good guy with a gun" until they are not.
When I was in grade school I read a dystopian short story that predicted all mankind will eventually live separately in enclosed personal biospheres that are impervious to nuclear attack. The sphere would provide all a person's needs except contact with other people, thus insuring our selfish fear based need for safety takes primacy over our need to procreate. (This is an example of "irony," which in the world we currently live in, appears dead)
Personally I would rather be fighting climate change, the other existential threat, with my fellow citizens, dressed in shorts and a t-shirt rather than combat gear.
1
I think some member of Congress should propose hoax legislation allowing open carry in the House and Senate chambers. It would force Republicans to state reasons why this is unacceptable. Their lives are no more important than mine, and there is no sane reason why anyone should be allowed to carry a gun into Walmart or Starbucks, to say nothing of the Capitol.
3
The fallback argument of many gun advocates is that "it is our constitutional right!" OK, so we need to have a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. We can then have sane and reasonable laws that put proper restrictions on the ownership and use of these weapons.
2
Does anybody think having almost any kinds of guns available to anyone, anytime, is a good idea? Probably not, so why is gun control such a controversial issue? For the same reason the anti-electoral college movement is, or federal involvement in voting rights or gerrymandering cases. Liberals are more and more positioning themselves in opposition to the constitution. What they really seem to want is to re-write it to eliminate the power of the states and concentrate political power in the big east coast and west coast predominantly liberal urban centers to the exclusion of almost the entire middle of the country. Whole swaths of Americans oppose that and naturally oppose any efforts to encroach on individual constitutional rights and state rights.
Some rare publicity for the struggling O'Rourke campaign.
1
Three cheers for this. Thank you, Charles Blow, for recognizing a candidate speaking truth, forcefully, on this issue.
5
Excellent column, Charles. It's good to see Beto break free and be the voice of reason on this issue, much like Inslee was on climate change. Lower tier candidates have that luxury. My only quibble is that when you write "politicians", you really should write "republican politicians." The Democrats are certainly not perfect on this issue, but it is the NRA bought and paid for republicans that are the real issue.
4
Perhaps we might focus a bit more on suicide prevention. Whatever the issue it never makes sense to focus on one per cent of the problem, as with mass shootings, however they are accomplished, by handgun or assault rifle, rather than 70 per cent of the problem which in this case involves self-inflicted gunshots. Politicians enjoy making noise about guns, particularly when there is no chance their proposals will be adopted or, as in Mr. O'Rourke's case, they have zero chance of being elected.
3
Buy back should be mandatory. For those who are against it, well, keep your assault weapons and risk jailtime big time. Nerves will fray and staggered amnesties would allow hold-outs to surrender those assault weapons, albeit without compensation.
3
Opponents of gun safety legislation consistently say that it places an unfair burden on the vast majority of gun owners who use their weapons responsibly.
Mr. Blow is correct: so what? Yes, it is unfair that people who don't break the law have to jump through extra legal hoops. But the trade-off of inconvenience--even frustration--is a small price to pay for reducing the incredibly high number of lost lives every year in our nation--and only in our nation--due to the easy availability of assault weapons and other firearms.
3
@pczisny. Since 65% of the “incredibly high number” are suicides, what’s your plan for eliminating knives and drugs?
The gun owners' rights are absolute and will remain permanently beyond challenge. Until they're not. The infuriation when we see NRA and gun maker ads is only the immediately felt effect of their ultimate self-destruction. By forever "holding the line" against any and all attempts at negotiation or accommodation they have guaranteed that all the rest of us are their enemies. They screeched that for so long, that they made it true. They themselves created the conditions for what they've said they fear the most, government troops kicking down their doors to seize their weapons. They gained short-term political strength through their campaigns of hysteria and willful belief that their power would remain triumphant forever. But their political capital has been eaten, their beloved NRA has been found to be venal to the point of criminality and the citizens who are not them are wondering why exactly we put up with it all. They fear the future (why would the confident and powerful engage in apocalyptic fantasies of civil war?), because winter is coming.
3
Take the money from the next air craft carrier, that by the way, the US Navy doesn't want, and put it towards the buy-back. Also, outlaw ALL private sales of guns. If it changes hands it goes through a FFL dealer. Background checks while allowing private sales of firearms will do about nothing.
1
Here here. While I know the incidental casualties external to the US are secondary to many, these measures would serve as a bit neighborly clean-up for those of us to the North. It is the lack of a national registry which is an intentional means of obfuscating the chain of gun ownership, combined with ease of purchase which made “store held up at knife point”, which was more common when I moved up here a thing of the past. Now we hear about gang shootings and reprisals using guns smuggled north.
But, hey, why would anyone care about that when US citizens matter less than gun company profits, which is the actual agenda of the NRA.
2
"Faith" is belief in the absence of evidence -- or, far more commonly, belief in the face of incontrovertible conflicting evidence.
For many Americans, guns are a religion, and Mr. O'Rourke is absolutely correct in his approach. Incrementalists who start every sentence with "I support the Second Amendment" have only lost ground over the last several decades.
2
What kind of country are we if we cannot make sacrifices (gun buybacks, etc.) to keep our kids from getting slaughtered
203
@Chris W.
We are a country that is no longer civil; full of people who should rightfully no longer be called civilians.
16
@Chris W.
The kind we've been living in since December 15, 2012.
11
@Scroty McBoogerballs
So you must accept that of all the industrialized countries in the world, the US is the extreme due to gun violence. This is exactly the price that has to be agreed to, as the mass shootings will continue with the status quo. Would you feel the same if you lost a loved one due to a mass shooting? The current lobby for gun control is nothing close to violating the 2nd amendment, as indeed the founding fathers couldn't have fathomed that an assault rifle would even exist, not to mention a centralized military force, which is why the 2nd amendment was there. Don't be caught up in the past, the 2nd amendment was written for a different time, and different weaponry. I am sure the founding fathers are weeping, given the senseless deaths that are due to this attitude.
12
When I travel to Austin, which is basically San Francisco with cheaper housing and better tacos, I often hear people say that ALL firearms should be illegal. I can't help but wonder while reading so many of these comments just how many here feel exactly the same way. This stems partly from responses in another thread where commenters stated that revolvers and pump-shotguns should also be illegal. So how about it, commenters. How many of y'all would be happy if all firearms were made illegal with a Constitutional Amendment cementing the deal? Just curious.
1
While a tradgedy of any sort is of unspeakable grief, I fear this issue has become so blown out of proportion due to excess media coverage that other far more pressing issues are diminished. By your numbers, there are 397,000,000 guns in civilian hands. Using your number of 40,000 deaths, if my math is correct that is .0001 death per year per gun. Add to that the fact that you are only addressing legal guns, bought and registered. Lets talk about the issues that actually matter more and affect 1000 times more people. Lets argue about inner city poverty that leads to gangs and violence and prison (via guns), lets debate about how to help the mentally ill who are themselves often victimized before picking up a gun, or the hospitals that knowingly discharge them when in need of help. Just passing laws limiting what should be a 'legal' gun is politically correct and great headlines, but I do not believe effective. There are obvious common sense laws such as universal background checks and with hearings, red flag laws. De-politicize the issue, bring in the majority of gun owners that would support common sense laws and move forward, rather than either side continually and irreparably demonizing the other.
1
@NYer
I don't disagree with your desire to analyze it, but I don't agree with your "denominator". I think it would be better to analyze deaths per gun owner. We know that gun ownership is somewhat concentrated among people owning multiple firearms. Presumably the owners are committing the violence, and it's unlikely they are using more than one gun at a time.
I'd be willing to include a factor for stolen firearms, but it's misleading to assume each of those guns represents an individual opportunity for violence.
2
As far as I am concerned, they can melt all the guns down for scrap metal - nobody needs one. There is one thing though that I can't seem to square; despite a huge number of guns and an increasing population, the number of gun deaths in the US appears to have stayed the same or fallen over the last 50 years (suicide by gun may be an exception) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
I think this is why we need real research on this issue. Can it be true that whatever we are doing, despite the proliferation of guns, is causing gun violence to actually decrease? That would be welcome good news.
1
@Tim m The homicide rate, along with violent crime rates in general, have plummeted over the last 30 years (FBI crime data). Gun sales and Constitutional Carry, on the other hand, have increased dramatically. In fact, firearm manufacturing increased by over 100% during Obama's two terms alone (ATF data) and we now have 17 states that allow permitless concealed carry (30 years ago, we had only one: Vermont). Now I'm not saying that more firearms and Constitutional Carry necessarily cause lower violent crime rates, but it is interesting that those two things coincide.
@Tim m
No, it's because paranoid people are hoarding ever increasing numbers of guns. Moreover, gun ownership is far higher among whites than growing demographic groups such as hispanics. It's also far higher in rural areas where population is decreasing.
So while more guns are out there, they are grouped in arsenals that combined don't pose necessarily increased risk, except insofar as they encourage the owner's delusions and anti-social attitudes. It's difficult to use more than one gun at a time.
1
If we can just drain the republican swamp in Congress, along with the current occupant in The White House, the country at long last can hopefully get some meaningful gun control legislation passed in 2020. Until then, it's all about the money going from the NRA lobbyists to the republicans in Congress, and it's as simple as that! All gun owners should be licensed and the guns they own recorded. Convicted felons and the mentally ill should obviously be excluded, along with those who have restraining orders for violence. Prison sentences for illegal possession should be stiff, like 2 to 5 to 10 years depending on circumstances. I am a gun owner, a former NRA member, a veteran and an Independent. It's high time that this nation stopped the insanity of killing 40,000. of it's own citizens each year! No other country in the world comes close to the extent of this crisis.
@Tropical 39. Well, Obama did nothing when he had both Houses, so explain why you blame Republicans. Explain why Dirty Harry never brought it up for a vote.
I LOVE BETO!!! sophisticated and poise, smart, and an excellent speaker. Caring, compassionate, and understanding. Beto for POTUS!
3
Thank you again for your plain talking, common sense support of serious gun control. Beto and you are right. People need to stop justifying the ownership of weapons of mass destruction! Our country is a shameful and warped example of how vested interests pervert the vision of our Founding Fathers. The Fathers were not without their mistakes and faults, but they did NOT envision a time when a citizen could own a weapon that can kill dozens of innocent people in a matter of minutes with the pulling of a trigger. Bravo, Charles and Beto!
4
I agree with Beto we need to get these military assault rifles out of the hands of the general public. However we will never get a congress willing to even attempt a buy back either forced or voluntary, and the voluntary might be useless. Therefore we need a forced buy back. The only way we could ever get congress to ever pass a law like that would be for a billionaire to step up to the plate and announce a new foundation that will give assaults rifles and other military style weapons to brown and black people. I heard the plan from Dave Chappelle on his Netflix special. Black and brown people would only have to exercise their constitutional right and pick up and AK47 or the like. Watch how fast laws would get passed to seize guns.
4
It's fine to praise sensible gun law proposals from presidential candidates, and one can argue the details ad infinitum, but what about the elephant in the room?
The Supreme Court's 2008 2nd Amendment decision was as wrong as their 1896 Plessy vs Ferguson ruling that enshrined separate but equal. We are suffering the deadly consequences of poor legal judgement. Let's hope that we don't have to endure the current travesty as long as we had to endure separate but equal.
3
I’m all for O’Rourke’s plan, but the real news in Mr. Blow’s piece is this:
“There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017...[n]early two-thirds were suicides.”
Who are these people killing themselves, and why?
78
@SM Farmers. The winners of the Trump Trade War.
11
@SM
Frankly, if they were the one who brought the gun into the house, I don't care.
3
@SM
It is interesting that while the US has a high gun suicide rate, the overall suicide rate in the US is average for developed countries. We are much lower than Korea or Belgium, comparable to Finland and Hungary, and higher than France, Germany and Canada.
Based on the data, it appears that the presence of guns in the US affects the means, but not the incidence of suicide. If all gun suicides were eliminated, the US would have by far the lowest suicide rate in the developed world, and close to the lowest in the world.
9
I am tired of continual comments about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment (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.). If one rephrases it using a specific and modern context, one may, for (a conservative) example, get something like this:
"Properly trained teachers, being necessary to school security, shall have the right to carry guns".
Is the intended meaning or this rephrasing of the 2nd confusing and/or ambiguous? "Properly trained" (militia) is restrictive, "school security (free state) defines the purpose and limits of the mission, and "right" emanates from these two limitations.
I am for any legislation that will reduce numbers of guns, background checks, and a ban on assault weapons. but Mr. Blow's statistic, "“There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017, up by more than 1,000 from the year before. Nearly two-thirds were suicides." is relevant to the assault weapons issue and demonstrates that banning such weapons is only one part of the solution. Small arms kill many more people through suicide, accidents (mostly with children...how about gun and trigger locks?) and one-on-one confrontations. This problem needs to be addressed on many fronts; the mass shootings that temporarily arouse emotions are a small part of the problem.
Charles Blow and/or NYT Editorial staff: Please do a content analysis and report in another column or columns on the responses to your column on this subject. Content analysis would highlight themes in these comments and show origins if cimments -- not names, but locations by state o r type of locale (big city, other urban,rural, region ofthe country) -- and your comments on patterns that are revealed in the responses. Espcially what qualifications or qualms have been shown in these comments in response to the Blow-O'Rourke demands.
1
The most tried and tested way to sound authentic is to claim that you aren't using poll-tested ideas. Does anybody actually think that is the case with Beto? He's just looking at the polls for the Democratic base, where he is woefully behind and where he needs a breakout issue. Ascribing sincerity to any politician is naive.
2
Let's pick the low-lying fruit: large majorities support universal background checks and voluntary buy-back programs. Let's start there.
The next step could be to repeal laws that prohibit federally funded research on gun violence. Because we need more hard data on what's happening and why before we can know what the most effective counter measures would be.
Of course the NRA and the "cold dead fingers" crowd will say this in unconstitutional and the first step toward a totalitarian disarmament of the population. They will say that no matter what we do, and we will never convince them otherwise. But that doesn't matter, because there are more than enough sensible people out there who will support these common sense reforms.
No one action is going to end mass shootings or gun violence. But it is unacceptable to simply accept the Sand Hooks and El Pasos as an unavoidable fact of life in our country. We have to take action, and it has to start with things like universal background checks.
2
@Joe M. "We have to take action, and it has to start with things like universal background checks."
I often here folks on the left use words like "good start" when discussing gun-control legislation, but rarely hear them say what would be a "good end." For many, that would be a Constitutional Amendment not only repealing the 2nd Amendment, but banning any and all firearms as well. So with that said, what's your "good end?"
1
The AR15 is not a “Weapon of war”. It is a facsimile of that. Weapons of war are fully automatic. There are already too many out there too control. Nevertheless, I would support Beto’s plan IF there were a clause in it that said that after two more mass shootings in spite of it, we would revert to the older system and make this debate about mental health care and combine it with the problems of homelessness. We have an over abundance of untreated mental health cases.
1
We don’t statistically have more or different mental illness than in other countries, or significantly worse treatment to account for, say, our gun death rate of 40 times the U.K. rate.
So about 23,000 deaths from firearms last year were suicides?
This is an interesting statistic and I hope the NYT can follow up with more analysis.
I am assuming it is difficult to use an assault weapon to commit suicide, so that leaves about 14,000 gun deaths that were not suicide. Then, how many were related to public safety (police involved)? And of the remaining, which were deliberately criminal?
Asking the questions does not take away the damage caused by these deaths and does not take away the fact that very few people have a legitimate need for an assault weapon.
Examining the statistics shows we're not quite still in the '"wild west shoot 'em up" type of society, which is encouraging.
Comparing the number of weapons to the number of criminal shootings does bring up the question of why we allow weapons to people who are inclined to use them to commit crimes? Clearly, only a small fraction of the arms in the US are used for criminal purposes by their owners.
Then, if firearms are not available what alternatives would be used instead? Knives, like in Britain?
2
What would the criminal penalty be for people who refuse to comply with these new laws? Who’s responsibility would it be to enforce? The paradox is there seems to be little appetite for strict law enforcement among those who favor stricter gun laws.
3
I live in Gun Country -- Idaho -- and I'm a pro-gun-control gun owner who frequently debates cold-dead-hands types. After much trial and error, I've found certain arguments to be more effective than others. Sharing them here, lest they be useful: 1) I reassure them that the 2nd Amendment will never, *ever* be overturned. There are simply too many people like me - legal, lawful, dare I say Liberal gun owners - to let that happen. In other words, this is not a "slippery slope" issue in which any action is part of larger plot to take away gun rights. 2) I ask them to name one serious politician who has ever suggested overturning the 2nd. They can't because there are none. I urge them to beware of the "they're coming to take your guns": it's a fear-mongering tactic used to get political donations. 3) I point out that the founding fathers could never have anticipated military-style, mass-killing firearms capable of mowing down people. 4) I argue it is illegal and illogical for civilians to own most weapons of war while others, such as grenade launchers, absolutely require registration. Where is that line? Where is that slippery slope when it comes to owning a machine gun vs. a small bomb? 5) Finally, I make the you-need-a-background-check-for-everything-else argument: renting a place, getting a job, joining the military, etc. A car can be a deadly weapon, too: it requires a license and registration to use it. Why are guns any different?
12
The simple statistical fact is that the more guns there are the more people will die from them.
As for the Supreme Court, it has willfully misread the 2nd Amendment to satisfy gun owners and the gun industry by ignoring the opening phrase of the amendment.
The 2nd is in the constitution because:
1. At the time the Constitution was written there were hostile Indian tribes on eastern lands of the U.S supported by the English that were raiding settlement farms and towns hence the need for a well regulated and armed militia:
2. There had been a successful Slave uprising Haiti and the southern slave owners were fearful of a similar slave uprising hence the need for a well regulated and armed militia.
It is note worthy that neither of these conditions exist today.
4
Right on! To those strict constructionist readers of the constition pay attention. The writer accurately describes the 17th century concerns behind the 2nd amendment. Threat of a "federal government" violation of states rights is a gun loby red herring reading of the second amendment, and invalid justification of unlimited gun ownership rights.
@David
But, as devil's advocate, didn't they just finish fighting a war against an oppressive and tyrannical British monarchy? Doesn't the Federalist Papers explicitly lay out that non-representative, controlling central government as a driver of the second amendment?
We are all sitting ducks and one situation away from an angry/crazy person shooting us, someone we love, a neighbor etc.
As of now, there is no one nor one institution to protect us from the NRA and it's supporters; not the President, not the Senate, not many state legislatures or governors.
Mr. Blow, keep talking and writing about the gun crisis; perhaps one day I will feel safe again.
2
Lying is never attractive. And honesty is always preferable, especially when it comes to the subject of guns. To be clear, I personally favor requirements that would make it much more difficult to get access to guns— by everyone. On the other hand, I also favor policy that makes a difference and is doable. To that end, as with discussions of health care, climate, or economic disparity, facts are critical. While it is true that more guns are now in the hands of Americans than in the past, it is also true that the homicide rate has declined and the portion of homes with guns has also declined. Too, while the AR style rifle has been the choice of mass shooters, such firearms account for a very small fraction of all homicides. Handguns are far more responsible for homicides, and such killings are concentrated in a certain segment of the population and in rather specific geographic areas. As for mass murder, careful research has linked incidents to contagion prompted by media coverage — which, of course, raises issues with the First Amendment. The topic is complex, and simple solutions will not be effective in addressing it. The frenetic oratory of O'Rourke is not honest. And rather than produce solutions to gun related homicide, it will contribute to election outcomes that most of us oppose.
2
The biggest lie about gun control is the deadliness of mass shootings.
Of the 44, 000 Americans who die of gunshot every year about 2/3rds are suicides. A majority of whom are white men and veterans who tend to use handguns.
Of the remaining gunshot homicides most involve family, friends,neighbors and thugs who also tend to use handguns and act alone.
While mass shootings are increasing in frequency and deadliness they are still a tiny percentage of shootings.
5
Mr Blow is exactly right. We need to go house to house and confiscate all firearms, narcotics, and other contraband. We can also check for open warrants and unpaid judgments. A little inconvenience is a small price to pay. Then we will all be safe.
1
Mr. Blow's frankness is refreshing. I say this as a a gun owner who favors a comprehensive public health, gun control, and law enforcement approach to the gun violence crisis.
Mr. Blow makes two points I think most responsible gun owners (RGOs) can accept.
1. "Guns can be effectively and constitutionally regulated in this country." The SCOTUS Heller decision makes this crystal clear.
2. "People who want to [regulate guns] should be upfront and honest about how far they truly hope to go . . . ." Yes, absolutely. RGOs want to be part of the solution, but that means knowing what gun control advocates (GCAs) wish to do. Any comprehensive solution requires open dialog.
Until that dialog blossoms, RGOs rightly fear being lumped with NRA and gun zealots, in part because it isn't clear how far GCAs want to go and in fact how just much many GCAs actually know about guns. Reasonable gun control measures require understanding details. Without this understanding, a desire to ban AR-15s might be unfairly extended to 9mm carbines, which can be similar in appearance while functioning very differently.
Mutual trust will be the heart of establishing reasonable, effective gun control. If GCAs and RGOs are open to learning from each other going forward, if they can work together, then the NRA and legislative laggards can and will finally be defeated.
2
Bravo to Beto for taking a strong stand in favor of gun control, and to Charles Blow for writing about him.
For too long, the gun lobby has stopped any discussion of gun control before it even starts with their specious "slippery slope" argument. As if the mere mention of wanting to save lives inevitably leads to total gun confiscation.
The gun lobby has also effectively prevented the government from studying the causes of gun violence with the specious argument that it inevitably leads to arguments for gun control.
Lately, though, with the overwhelming number of mass shootings, and the NRA in disarray, the political environment has changed. Gun safety, gun control, gun violence, are now being discussed.
There's still a long, long way to go before we get any meaningful national gun control laws. I don't support Beto for president, but just for his position on gun control, I hope he gains some traction and gets to voice his opinion in the upcoming debate.
I miss the days when Democrats would bristle at the notion that they wanted to confiscate firearms and/or were Socialists. It at least occasionally provided a halfway reasonable alternative when the GOP candidate was too far Right for me. At this point any Democrat is too great a threat to my life, liberty, and livelihood to vote for any candidate other than whoever makes it out of the GOP primary.
7
The radical 2nd Amendment hijackers need to get used to the idea that, YES we are coming for your assault rifle. You have no justifiable, meaningful nor useful need for an AK-47 or the like. If they are going to go overboard with their "gun rights" beliefs, then we need to respond in kind...then meet in the middle where they give up their assault weapons. Compromise is beautiful.
1
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
In this, Scalia is correct. However, his tortured argument that the 2nd Amendment bestows an individual right is...well.. tortured. Just read the Amendment as it is written.
1
Gun fanatics today seem to presuppose that the framers of the Bill of Rights in 1787 had a crystal ball and accurately perceived the world of 2019.
@Alan
They understood they could not and did not try. They well understood that government would always organically try to grow it's own power which is why they did not "grant" this right, they restricted the government from infringing upon it.
4
The original intent of the second amendment has been perverted to the point of where no one reads the first part of the amendment and all emphasis is concentrated on the last four words. The Second Amendment starts out by declaring that a "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" was language inserted into the Bill of Rights in order to assuage the fears of those individuals who opposed passage of the Constitution because they didn't like the idea of a strong federal government with a standing army. Consequently the second amendment was written to emphasize the states right to provide for the national defense through well-regulated state militias. And regulated they were. The number of guns within a particular state was noted and who own them and ammunition and powder was also regulated. What has also been lost in the passage of time, is the fact that the statement to keep and bear arms was a military term, and not interpreted as an over reaching personal right. We are the fools who allow the NRA to focus entirely on the last four words and subject the rest of us to the continued terror of unlimited firearm ownership. It is a travesty that must end.
2
Why does any American need to own AR-15s, AK-47s or other similar weapons? We don't have a war in our country. We will if these shootings continue. There is nothing in the Second Amendment that says Americans are entitled to own guns for the sole purpose of killing each other. We were a new nation when that amendment was written. We did not have a standing army to fight a possible invasion from other countries. It seems to this reader that the NRA and a few others are confusing reality with their fantasies of what American life is nowadays.
I'm glad that San Francisco declared the NRA to be a terrorist organization. They are spreading terror with what they are urging people to do and how they are handling the issue. No one should have to worry that going to the store for groceries or getting gas will end with being shot to death because someone with a legal or illegal gun decides to get even with the world.
We can and should enforce existing gun control laws. But we should stop lying to ourselves about AR-15s, AK-47s and other similar firearms. No one needs to own a weapon that can fire off enough ammunition at once to shred a human being to death.
9/5/2019 1:46pm
3
Anyone who thinks that having no guns is going to prevent suicide is just not paying attention.
2
So trying to prevent suicide isn’t important? Is that an “oh, well?” Because the chances that someone will succeed in a suicide attempt skyrocket if there’s a gun available. There’s even a tiny bit of time during which a person trying to hang themselves can be cut down and saved. With a gun, it is one and done. There’s no chance to think things through or live past the impulse. Personally, I think those lives are valuable. Personally, I think they deserve the chance to live.
1
You have just got my vote.
We keep hearing about the "slippery slope" of taking away guns. In fact, the slope is in the opposite direction. Far from reducing the number of guns, what we have is more and more and more guns, more military style rapid fire guns, more lethal ammo and high capacity magazines. It's time to put a stop to this uniquely American craziness. Let's start by getting the most lethal weapons and accessories off the market and pass some laws to spell out what you cannot do with the guns you own.
1
Guns are a national health emergency. If this were a disease killing so many people continually, we'd all be unanimous in our wish to obliterate it. The results suffered from guns are no different from the results of a deadly disease.
@J.Sutton
Really? Medical mistakes are responsible for about five times as many deaths as all types of firearms related deaths together (suicides, homicides and accidents). I haven't seen any "Everytown" rallies against doctors lately have you?
The MOST DISHONEST conversation or debate in America is, and will continue to be the one about gun control/violence. The hard truth is that the American cultural identity is firmly wrapped around the gun. It is the gun that secured this great land for settlers and eliminated all opposition (the natives, the bison etc.) The second amendment assures every American the right to gun ownership. With much more guns currently in the society than people, any honest debate about control must include the term GUN CONFISCATION . No one would dare to even utter those words. Case closed.
3
@masai ha
This IS sarcastic, right? “The natives, the bison”?
No singular person’s right to own any sort of weapon should trump someone else’s right to live/not get gunned down in a school, movie theater, church, etc. Period. End of story. If that means more and stricter gun laws, wrestling guns from the hands of people who have obtained them illegally or doing away with the second amendment altogether, I support all of that and more.
5
"Can I or anyone else point to a specific proposal and say it would have affected this or that specific mass shooting? Occasionally yes, but often not. But that’s not the point."
Wrong. That's EXACTLY the point. Everyone wants to reduce gun violence but it is simplistic and dangerous to just throw out possible solutions that restrict a Constitutionally protected right without any indication they will address the problem you are trying to solve.
The impetus for drastic change is not the majority of gun deaths which are suicides (although it should be) or the next largest share which are criminal acts mostly in urban areas. The driving force is sensational mass shootings. Want to address that problem? Fine. Study what will work and then balance those solutions against the rights of 43% of American households that own guns legally and responsibly.
Don't give me this "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks" approach. The country and the Constitution deserve better.
4
@Web The vast majority (73%) of mass shootings since 2014 have been committed using semi-automatic weapons, and high capacity magazines were used in about 50% of those mass shootings. So, to answer your question -- ban the sale of all semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. In addition, institute a buy-back program to get these off the street.
If you think this response is glib and you'd rather see more analysis, well, that requires Congress to change the law. Government agencies are legally prohibited from studying gun violence. Yes, there's a law that was passed by Congress. Might make a person think that gun owners would rather hide their head in the sand than seriously look st the issues?
1
@rlkinny
Your stats are spot on. So called "assault rifles" are used in a miniscule number of shootings yet those sensational events are the driving force in the gun control debate.
It's is important to understand in the handgun stats you shared the "high capacity" magazines are in most cases the standard magazine of the firearm they are in and have no particular bearing on the act they are used in. See the excellent research of Michael Siegel of BU's SPH finding "high capacity" magazines (and "assault" rifles) are basically irrelevant as a cause of gun deaths.
@Web You misunderstood the stats. Assault rifles were included in the semi-automatic data. AR-15's are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. We're talking about mass shootings, not guns suicides or shootings among people who have some type of relationship. The mass shootings are what people are prioritizing to address. (For example, not to worry when their children go off to school every morning. Or, worry about the stress on their child having to go through active shooter drills). In the case of mass shootings, assault rifles and high capacity magazines are far from irrelevant. They are the enablers of randomly killing the most people in the shortest amount of time. Your mental gymnastics in changing the baseline from mass shootings to all gun deaths to try to whitewash the data is disingenuous.
1
The migratory bird act is a strictly enforced US law that limits the number of loaded rounds of ammunition allowed during bird season to three shells maximum. Violators are subject to very heavy fines and loss of hunting privileges. It seems like we live in a country that values ducks more than human beings.
4
A friend and I were talking about the proliferation of AR-15's, and the "need" for such a weapon in civilian armories. He lives in Alabama, and he owns one, as does his wife.
"Hers is pink," he said. "We have a lot of fun shooting them. Why should anyone tell us that we can't own them? It's our right."
This man is a lifelong friend, and he's a bone fide genius with an IQ over 150 - we were in a gifted and talented program together in NY in the 70's. He's now an actual "rocket scientist", working with the Pentagon in the development of weapons of some kind (it's classified). And yet he cannot see that this particular weapon of choice for mass shooters has no place in civilian hands. He seems to feel that HIS "right to bear arms" of all kinds for his own pleasure should trump MY right to live. His thoughts mirror those of outspoken critics of reasonable gun laws like Meghan McCain, who stated on air the other day that, "I'm not living without guns."
That kind of thinking is what we're up against in the struggle to protect ourselves from being slaughtered by weapons that can mow down hundreds of us in a single burst of gunfire.
7
@Chris Wildman
Conversely you can't see that your friend and his wife's AR-15s pose zero danger to society at large. You are all too ready to deprive them of their Constitutional rights, because of the actions of lunatics and criminals who neither care about our laws and will always find weapons to commit their crimes.
@Chris Wildman
Your friend is smart enough to understand his responsible use of his firearm has nothing to do with gun violence perpetrated by another.
Beto O'Rourke is bold and honest, he's a terrific candidate... but he's just that... a candidate. I'd like to see Democrats speak up honestly about the lack of Democratic leadership on this issue... specifically, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Where are they NOW? Why do we accept their complacency? Must the focus always be on November 2020? That's more than a year away. I'm weary of other Democrats saying we can't get any reasonable gun control passed with a Republican Majority in the Senate. The problem is not that we have a Republican Majority in the Senate, the problem is that Democrats have weak and ineffective leadership. If the majority of Americans support reasonable gun control, then why isn't our Democratic Congress meeting their wishes? I largely blame Schumer and Pelosi. If Democrats had stronger, bolder leadership, we would pass reasonable gun legislation. Think how differently our Congress would act if Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris were Senate Minority Leader. Or, if Beto O'Rourke had the ability to lead our Senate.
4
Tom, with all due respect, you are wrong. Moscow Mitch controls what bills go to the Senate floor not. Chuck or Nancy who got bills passed out of the House. You are blaming the wrong people.
1
@jonathan
A bold, vocal minority can capture media attention. You don't think Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris would be a match for Mitch McConnell? I think both Senators are tough enough, smart enough, and bold enough to raise awareness. Chuck Schumer is weak and ineffective and no match for McConnell.
1
"“Anything smacking of confiscation would breathe life and energy into the not-from-my-cold-dead-hands crowd"
The days of worrying about the political clout of that contingent are rapidly slipping away. They hold no moral or Constitutional superiority over those who have to tear themselves away from their last embrace of their cold-dead-child.
Sorry for the gruesome analogy, but I think it helps to put this argument in perspective.
4
Charles Blow, thank you! This is a truthful, comprehensive and succinct piece on gun control that every Demo candidate should read. The right to regulate guns is alive and well in this country, as the Supreme Court has ruled. Also, I wonder how those firmly those "cold, dead hands" would grip their guns if the buyback amount was 20K or more.
3
@Maureen I would definitely take that 20K without blinking an eye...then I'd drop a grand on another rifle and pocket the other 19. :-)
1
Good for Beto!
Buy back all the assault rifles and place stronger and more sensible restrictions on other types of guns.
The majority of people in America want more restrictions on guns.
Let's start acting like a democracy and less like a plutocracy.
1
How about first going after the toxic websites and twitter use that promotes hate and killing in the first place? 4Chan/8Chan/Discord are seeding the impressionable teens that don't know better. And a few miscreants as well as (I suspect) foreign actors are promoting hatred with manifestos, etc.
The real truth is no one wants to accept: we no longer have affordable psychological/psychiatric care/coverage that was available 30-40 years ago (Seeing my shrink. How is yours?). Instead there is a pharma-owned doctor that will prescribe a pill. Maybe it helps, that is, until that person loses the coverage to pay for it. Then its a walking killer.
Plus, we have more stress, more distractions and more debt levied on each of us than previous generations. The promise of jobs is all but left to service work (cheap labor). Wall Street has fooled many to invest in the IRA risk while professing how horrible pensions are (states for decades did pretty well managing funds without Wall Street greed). And Wall Street continues to profit whether you gain or lose. People kill people. More die from sugar, from Juul use, from fentanyl, ... and from how much smaller the world has become with social media.
@U.Z. And while we're at it eliminate the rest of the Amendments too! Woo!
1
"People interested in reducing gun violence in America have to stop lying about what that would require."
Thank you!
It would take a LOT MORE than just the knee-jerk reaction of revoking the Bill of Rights; outlawing guns -even "weapons of war", as if there's a meaningful difference.
We need to address the underlying problem of idle males and their hopeless lives. Income equality, education, removal of Republicans from government, etc.
@mike - I am sorry but dealing with the problem would be difficult and expensive and most importantly it would prevent us from feeling like we are doing something
The 2nd amendment is a relic of the 18th century. A well ordered militia can be shown to have been superceded. But as was stated, the over my cold dead body rhetoric of the 2nd amendment people shows one is dealing with a situation that was allowed to get way out of hand. The NRA made an issue that 2nd amendment was a carte blanche affirmation of the gun craze they have fomented.
2
Perhaps Charles has figured out why Robert is polling at 2%.
2
The most chilling thing about gun control I have witnessed up until now was the young lady panelist on a daytime talk show in a lovely white pantsuit say outright that any democratically enacted law to limit or ban assault rifles will be met with violence. Ms. McCain checked her notes and exclaimed that she is not living without guns, that "taking" guns away from her people would result in violence. An American television woman said this at noon on a weekday and somehow this terrorist threat is attributed to a "view". This is a purposeful signal and in a sane country would be met with horror.
4
What kind of politican, what kind of human being, would put getting re-elected ahead of getting assault guns under control?
1
I have an excellent idea. President Elizabeth Warren creates a Gun Safety Czar much like trump's drug czar except effective and puts Beto O'Rourke in charge. Perhaps she can start like SFO and identify the NRA as a terrorist organization that has become a more serious danger to Americans than any foreign terrorist group by a long mile.
It is time Americans stand up to the NRA and say we're not afraid of you anymore.
5
I agree 100% - tired of the excuses, tired of the NRA, tired of people being killed or killing others with guns. NO ASSAULT WEAPONS period!
For many years I have supported the right of others to own non- assault weapons but I am so tired of the NRA and the lies, that I would like to see all guns banned and the NRA dissolved.
Cowardly politicians who cater to the NRA, the NRA, the manufacturers are responsible for all those deaths and all the ones still to come. No other civilized country allows this to happen. Money over people, it's the American way!
1
If 2/3 of the 40K gun deaths are suicides, none of the proposals cited (creating a national gun licensing system and registry, universal background checks, red flag laws, banning manufacture, sale and possession of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines) really do anything to address those nearly 27K gun deaths. Unless the "red flag" laws seek to remove guns from people adjudicated likely to be of potential harm to themselves.
Otherwise, those 27K deaths likely occur among "responsible gun owners" who become suicidal; not many use military assault style weapons or multiple round magazines.
Now we know things that can be effective in suicide prevention. So why are these measures not top of the list for recommendations?
One of those certainly could be removal of relatively easy means (handgun) from the household of a person at risk. But by then many other preventative measures have been neglected. This approach requires acknowledgement of the actual main problem, and willingness to put the efforts and resources into meaningful prevention. That would be a response to the true public health problem we face in terms of death by firearm.
I'm not saying to ignore the potential mass murderers and their methods of choice, but I am saying let's really focus efforts where we know we can have a substantial impact.
3
@Gordon - Gordon, this is not about looking at actual facts.
2
@Ron One can hope. And try. It would be interesting to see a headline though that says "2000 killed in mass gun murder this month - self -murder (suicide)." That might get some attention.
Well, it's about time. This should be an integral part of the Democrats' platform. No question. No equivocation. The reason that the Republicans are so powerful is that the Democrats have no spine. Look what happened in England. Real people stood up to the tyrannical fool that somehow got to be Prime Minister. We have one of those but the opposition party has no integrity, no courage. Beto's response was courageous and spot on. No one in America needs an AR 15 or an AK 47. No one. And if it's "over my dead, cold hands," then so be it.
3
Perhaps we should consider steep steep taxes on ammunition. Sure some people can make their own bullets, but certainly we can regulate gun powder like we currently do for fertilizer.
As a gun owner, I do appreciate the honesty from the gun prohibitionists. Stop the lies about being "gun safety" advocates. You want to ban many or most categories of guns and prohibit civilian gun ownership to the extent possible.
That honest articulation should only serve to strengthen the resolve of gun owning moderates like me. Yes, I do support universal background checks and red flag laws IF they have sufficient due process protections. But I won't support ANY gun prohibition or confiscation laws and will vote against any politician -- like O'Rourke - that supports them.
While guns can indeed be subject to some regulation, the right of citizens to own a weapon to protect themselves and their families is a fundamental human right, even if it were not constitutionally protected. I and millions of Americans simply will not delegate that right wholesale to the government. And I view anyone who would force me to do so as foolish and morally blind. It doesn't matter whether someone thinks I can effectively protect myself, that right is mine to exercise.
Unfortunately people like Mr Blow seem unable to recognize that this -- not the NRA or any other lobby - is what drives the gun rights movement. And their confiscatory dreams not make us safer and are doomed to fail.
6
"...so as not to upset the gun lobby and gun lobbyists."
The "lobby" is a place in a building and "lobbyists" are the people loitering around in it? Wouldn't the "gun lobby" just be "gun lobbyists"?
“Anything smacking of confiscation would breathe life and energy into the not-from-my-cold-dead-hands crowd, endangering law enforcement and likely putting a full stop to any further gun safety measures.” What? are we going to let this macho tough guy talk scare us from doing what needs to be done. Would this put law enforcement in any more danger than dealing with a mass shooter or a any criminal with a gun. At this point I think that those of us who are fed up with assault weapons in our midst far outnumber these crackpots who have weapons of war. Confiscate these guns, they will get over it.
And no we don't need studies to find out what measures work. That is just liberal back peddling and standard liberal boiler plate in gun control discussions. We can look at countries with low or nearly non existent gun deaths and put into law what they already have on their books. People who shoot guns at others or at themselves are no different in the US than say in Canada or Australia. The difference here is that anyone can access a gun even weapons of war. We have the greatest well organized militia in the world and we have the well trained Pentagon to manage them..
We don't need a civilian militia.
1
Using pro-gun logic, one should be able to carry grenades and maybe have a cannon at home in the name of self defence. No? If not, explain the need for a machine gun.
It's total luncacy.
A normal hunting long rifle is more than sufficient for self defence. Anything beyond that is just self indulgent.
Seriously California and New York, please separate so I can move there. I just can accept paying taxes towards your current government.
“I want to be really clear, that that’s exactly what we’re going to do. Americans who own AR-15s, AK-47s, will have to sell them to the government"
So the solution is according to Mr. O'Rourke is to subvert the Constitution under the guise of it being for our "safety"
Well...
Now we all know why you should never be President of the United States
5
Cars, trucks, boats, houses, vacant land, airplanes, and myriad other items are bought and sold daily, but NOT without that transaction having certain conditions which must be fulfilled, legal registration, deeds, and in many cases a valid proof of ownership of the item and proof the buyer is qualified and licensed by law to operate something such as a vehicle being purchased. The free circulation and trade in deadly weapons, including military weapons of war, as well as high capacity clips, and ammunition in this country is insane. ALL firearms should require registration and when any change hands, buyer and seller should be required to fulfill the same type of conditions which accompany the sale of a vehicle or any of the other items mentioned above. BTW: private individuals are NOT allowed to own nuclear weapons because those are weapons of war and do not belong in civilian hands. Why not a similar prohibition against owning weapons which can kill hundreds of humans in a few minutes? I am a lifelong gun owner and I support these regulations.
2
I think the "cold dead hands" gunowners are actually a small percentage of the population. We're a gun culture. But 30 years ago we were a cigarettes are cool culture also. We changed that, maybe we can change Americans attitude towards guns also. I own guns for trap shooting and target shooting. I've never seen the reasoning for civilians to own AR's and AK's. No one hunts with them. They're just big boys toys to pose with and talk big. Ban anything larger than a 5 shot magazine.
2
I have heard it opined that the 2nd Amendment was included so as to placate, wait for it...Southern slave owner states, because they were rightly concerned about slave revolts.
That is a Constitutional history question beyond me, but the regionality of the current argument goes beyond just the South, it now is very much about rural culture versus urban culture, and both cultures are very afraid.
Perhaps we need a solution that somehow allows weapons in rural, unincorporated areas, yet forbids them in urban, incorporated areas.
The argument that this law or that law would not have prevented this or that shooting is specious. The point has to be to take a much longer view of the problem. If Beto's plans were to be instituted, there would probably be fewer suicides and murders in 50 or 75 years. That has to be one of our goals, despite our obsession with the quickness of events. Another idea: you have to have a pass code or a thumb print to turn on your own phone. Build that into guns. Stolen guns or straw purchase guns would not be usable with that safeguard. There are tons of ideas that would not keep people from having guns but would still make society safer.
3
Bravo to O'Rourke and Blow. If we, as a society, are to have any hope of curtailing the mass slaughter of our citizens we must talk honestly about what that will take. We have to do the research to try to discover what steps will work but in the meantime we have to start trying things that will decrease the shear number of guns in our country and eliminate or severely restrict the weapons that can kill hundreds of us in minutes. This will restrict and curtail the so-called rights of so-called responsible gun owners like the woman in Connecticut whose son used her legal weapons to slaughter 25 school children in their school for God's sake, but so be it. My grandchildren have rights too and one of them is to go to school without worrying about someone coming into their school and shooting them. If AR-style weapons have to be illegal to secure their rights then so be it.
4
@Horace - Mass slaughter? More people are killed in auto accidents or by alcohol each year than guns.
1
@Ron-actually, gun deaths and auto deaths are now about equal. Auto deaths last year were estimated to be 40,000.
https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatality-estimates
In addition to universal background checks and red flag laws, I would like to see mandatory registration of all guns, and mandatory licensing of all gun owners, with increasing licensing fees depending on the number and type of weapons owned. Ditto for mandatory insurance - premiums would increase depending on number and type owned. It's past time we began treating gun ownership with the seriousness it deserves. If you have a right to bear arms, I also have a right for you to be required, by law, to be totally responsible for those arms, and to be protected from them.
5
Having inherited, along with the rest of an estate, a rifle I had no interest in owning, we should also consider what happens to these guns when the owners/collectors die. At the very least, whoever is supposed to inherit the gun should be background checked to make sure they meet the necessary criminal/mental health standards before they can take possession. Perhaps states need to set up a buyback program specifically for heirs. Add to that a requirement that ammo (including casings and gunpowder) cannot be sold to anyone who hasn't had a background check.
3
Mr. O'Rourke and Mr. Blow are confronting the problems of gun violence directly and honestly. Like many Americans who mourn the lives lost and worry about becoming a victim or losing a loved one ourselves, I am eager for politicians to discover their courage and sense of responsibility to take actions to save lives and reduce the trauma of the rampant American gun violence problem.
3
First time the Brady people asked me for money, I asked them if they were going for a Constitutional Amendment. THey weren't.
I told them then that my idea of gun control is than only an Amendment will work.
That remains my position.
Upon hearing about the government's buyback proposal I ran a background check on the potential buyer and found it to be mentally unstable with a propensity for unprovoked violence.
3
@Charles - Agreed!
I'd go one step further. Just take all the guns away already. The second amendment was written in frontier times and doesn't belong in modern life. If that happens then "only criminals will have guns". Yes that's correct. We'll then know who the criminals are as they'll be easily identifiable. They're the ones with the guns. There will be loud complaints from the gun lobby and some people will be devastated economically. We can compensate these people with our thoughts and prayers.
6
@Paul Kiefer - Next, I would require parental licensing prior to issuing a certificate allowing a live birth. We have to cut down the number of undesirables in this country.
I have never been hunting, never will, but I can certainly understand the appeal. Rifles and shotguns for hunting, handguns for self protection at home I also understand, or if one has a particularly dangerous job, but anything else should not be allowed. Weapons of war do not belong in civil society.
1
I have heard gun owners say they need military style weapons because they will need them to oppose the government at some future time. In other words when they commit treason at some future time. It is not an argument any government should accept as a reason to allow them to have weapons.
We should also not over look the power of taxation when it comes to weapon control. Taxing weapons and ammunition would provide funds to implement other policies.
7
Politicians, the NRA and anyone else who stands to profit from unrestricted gun sales and ownership always seem to take about 10 minutes following each mass killing atrocity committed with a weapon of war to begin changing the focus away from common-sense regulation and on to "doing something to about mental illness."
Meanwhile, it seems obvious to me that any ordinary private citizen whose thinking compels him to want or need to possess a weapon of war and a stockpile of ammo for purely personal use is, by definition, mentally unfit to own a weapon of war for personal use as an ordinary private citizen.
Or is it just me who's "crazy"?
5
All of the parsing of the 2nd Amendment text, all the speculation about what the founders’ intent was, about what James Madison might have had for breakfast the day he proposed the amendment that might be relevant, about what kind of weapons the amendment regulates, about the definition of a militia in 1791, about foreign threats at the time, about British Common Law antecedents, about when the NRA became an arm of the gun industry – ALL are irrelevant. All are nothing but futile academic conjecture with zero chance of triggering a solution to our gun problem.
The ONLY thing that matters is that we have unprecedented carnage due to the easy availability of guns, particularly of automatic weapons designed for military use.
What matters is that we have a level of gun carnage that far outpaces that in other developed countries.
What matters is that the carnage is a national health crisis.
What matters is that these realities amount to COLLECTIVE INSANITY - an insanity that makes us accept as NORMAL the fear of going out into public spaces, and live with the trauma our children experience when our only “solution” to the problem is active shooter drills.
What matters is that we have accepted the carnage as the price of freedom. We have allowed our obsessive worship of individual rights to hold the common good hostage. We allow a minority of self-absorbed, spoiled fanatics, and free-market capitalism to hold a gun to our collective heads.
What matters is reality.
8
@Michael "...due to the easy availability of guns, particularly of automatic weapons designed for military use..."
That is a false statement. The only people who have access to automatic weapons are specially licensed by the ATF. This involves paperwork, taxes and a thorough background investigation prior to licensing. Also, even after a person is so licensed, they still do not have access to any automatic weapons manufactured after 1986.
4
@Independent Observer, so there's no problem? You are acting as one of those who insists that every war weapon is in the hands of fully licensed patriots; a well-ordered militia as it were.
As you know, the problem is not with the paperwork crowd who do it right. It's the fact that these war weapons are everywhere, easily obtained, easily borrowed, easily used to mow down hundreds in just a few seconds.
We don't have to parse the difference between responsible grenade owners and those who throw them into day care centers, in order to know that IN GENERAL, THESE WEAPONS HAVE NO PLACE IN PEACEFUL CIVIL LIFE.
9
@deb What's a "war weapon?" In my 20 years of military service, I was issued 5-shot revolvers, Beretta 92 (10-shot capacity, if memory serves) and 12-gauge pump shotguns. As such, all of these could be considered your so-called "war weapons." Do you wish to ban these as well?
No one should own a high capacity rifle. Period. There is no logical reason for doing so. Watching all of this gun debate from afar is troubling. What is most concerning is the lack of will power on politicians part to do something. How can the gun industry have such a hold on politics? Who are these people? Who allows all of this to happen?
3
Don't let anyone try to get away with saying they have their AR-15 or AK-47 knock-offs for the purpose of sport hunting, or even for home protection. They bought them with the fantasy of some Rambo-style, ride-to-the-rescue, heroic act in which they play a starring role.
Walter Mitty in camouflage clothing.
F Troop in jungle fatigues is more like it.
5
How about if we stop lying about everything, Alabama hurricanes on down?
6
Without an assault weapon ban and buy back America will never stop this "American carnage". If it also takes a 2nd Amendment amendment so be it. We repealed the 18th Amendment and we should have the brains to fix the 2nd.
2
It is clear that the Democratic party has lost touch with actual reality. Why do they have to be so extreme? On every issue too, not just guns. Are gun issues worse than they used to be? No. Should some action be taken? Yes, of course. Its all just hyperbole and cherry picking metrics. Sad.
2
@Ron
What evidence exists that U.S. gun death/gun violence/mass shooting statistics are "cherry picked metrics"? (Is some clandestine Democratic party anti-gun conspiracy responsible for compiling and publishing these numbers?)
Maybe gun issues are no worse than they used to be because they really can't GET any worse. But by all means, let's continue to conduct calm, civilized conversations about it and not resort to any extreme hyperbole.
To all the Lefties out there... put your money where your mouth is. Go ahead and get rid of your guns. YOU make the change YOU think YOU want to see. Show us that YOU are willing to get rid of YOUR guns. Lead by example and others might consider following.
2
@Mystery Lits Why do you "need" a gun? What weakness/deficiency are you trying to compensate for?
Okay, but I find it hard to believe that my .177 pellet gun and the trusty Red Ryder are the actual problem.
Thanks for that commentary Mr. Blow. The 'Warfare' State produces guns at a considerable profit to the armaments industry. Mix an over-weaning imperialism into the 'everyone is out to get us mentality' and you have a 'brew 'that is not easily eliminated. The profit motive is the hidden justification for weapons manufacturing. I fear the clowns that dress in combat clothing for 'games in the woods' that will menace the population when ultimate social collapse is imminent.
3
Firearms ought to be limited to secure storage areas on installations of the Navy, Marine Corps, Army and Air Force. Period. That is all.
@Alan C Gregory. But how will the Hollywood celebs ever get around without their security!
I'm for Beto on this one. Take away guns that do not belong in a person's hands in the first place just so the manufacturers can make millions without regard for the death they are creating. If a person looks crazy as many of the gun owners look, or espouses broad hatreds they should not own any guns, much less these killing machines. I want this to change NOW. Like Tobacco the time has come to quash it. Can you imagine if the Tobacco Purveyors had used the lie of the 2nd Amendment to force their product on the public?
7
@JHM - Next I would abolish alcohol. From the CDC website:
Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.
2
Golly. Shame we don’t regulate alcohol in any way, let alone campaign against it sover use, let alone build treatment programs to get people off their junk.
Oh...by the way, ever look up the associations between alcohol overuse and gun crimes? It’s most illuminating.
All assume that "AR style" guns have some unique capability.
These are not military grade/MILSPEC guns that are somehow more lethal. All guns are lethal.
The market is moving to features like pistol grips, adjustable stocks, and rails on all long guns because they save the buyer money and work. Mounting sights becomes easy versus having a gunsmith drill & tap the receiver.
The reality is the malcontent/alienated person who wants headlines and infamy can kill with a wide variety of mechanisms.
The Navy Yard shooter killed with a pump shotgun. The VA Tech shooter with pistols. Others have used fire, bombs, trucks, knives, etc.
Roughly 100+ million folks own guns.
So, after you implement all these gun controls, what do you do when the evildoers shift tactics/methods? Fairly easy to kill 9 people with a machete.
2
@CW. Also fairly easy to kill and maim with a backpack and pressure cooker.
1
@CW
Yes, that's why all countries comparable to the U.S. have so many machete victims in morgues and trauma centers.
Give it up. The curtain has come off and revealed the idiocy of the gun nuts' arguments. All of them: "Improve democracy with an armed takeover". "Only a good guy with a gun" "What about Chicago." "But suicides". "But knives". "It's a magazine not a clip". The entire house of cards is collapsing.
2
The Navy Yard shooter toted more than just a shotgun, the Tech shooter was allowed to buy his guns because a loony Virginia legislature blocked the Feds from access to his very extensive and very ugly psychiatic history, and no, it isn’t easy to kill nine people with a machete.
They tend to run away, for one thing. More than that, it’s ugly in ways that few are orepared for.
In fact, your point about easy use is half the problem: as Crichton mentioned years ago, it’s power gained without the slightest need for work, or discipline, or knowledge.
1
Politicians fear gun voters more than gun toters. This minority will do one thing for sure and that is to vote every chance they get. They are impassioned on this issue and turn out in force for a primary or caucus. Nothing will change until those opposing gun madness do the same. The answer is vote your cause every chance you get. Twenty per cent turnout in a primary says you don’t care. Don’t boo, vote.
2
This is completely bogus.
First, Why is it that when discussing the 2nd Amendment, it's always discussed as a second class right? "The founders were talking about muskets" SO? They were also writing with feathers dipped in ink. Never fathoming the advent of the computer or social media! How many suicides by firearm are the result of a teen being bullied on line? How many deaths are cause by mere words? How many deaths are the result of poor health care for Vets? How many due to the opioid crisis plaguing our country?
Second, Beto (LOL) and his ilk are very much aware that banning "Assault Rifles" is nothing more than feel good legislation that A. will NEVER pass and B. wouldn't do any measurable good if it did (See FBI results of the 1994 A.W. Ban)
Third, all of these people pandering to the gun control portion of our society know full well that eradicating the estimated 390+ Million firearms will never happen. Not only will Congress not allow it to happen but 70% of the country will not allow it to happen. A sure fire way to get more innocent people killed, start actively pursuing gun confiscation. Beto (LOL) is polling at what, 2%? So he needs to say outlandish things for attention, that's all this is.
And finally, if you'd like to have a serious, open and honest conversation about guns and gun control, I'm happy to oblige but the topic of this article certainly isn't open nor honest.
3
Can't wait to hear how Second Amendment "purists" will react when they find out that George Soros has purchased a flock of F-15s.
They're absolutely the best armament for hunting and self-defense.
"The National Institute of Justice (under the DOJ) has shown the violent crime rate, including crimes with firearms, has dramatically fallen over the last 25 years. According to the NIJ Report the number of firearm incidents within that 25-year period was at a high in 1994 with 1.287 million. Since then the number has fallen to 467,000 in 2011, with only 333,000 in 2008. The firearm crime rate in 1994 was 7.4 per 100,000, while it dropped to 1.8 in 2011. The lowest firearm crime rate in the 25-year period was 2008 at 1.5."
https://reason.com/podcast/james-alan-fox-there-is-no-evidence-of-an-epidemic-of-mass-shootings/
I completely agree with this column. I was trained with the M16 in the army, then was our unit armorer as a secondary job to my primary of missile maintenance. For that purpose, I was sent to a school taught by special forces on maintenance of the M16, M60 and M1911A1 pistol. After the army, while I went to college, I worked as a police officer and saw exactly what guns like these do to people, either through homicides, suicides and accidents. Never saw one used ONCE in defense which the NRA loves to promote.
Guess what. Weapons like the M16, aka, the AR15, have enormous cyclic rates of fire even if the automatic feature is removed and are not fit to be anywhere but on a battlefield.
Finally, 2nd Amendment mentions the ownership in the context of maintaining a militia, because we did not have a standing army. Seems we have each state with the National Guard and a rather LARGE standing army, navy, airforce and marines.
Time we face that the NRA has led this country down a path and the GOP is totally complicit along with a bunch of non-progressive democrats.
5
@CW
Let's face it, military rifles have no place in our society. Most handguns, especially high capacity magazine autos, need to be outlawed as well.
I forgot to mention I shot first place at the police academy and even owned a fair handguns until I became so sickened with the sheer cynical corruption of the NRA and many of the politicians of this country I shed them all.
I saw more injuries and deaths from handguns than any other weapon out there, except shotguns at point blank range. But all that means is... we have a real GUN problem in this country.
A key part of a voluntary reduction plan would be to require liability insurance for every weapon one owns, similar to car insurance. The 393 million weapons are owned by only 42% of households, which works out to about 3 weapons per household that has them. And we know that some of the real gun fanatics are stockpiling large caches. So imagine what might happen if they now have to pay a few hundred dollars per year in liability insurance per weapon. I'm betting their gun fever will break pretty quickly.
6
@Ken L First, there's no constitutional right to own cars, but there are to own firearms. Second, this would only serve to disenfranchise poor people from owning guns. Third, "stockpiles" are irrelevant--you can only shoot one at a time.
1
@Hans - Additionally, firearms generally only cause self inflicted harm (suicide) or harm when used by a criminal. Neither case is insurable.
The incidence of auto accidents needing insurance is pretty high:
Average number of car accidents in the .U.S. every year is 6 million. More than 90 people die in car accidents everyday. 3 million people in the U.S. are injured every year in car accidents. Around 2 million drivers in car accidents experience permanent injuries every year.
1
@Hans, it doesn't matter if it's a constitutional right. Rights can be limited and regulated where it makes sense. And the risk of stockpiling spills over to others when guns are lost or stolen. If you have multiple cars, they're all insured even if you only drive one at a time.
The pro-gun discourse around the 2nd Amendment amounts to constitutional terrorism.
One, this amendment has been grossly misinterpreted (we have a military, we do not need "militias") and highjacked by fringe groups. These same far right groups talk about "their" freedom to bear arms, but how about "my" and "your" freedom to be safe in this country in our everyday life.
Second, as our nation changes new amendments can be added that abrogate irrelevant ones. We value our Constitution because it is alive, not some kind of extraneous and insignificant document stuck in the past.
14
I’ve seen exactly one gun in my 60 yrs of life. That was when I was in the US & saw a display at a store. I don’t know anyone who owns a gun, & I can’t for the life of me imagine why anyone would want to. The USA is the only country in the world where people think it’s perfectly fine to own a handgun., & the USA is the only country in the world that has constant gun killings & gun violence daily. Hmmm. I wonder what the relationship is.
7
I am perhaps too radical for most people, but I believe that ALL guns should be banned, except for those used by police and military. I think we've outgrown the Second Amendment, which was written when we did not have a well-organized military and there was a reliance upon citizens for protection. I have never owned a gun and never will.
I do not believe in hunting and would seek to protect all people and animals. Perhaps, it comes from being a vegetarian and believing in the sanctity of all life. But, as I said, I am probably too radical and would expect a lot of pushback from sharing my views widely.
12
@SJC You're not too radical but you do seem to lack confidence. You should take this "sanctity of life" position as a position of strength not weakness. You can feel that's true right.
I grew up with guns in Tennessee, hunting, going to the shooting range, and collecting historical firearms. Guns were an integral part of my life and I owned handguns, shotguns, rifles- even an AR-15. I was a member of the NRA. I took gun safety seriously and attended training classes to keep my self-defense shooting skills sharp.
While immersed in this gun culture, I seemed to always live in fear of guns. Fear of an armed home invasion, fear of men with road rage pulling a weapon, fear of mass shootings, including fear that a shooter might enter my children's school. The fear sometimes bordered on paranoia, especially hearing sounds downstairs at night. I was always prepared for armed intruders, even though we lived in a safe neighborhood.
My family and I relocated to Japan for work in 2014. I sold all my guns when we moved. I can't tell you the difference in my mental health since moving. Japan typically has less than 10 gun deaths per year, compared with the 33,000+ in the USA. I am no longer afraid-- I don't own guns and neither does anybody else. I don't worry about home invasions and I don't worry about my children being shot at school. I sometimes forget to lock my door at night. It is like I shed this huge, paranoid mental burden that existed solely due to guns. I now read with horror about the frequent mass shootings in the USA and I am so glad not to live there anymore. I grew up believing guns = freedom, but I now see the opposite is true.
14
@John, I grew up around guns and hunting, too, and to hear someone admit this is so refreshing. So often, guns are just an excuse to prop up our fragile masculinity, and it's simply demoralizing at times to know that so many of my fellow citizens would choose "from my cold, dead hands" over a peaceful society. Although, I'm not so sure as many would be do or die as they believe if it came down to complying with a federal law. I'd love to find out, though.
3
Recent worldwide study showed more guns more deaths. Simple conclusion. We have more per person then any country. Next, Yemen. Also no relationship to video games or to diagnosed mental illness. Its too many guns folks.
8
Everybody who is not a criminal,and is not crazy or self destructive will probably obey and turn in their assault weapon and high capacity magazine soon as the law passes.
So will turning them in solve the problem?
It might not if the criminals,self destructive and crazies won't comply.
A large number of dangerous types might hold on to them and be energized by contemplating increased mayhem more confident of no opposing, effectively armed adversaries.
2
@Gerard M.D., this is just a tired, old NRA talking point. The idea is to make it harder for bad people to get guns.
2
@Gerard M.D. as Richard stated above: Recent worldwide study showed more guns = more deaths. Simple conclusion.
Here in Portland, Oregon we at least one shooting per day. None of those shootings are done by legal gun owners. Because of media hate the Police cannot recruit new people and they are facing a 30% retire rate this year. This week we had one house with four shootings and one death. I am a gun owner but am worried that this sort of lawlessness will continue not just here but elsewhere. The Police can only help you after your dead.
68
@Astralnut So what's your solution? Sounds to me as if you accept the status quo and have decided to live with that.
14
@Astralnut
First, most mass shootings have been committed with legally owned guns. Most suicides are committed with legally purchased guns. Fewer guns, whether owned legally or illegally, equals fewer shootings. It's really that simple.
50
@D_E
Another point is that most illegal guns pulled off the streets were bought legally, usually in gun friendly states nearby. The wave of murders in Chicago is fed by easy to get guns in Indiana, the shooting rate in DC is spurred by the easy access to guns in Virginia.
The conservatives who push gun rights are always talking about responsibility and accountability as being the key to solving problems, that everything from the teen pregnancy rate and single welfare mothers to crime is the lack of accountability/responsibility......except for guns. Joe Billy Bob fills up his trunk in Virginia, sells them into the black market in DC, gun gets traced back to him.."why, I dunno, must of been lost or stolen". Meanwhile, your car gets stolen and you don't report it and it is used in a crime, you can be charged.
26
American voters can vote to save their children's lives or the can vote to save the NRA, they can vote to save the planet or let their children buy gas masks in 20 years. Vote Blue or else!
8
I've given serious thought to all the hard core Socialist ideas the Democrats want to impose on everyday Americans over the past few years.
They want to confiscate all guns (force you to sell them to the government with money we give them through taxation).
They want to force you to drive electric cars, ride bikes or take public transit.
They want to force you to not have children.
They want to force you to not eat meat and only eat locally grown produce.
They want to force you to not drink carbonated beverages..and certainly never with a straw.
They want to tell you what you can smoke (cigs..good (for tax $); vaping..bad; pot..good)
You know what they don't want you to do?
Be married before you have children.
Get a high school diploma where you can actually read and write so you can contribute to society.
Prepare your school age children a meal before school, check their homework each night, and meet with their teachers every other month.
There's a city on the river here called Minneapolis that could benefit by going all in 100% Socialism where they can mandate everything.
Where people live. How people commute. What people eat and drink. How many children one can have. Who raises those children. Who educates those children.
It might even work because what Democrats are doing today isn't working...with only 30% reading and math proficiency in Minneapolis public schools.
Since you D's want Socialism...let's do it and let's do it now. I'm tired of paying for your excuses
6
@Erica Smythe "You know what they don't want you to do?"
They don't want you be an American.
Make America stronger.
Stand up for America.
Love America.
And, they especially don't want anyone pointing out socialism failures.
The 1950s called- they want their Dennis Mitchell family and anti-communism back
1
Hogwash. Greed, along with entrenched sexism and racism have created the social conditions you describe, all three the hallmarks of Republican policies. The GOP has exploited ignorance and violence, and done nothing for most of its base. Democrats are trying to clean up the mess. Again.
3
There is only one solution. #repeal2a
5
@Rescue2 So, which Democrat will lead the charge? 90% of Americans want sensible gun control. That should be an easy lift.
My bet is 0. Zero. None. Nada. Every effort short of a full repeal is just word dancing.
The founding fathers stood up to the strongest nation in the world and they prevailed. True, they did not have Putin and the NRA to deal with. But, they prevailed.
"The "Brown Bess" muzzle loading smooth bore musket was one of the most commonly used weapons in the American Revolution. While this was a British weapon, it was used heavily by the revolutionary patriots."
So, the citizens were equally matched against the military. Interesting.
The NRA Second Amendment absolutists are a selfish lot. They would see thousands die including little children rather then be inconvenienced to the smallest degree. My hats of to Beto for saying what needs to be said. No let's do it!
5
Where are The Originalists in SCOTUS? As far as I am concerned, anyone should be allowed to bear a muffle-loader. But what about the well-regulated militia? Militias were organized to protect the local population from external threat, supposedly from other states. Crearly a military purpose for the the arms. Assault weapons, which are weapons of mass destruction could be owned but should be stored in the local militia (aka National Guard) armories should need arise to protect the local population. The clause well-regulated militia should no be blatantly ignored. I don’t think there are more or less well-organized militias of one!
Mr. Blow. Thank you
To bear arms is an individual right. If one has to own a gun, it is for the purpose of protecting oneself. To do that, why would one need to own and possess, military type assault weapons? Those type of weapons should be solely in the hands of law enforcement and the military. Why does our elected leaders not see that?
If the law expects me to have a driver's license and insurance to own and drive a vehicle, why should it be different to purchase a gun? Should there not be laws to determine who the potential buyer is, and if the person is qualified and fit to own a gun? Why are we having a problem to enact appropriate laws on Background Checks?
Mr. Blow. I agree. Gun violence is now a national epidemic. I would go further, and say, it is a growing security threat to people's safety. As parents, we have a daily worry and concern, until our children return home safely from School. We have now to be on the watch out, going to the shopping mall, or to the grocery store. For that matter, leaving home and having to be out there in public. Do our elected leaders not see this? If they are not there to represent and safeguard the concerns of the people, whose interests is it a priority to them?
We continue to express our concerns in these columns and elsewhere. It has fast become a hopeless debate. Gun violence continues, becoming a way of life in our country. A breakdown and disrespect to the law, and a challenge to law enforcement.
3
No 1, Everyone who has a gun must be a member of the National Guard. The Second Amendment uses "militia," but National Guard is what "militia" has evolved into.
No 2, All guns must be registered; all gun owners must pass a test every four years and carry a license, which can be suspended if the owner uses a gun carelessly or becomes emotionally disabled.
No 3, The types of guns must be limited to hunting rifles and pistols. No military style weapons. They stay in the military.
No 4, A period of time should be set for turning in all military style guns for a buyback, after which owning one should be outlawed and those who do should be fined and have their gun licenses taken away.
The Second Amendment does not provide for unlimited ownership of weapons and it was intended for a citizen protective force, now called the National Guard. Nothing in the Second Amendment forbids the licensing of guns and requirements that one pass tests to re-license.
We have an epidemic and public health emergency should be called and steps above taken.
As for neo nazis, there aren't enough to be a threat against a determined citizenry.
3
Bret was, perhaps unintentionally as a vile-GOP troll, right: abolish the Second Amendment.
The vile GOP mangles the Constitution at every turn anyway. But by ending the amendment, we end their excuse to pretend that murder-NOT-"assault" weapons are at all legal, helpful, or okay on our streets and in our shops. It's run its course—and if we don't treat it that way, so will we in another mass murder.
1
Yes. Thank you. More, please.
3
The appropriate dropping of expletives by Beto is indeed cathartic to hear.
Isn't that the shorthand of what you are trying to say, Charles?
If so, I agree.
1
Yes O'Rourke is partially right re our national, cultural gun sickness being a health hazard with needed common sense gun regulations.
Where he is wrong and especially you is your total disregard of the gun culture in our inner cities fueled by Hollywood's child abuse of feeding all sorts of violent gratuitous gun violence from films like Scarface to the violent lyrics of rappers.
Mr Blow, you are totally derelict in your duty if you don't write about this. No amount of over the top gun regs. will have any major effect on this. This fact accounts for app. 50% of our gun deaths/injuries.
Only a policy of legality, regulation, responsibility and non promotion of the gun is the cure like it was with drunk driving and cig. smoking.
2
Canada watches all of the same Hollywood movies & video games. We don’t have gun deaths because we don’t have guns .
3
And I guess the recent example of a school using an AR 15 as a raffle prize was put up by Hollywood too, huh? Deflecting and being blaming others for gun violence simply ignores the problem that every other country in the world has found the solution for. Less guns means less gun deaths. It’s not mental illness as every other country in the world is composed of human beings just like you and me and they have the same amount of mental illness -but those with sensible gun laws DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM
It’s the amount of guns. Or are you suggesting that the US has far more mental health problems and the rest of the world?(Wait- the president is not a good example)
2
@Steve kohl
Canadian here. I have 3 shotguns that I use for hunting. All are kept locked in a safe, and all three have trigger locks.
Many Canadians own guns, we’re just not up to our eyeballs in them. We also have sensible gun regulations.
1
If O'Rourke is my favorite candidate-still-standing vis-a-vis gun control, then Sanders would be my least favorite. For decades as the Senator from Vermont he did little to address the national emergency of firearm mortalities, invariably citing the preferences of Vermont voters. On this issue, Inslee was better than O'Rourke and much better than Sanders. During Inslee's first term in Congress, he voted to ban assault weapons even though he knew it would cost him reelection, as a Democrat in a conservative district--and it did.
O'Rourke's Texas has more firearm mortalities than any other state (3,513). The per capita Texas firearm mortality rate is, however, only a bit worse than the per capita national average. It is worth noting that the per capita firearm mortality numbers are the worst in (worst first): Alaska, Alabama, Montana, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Arkansas, Wyoming, West Virginia, New Mexico, and Tennessee. The patterns there are clear. Between 2005 and 2017, the national annual per capita firearm mortality rate climbed from 10.3 to 12.0. It goes without saying that the new Texas gun laws which, among other things, permit guns in schools are dangerously nutty given these statistics. For these numbers and more, see the government's own CDC site:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
2
Americans have a special relatIonship to guns that, as a non America, I am unable relate to or understand. It is hard for me to be sympathetic to the issues of mass shooting, accidental deaths of children by guns, the number of suicides by guns, etc. when so many excuses are made for why this is but the root cause is right there for all to see. Plain and simple there are too many guns in circulation and too many of those are high powered assault weapons that belong on the battlefield. To be clear I am not gun adverse as I grew up with them in rural Canada where game hunting was a way of life. But what America faces seems an intractable problem. I’m not sure the gun crisis can be resolved because the gun culture is so entrenched and intertwined with the history to guns, the gun loving culture and individual rights versus collective rights.
1
We're going to register 393 million firearms? I can tell you one thing is for certain. Zero criminals will register their firearms because their firearms are illegal, and they need their firearms to commit crimes.
2
@Erik
So instead you want AK-47s in schools? Like in Texas?
Madness.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment. Gun ownership should be a privilege that people earn by proving the need to have a gun and the ability to secure it and use it responsibly.
1
@KC Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Those in favor of gun control cannot even see a Bill passed out of the Senate for enhanced background checks! Even if at some future date, Democrats control both sides of Congress and pass a constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment, at most around 18 of the 37 needed states would ratify such a repeal. The 2nd Amendment and the Electoral College are here to stay.
1
@Larry Amending the Constitution is hard on purpose. It requires a national consensus. But nothing short of a national consensus is needed.
Changing gun laws on thin majorities is a fool'd errand, and sets a precedent to curtail other constitutionally protected rights.
1
The best method of gun control is to vote for every Democratic candidate in the next election.
7
@William That's what we do in Chicago.
The sad truth is that banning assault weapons would have little or no impact on the number of murders. The most FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that in 2017, which was the year of Las Vegas mass shooting,
—7,025 people were murdered by handguns;
—1,591 people were stabbed to death,
—696 people were beaten, stomped or kicked to death;
—467 people were clubbed to death;
—403 were killed by rifle fire, including assault rifles;
—and 264 were killed by shotgun blast.
If we banned assault rifles, we would not save 403 lives a year; killers denied rifles would used types of semiautomatic rifles, handguns, or shotguns
Banning assault rifles might achieve a slight reduction in the number of those who die in mass shootings, but that’s questionable. About 51 Americans per year die in mass shootings each year, but the number of fatalities in mass shootings depends as much on the nature of the target rather than the type of weapon used.
Banning handguns would be more effective.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
1
As Meg of Troy, OH says, "It's time Let's go."
Gun registration - Yes
Gun buyback - Yes
Universal background checks - Of course
2nd amendment violation - Absolutely not.
2
Only about 40% of Americans own guns sot the politicians are not concerned abut the majority of voters but the financing of either their own political campaigns or that of a primary challenger by the NRA or other right wing gun groups.
1
Hey guess what? There are way more deaths caused by vehicles like cars and trucks than guns every year....Lets ban cars and trucks while were at it, since were going by death rates alone
@Trenton G
This tired old argument.
You have to have driver's license to drive. Ownership papers for the car. Insurance. Failure to have any of these can result in loss of driving privileges. An accident has legal consequences.
So -- why not for guns, too? A license. Registration of ownership, and insurance.
If you're going to compare the two, compare them factually.
5
The question is, who bought an assault rifle in the first place and why?
3
NYT article
A few disparate thoughts:
A) It seems this is a collision between the opening words of the Declaration of Independence, “.... are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” & the 2nd Amendment. It’s simple, those in favor of gun control feel constantly threatened (intimidation is the point that many gun owners hope to maximize).
B) I know many gun owners with assault weapons; most of those folks possess the very American creative love of tinkering and hot-rodding things, they are not blood thirsty killers, they are hobbyists. This is key to their ownership experience.
C) Because we have well regulated police & military elements in our society, the space that’s left for guns is purely recreational in nature. The argument is between recreation and public safety.
D) Guns, accessories, & modifications are expensive & time consuming for gun owners. Sooner or later, gun owners make this investment in order to put those efforts to use. For the average gun owner, that means trigger time & display of their creativity, for the unhinged, that use is ambiguous.
E) FBI gun violence tracking is currently banned; we need facts to help us understand if guns in the home are actually beneficial or harmful.
F) Instead of a buy back, perhaps a gun neutering program. I believe a technological solution with laser, inertia, computing, & sighting devices can replace the receivers & ballistic barrels of weapons so that gun owners can retain their firearms and gun experience.
Thank you, thank you for this column. I am sick to the core of gun owners' 'rights' and second amendment overreach. By their same reasoning, all car owners should be protesting the 'burdens' of having to carry automobile insurance and obtaining a driver license after passing a driving test. And don't we definitely need race cars going 200 mph on our freeways? Speed limits? Sorry, I think we can determine that safely, speed limits should just be a suggestion. Why are we punishing responsible drivers for the few irresponsible or dangerous ones? Seatbelt? What an infringement! Yes, we do still have numerous deaths from car crashes, but that doesn't indicate no regulation at all.
Statistics for both driving and shooting deaths and injuries show regulation is desperately needed. Bushmaster's "Consider Your Man Card Reissued" is willful, headstrong, pigheaded, irrational, illogical, and harmful...but obviously those traits are acceptable to many. And legal. But a real man would give his life to save those children at Sandy Hook. Even if it meant giving up his gun.
360
@JessiePearl - I don't believe there are any elements that compare between firearms and vehicles. Pick another comparison.
3
@JessiePearl - I don't believe there are any elements that compare between firearms and vehicles. Pick another comparison.
Average number of car accidents in the .U.S. every year is 6 million. More than 90 people die in car accidents everyday. 3 million people in the U.S. are injured every year in car accidents. Around 2 million drivers in car accidents experience permanent injuries every year.
1
@Ron
Articles published in the NYT talk about the effectiveness of vehicle regulations and how they reduce close to 95% of the injuries/death caused by vehicles. Could you imagine the numbers without regulation? Especially the numbers you've given? It's an almost mind blowing exercise in reality - but regulations work. My whole point: the comparison to regulating guns and cars is a good one. Having to register your vehicle, buying insurance, and retaking the driving exam once in a while isn't a horrible concept - it saves lives - and the insurance helps with medical bills when there is an accident.
33
When I was grocery shopping the other day, I encountered a young man with a gun tucked in his waistband. It made me nervous, and I quickly picked up the item I needed and moved to the next aisle away from him. Why are we having to endure this type of insanity? Why should a trip to the grocery store, or going to the movies, or to SCHOOL or to any pubic place be ridden with stress and anxiety?
It is blatantly obvious that countries with strict gun regulations do not suffer the enormous number of deaths from guns that we do. Yet politicians stand by as little children have their lives snuffed out because they are fearful of a "bad grade" from the NRA. They are moral cowards. We are all the victims of their cowardice.
People with guns kill people. People with assault weapons kill many people at once. To my knowledge none of the perpetrators of mass killings were part of "a well regulated Militia". The first words of the Second Amendment seem to have been conveniently forgotten by the NRA and its puppets in Congress.
Good for Beto O'Rourke for standing his moral ground. His suggestions are sound and sensible. Gun control regulation discussion should be front and center in any presidential debate.
412
@Diana, I've had the same experience. The fact that we have a nut traipsing about the store with his gun ready to "defend" us hardly makes me feel safer; quite the opposite, as you did I felt very nervous in the presence of this guy.
But note the tiny victory we had this week. The giant Kroger grocery chain (Pick 'N Save for me here in Milwaukee) announced that “Kroger is respectfully asking that customers no longer openly carry firearms into our stores, other than authorized law enforcement officers.” So if we go to Kroger's it's now slightly better.
41
@Diana
Thanks for your comment. Here in Seattle I've run into folks who are carrying guns like this. It is worrying.
You write:
"Yet politicians stand by as little children have their lives snuffed out because they are fearful of a 'bad grade' from the NRA."
You do us all a disservice by making this claim about all politicians. All politicians aren't the same. Vis-a-vis gun control the Democrats are on average much better than the Republicans, and some Democrats, e.g., O'Rourke or Inslee, are far better than other Democrats (e.g., Sanders, who did too little as a Senator to advance gun control, citing the preferences of Vermont voters). Such cynicism is itself an untruth. If all politicians are moral cowards, why not vote for Trump? Why not shrink government? Why not get rid of government regulations including government gun control regulations?
10
Guns and military grade weapons of war in the hands of civilians would not be an issue if we made our elections 100% publicly financed (with a six month time limit for campaigning). The power of the NRA would dissolve if politicians no longer needed their money.
Everyone knows this and many of the other problems of our functioning democracy come from the vast pollution of money in that system. Also, American citizens/voters need to exercise a little responsibility and find ways of deciding whom to support in elections instead of watching commercials about candidates. Making them a television "reality show" spectacle is good for TV ratings, but horrific for governing a country.
3
Unless and until there are mass shootings daily in NRA territory and GOP districts the NRA and GOP will continue to value armament more highly than humans. One would almost think the NRA enjoys the carnage. Nothing more thrilling than the frequent sound of rapid fire weapons in the neighborhood.
1
The discussion on gun violence is always an interesting one. the issue is always raised after a "mass shooting" which captures the headlines for two or three days and most certainly becomes the subject of the Democratic hopefuls and of coarse all the liberal pundits and talking heads.
This past weekend was no different. The tragic events in Texas captured the news cycle and well it should. 5 dead 20+ wounded is not what we want to hear as a society. However, at the same time in Chicago over the same period of time there were 5 dead and 29 wounded from gun violence which is an on going occurrence there and in most of our inner cities. The difference is that this is not reported or of concern to the liberal media or politicians in general. Why is that. Well it seems that black on black violence is not important news and it does not fit the narrative of the liberal media or the Democratic Party, or they just don't care. It only becomes important if a white person is involved whether it be a lone gunman or a police officer. Then it becomes news worthy. Then they can use terms like "white supremacy", or a "racist act", or blame the "NRA", or the "Second Amendment" to further their agenda.
The people that should be most concerned about this is the black community. I have so many questions about this, black leadership and party loyalty that I will not risk asking for fear of being rebuked and labeled. So for now all I will say is ....think about it and analyze the situation.
Top marks for Beto on this one. Move the conversation forward.
Universal healthcare? Yes, I support it, but it will take time to bring it to America. Universal background checks, assault weapons buyback, and licensing and registry of all guns? Absolutely, we need it right now, as a hundred die each day.
The notion that the Second Amendment is an open right by the citizenry to bear arms is simply a "fraud."
-- US SC Chief Justice, Warren Burger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo
2
I've voted democrat my entire adult life. I may vote for Trump in the next election.
I'm going to be blunt. We cannot reduce prison sentences for serious crimes while arguing that individuals should give up reasonable means of defense. Yes, a thirty-round magazine is reasonable if you have four adult males kicking in your front door. They just might be willing to kill you to avoid getting caught. Are you willing to take that chance? Good for you. I'm not.
Give me a culture in which violent criminals get automatic 40 year sentences and home invaders do 20 years for the first offense and I'll be more than happy to talk about reducing my firepower. Until then, I don't see there is much to discuss.
That's the blind spot of the Democratic Party. I don't want to carry a firearm, but I won't leave the house without one because of what I've seen while working emergency rooms, correctional facilities, and even getting shot at in my own front yard by a carload of idiots who thought it would be fun to kill someone.
I can argue that I have drawn my CCW weapon twice and it has saved lives, but that won't change anyone's opinion. How about the fact that I've never voted Republican in my life and now I'm seriously considering voting for someone I absolutely detest because that's the politician who won't take away my ability to protect my family against the actual threats that I see and experience on a regular basis?
1
@Scott
And yet, the rest of the civilized world has strong gun control laws, and fewer gun massacres per capita.
1
And if you were country headstrong gun laws then you wouldn’t have to worry about “idiots end of “shooting at you or pulling a gun in emergencies because if nobody has guns then the only people with guns are the armed militia such as the National Guard, police and the bad guys and now they are easy to identify.
As quite a lot of other people keep on pointing out, other countries have strict gun laws similar populations and societies, but they don’t have thousands of mindless killings every year. I find it interesting that all of the programming, Second Amendment types consistently refuse to discuss those facts.
1
I am a supporter if the President, with all his flaws, because of the desire of the Progressive Democrats to be fascist and pull us away from being a pluralistic society. The Progressives, like the Author want no 2nd Amendment, a limit to the 1st Amendment for none-progressive speech, confiscation of more of our income to give it to people in this country illegally and a blacklist for people who dare support a view or a President with whom they do not agree. I am happy there are people like Beto who are not hiding there Agenda like so many Democratic party politicians. I am convinced as more Americans outside of the Blue echo chambers of NY-CA see what the dems are selling the President will win in a landslide.
1
Confiscation proposals are the first step in the statists’ drive to render adversaries impotent. It’s not, first let’s kill all the lawyers, it’s first let’s take all their guns. Look through history at all the horrendous state sponsored mass murders, and genocides, the victims were not armed.
Thank you for the honesty, Charles. We on the right have always known that the ultimate aim is to confiscate guns but most on the left were successfully able to fool people with falsehoods like "no one wants to confiscate your guns" and making them believe that such suspicions are just baseless paranoia.
What you and Beto O'Rourke did is openly admit what you really wanted all along. My question would be: why did you and do others on your side need to be so dishonest about your objectives?
1
@John Locke Absolutely. It proves that the gun control crowd are, at their heart, liars. When they say that an "assault weapons" ban will be limited to "weapons of war" (that aren't), what they're really doing is setting up a trial balloon challenge for Heller and McDonald, to see if a class of gun can get banned.
If this works, fully expect the push to ban semi-automatic pistols, on the pretext that they cause almost all of the annual carnage. And were, after all, originally a target of Feinstein and Biden in early drafts of the 1994 AWB bill.
Thank you for the honesty, Charles. We on the right have always known that the ultimate aim is to confiscate guns but most on the left were successfully able to fool people with falsehoods like "no one wants to confiscate your guns" and making them believe that such suspicions are just baseless paranoia.
What you and Beto O'Rourke did is openly admit what you really wanted all along. My question would be: why did you and do others on your side need to be so dishonest about your objectives?
1
It has reached the point that real gun control will be necessary to save the soul of America.
Sandy Hook children getting killed was the tipping point for the country’s devolution into a real life Hades.
The elimination of guns from the hands of angry Americans will be the beginning of a Renaissance for America!
If the police would show up and deal effectively with crime and criminals, a lot of the "self-defense" "reason" would go away. However, thanks to the common-sense-less ACLU and a billion "take a share" lawyers, fewer people even want to be policemen - who are still publicly called, "Pigs," - except when responding to an active shooter, apparently. And, if people were shamed for pulling and using guns to solve life's problems instead of being upheld as "heroes" and "outlaws" - looking at you TV and movies - then social pressure alone would cut down on a lot of this murderous nonsense. At the very least, every gun lugger who claims Constitutional protection for having a gun should be required to show their "Militia Card" when buying guns and/or ammo. "You want "well regulated" bub? You're gonna get "well regulated."" Fair's fair.
Perhaps Beto has decided that if he is "not going to win"--and face it, he's not--then he is going to introduce something into the American meta that should be there and in 10-20 years *might just happen.*
You know, the funny thing is, about being the person who is the first to introduce a "crazy idea." When you are thirty-something. In 20 years, when it's NOT "crazy" anymore... you're only in your 50s. You're still PLENTY young enough to run for President. In fact, you might even be "old enough"...
To WIN.
Repeal the Second Amendment. Period.
1
The San Francisco's Board of Supervisors today passed a resolution, designating the National Rifle Association (NRA) as a "domestic terrorist organization" ... .
The resolution ... declares the gun rights group to be a terrorist group & calls on other cities & government entities to make similar declarations.
Among the accusations levied at the NRA, the resolution argues that the group "musters its considerable wealth & organizational strength to promote gun ownership & incite gun owners to acts of violence."
It states "All countries have violent and hateful people, but only in America do we give them ready access to assault weapons and large-capacity magazines thanks, in large part, to the National Rifle Association's influence."
Read the article:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/san-francisco-board-passes-resolution-labeling-nra-domestic-terrorist-organization/ar-AAGNz0O?ocid=spartanntp
Now is the time for America to acknowledge what constitutes true domestic terror in the USA, and join the San Francisco Board of Supervisors! For the American people - we can live like First World countries, if we eliminate the NRA, the evil of Wayne LaPierre, the kill for profit gun industry, and their love of perpetrating their gun violence in America.
"Americans who own AR-15s, AK-47s, will have to sell them to the government."
I guess if you can make Americans buy health insurance, you can force them to sell their guns.
So just where are all these gun factories in the US? And who works at them? Hm?
Well, there’s one in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, for one. Sig Sauer. Not a small facility. Big, full employee parking lot.
2
@Mexico Mike In America? By Americans?
1
I want to know why miserable American mostly white men think that killing a lot of people at one time will make then feel better. This phenomenon happens more in the US than anywhere else. Why us?
1
@Nb
It's because you have far, far more guns per capita than any other civilized country in the world. The statistics are easy to compare.
@LauraF
It doesn’t explain the thinking of the shooters. Americans probably have more of everything per capital. Why do we kill with such ease?
Why not ban the bullets?
Good god, finally an American politician who has an actual clue about how to end the gun massacre epidemic in the USA.
You can't waffle and fudge your way through it. You can't speak out both sides of your mouth. You can't appease the gun fanatics and also have meaningful gun controls. Furthermore, the NRA are unspeakably evil and shouldn't have any influence on American politics. That they are allowed to do so is corruption on the part of any politician who takes blood money from them.
No, the way to stop the gun massacres is to take away the guns. Anything but a licensed handgun or hunting rifle should be taken away. But it back, destroy it.
The rest of the civilized world did it. Americans can, too. There just has to be the will to do it.
Oh, and by the way, we Canadians don't appreciate your guns being brought over the border. Your guns are contributing to our murder rate here.
Buy assault weapons & accessories?
Fine. They go directly to gun safe in vetted—remember 1st clause of 2nd amendment? "well regulated militia"—gun range & stays there until as such time as owner PROVES they're not a wing nut.
Owner can use weapon at the range.
Military clearly has experience in weeding out the whack jobs.
I suppose we're lucky that whoever invented the gun hadn't invented an anthrax catapult instead. If he had, today's Second Amendment folks would be guarding their bacteria with great patriotic fervor.
Hear, hear! I am so tired of the US pretending that the hobby of the minority is more important than the safety of the majority.
If gun owners want to complain about being inconvenienced, well, sorry, you should have reined in your community before they ruined it for all of you.
451
@April I hunt, reload ammo, and target shoot. I could not agree with you more! Too many gun owners are zealots who confuse liberty with license. We can do something about this madness.
5
my husband from Tennessee, took his hunting gun to school as did many other young men. No one was shot, that was a time when guns were not toys or for fun they were tools . Having the military style guns is not for hunting and since we are really not under siege not for protection and certainly not for having fun shooting with your friends. Why is this such a point of aggression for those who oppose stricter guns laws unless the NRA, now a voice not for hunting but for the gun sales lobbies, resist their control for profit. The 2nd amendment was written in a time of single load shot guns. Just think if we don't define this understanding in the future everyone will want laser guns and or whatever future guns become and claim it is granted under the 2nd amendment.
Let me join Mr. Blow in lining up behind Mr. O'Rourke's gun plan. Note the big thing about this plan—if you feel you must have a handgun to protect yourself at home or a shotgun or rifle to go hunting this plan puts you in zero danger, presuming of course you have no criminal history or mental health issues. I like the assault rifle buy-back.
And what I especially like is how this is a complete package—no more asking the gun nuts for tiny concessions, only to be blown off. My hope is that for the reasonable people of our country this package will mark a line in the sand, and as we go into the 2020 election candidates will be called on to either subscribe to the "O'Rourke plan” or explain why they're too wimpy to do that. Go Beto!
245
I think many commentators on this article as well as the author really are not asking the right questions.
True: guns do kill people. But it is like every other tool - it can be used for violence or it can be used responsibly.
The issue is not as simple as you may think it is: i.e. guns = dangerous, therefore take guns away. This is an extremely complex issue, 2nd amendment aside. First you have to ask the right question, which is WHY do people shoot others not WHAT people use to kill others.
First, homegrown terrorist shootings are a major problem but relatively rare compared to other forms of gun deaths. This of course must be addressed but we have to - as rational people facing a complex issue - keep things in context in the face of media amplification.
Next: depression. Blow does partially touch on this, but we have to remember gun control will not make people less depressed. Another extremely complex issue.
Lastly, it seems to me when he neglects to mention gang violence and inner city shootings, Mr. Blow is being a bit disingenuous. This is a major, major contributor to gun deaths and must to be discussed in any serious article looking for solutions to this problem.
So, keep in mind when you talk across the aisle that its not as simple as we make it out to be. People can still be passionate about keeping their guns while simultaneously passionate about solving the gun death problem in the US.
1
@MM
It is certainly more complex than "guns are dangerous, so ban them." Yes, they are just tools. But they are tools built for a very specific purpose, killing, and they are very efficient at their purpose.
It is exactly why those who advocate the right to use a gun as self defense, including me, use guns.
There is no panacea for the human condition.
Depression, suicide, murderous intent, hatred, gang violence, etc., will always be with us. While further regulating guns would not end that, it would certainly mitigate the damage that we violent animals can do to one another.
1
@MM, YES, it is that simple. The NRA wants to make it complex but is not. If you have a machine gun like weapon and/or high capacity magazines it is a recipe for mass killings, Period. Yes there still will be those with mental problems, yes there still will be gang wars but changing the law will limit the tools available to those people. It sure won’t affect a hunter. Or the 2nd amendment
1
It's not a complex issue, but those on the side of the money want you to believe it is.
As a gun owner and 2nd Amendment advocate myself, I could not agree more with Mr. Blow, or Mr. O'Rourke.
There is absolutely nothing about requiring "... national gun licensing system and registry, requiring universal background checks, implementing red flag laws and banning ... military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines..." which threatens my ability to protect myself with a gun from a home invader or other violent predator.
Could it be the beginning of a slippery slope? Sure. All laws can be. Would it disarm the law abiding, decent and sane from arming themselves? No. Will such laws end all massacres, murders and suicides? Of course not.
I am certain the great majority of gun owners agree, who are not paranoid militia men playing army in the woods and preparing for Armageddon.
Now, there will need to be robust debate about the definition of "military-style assault weapons," which currently just seems to mean "the scary army looking ones," but let's have that debate as we try to move towards sanity.
3
You are correct Charles, (as you so often are) thank you for your insight and honesty.
Getting rid of the Second Amendment might reduce gun violence, but then again, getting rid of the First Amendment would do likewise with hate speech. Would that be acceptable to liberals?
2
The CDC from Atlanta should have taken control over the gun violence issue from the very beginning.
1
If tainted ground beef killed 40 people it would be pulled from sale. 40,000 people a year is a true crisis.
2
Honesty is always the best policy but that includes being honest about the ability to win elections in order to get something done about a controversial issue like gun control. Inasmuch as almost 90% of our citizens have come to the realization that loopholes on gun-show and internet sales must at long last be closed, how about the Democrats running for national office start with that? Once Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have been deposited into the ash-can of history, our next president and senate majority leader can talk meaningfully about assault weapons, buy-backs, etc. and see about making some progress there. (Or, once again, do we allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good?)
comment submitted 9/4 at 9:42 PM
1
He’s right but.....it will never happen. Americans clearly don’t care, shootings happen on a regular basis and nothing. No protests of significance, nothing.
The myth of the American maverick is over, the sheep farmer finally won. We’re all sheep.
The "Undue Burden" objection is ridiculous. Before Remington started manufacturing guns in 1819 you had to go to a gunsmith to to have your AK-15 custom made for you.
There are so many things that you can purchase that require lead times like a new couch, a car with a stickshift, etc. Is waiting for these an undue burden?
Waiting is not an undue burden.
2
Well, I think it's time to ask the "gun experts", who keep telling us any of the suggested fixes won't work, what will work?
Certainly there is a solution other than praying to an obviously blood thirsty god that she stop it.
So, let's start asking "What is the gin lobby''s solution?"
Let's not take for granted that their solution to too many guns in the wrong hands is more guns in every hand
@shrinking food
"So, let's start asking "What is the gin lobby''s solution?"
A good dry vermouth, and a nice stuffed olive.
The eight percent of our citizens who own one hundred percent of guns in this country will never be persuaded that weapons are the problem. Nor will they be persuaded that the Second Amendment isn’t a suicide pact or that it doesn’t permit blood thirsty paranoid hicks and red necks to own whatever arms they fantasize about or how much ammo they can use in their fantasy of revenge for grievances real and imagined. For the record, suicide is the leading gun death followed by homicide of a spouse, and then we descend to death of friends and neighbors after which, at the very bottom of the nation’s death watch we arrive at protecting life and property; that is to say, fewer than two percent of shootings result from protecting loved ones, oneself or property. Our country is a killing field, brethren, and therefore an embarrassment and a crime against humanity.
1
Who cares anymore about the not-from-my-cold-dead-hands crowd?
It's time to start prying!
6
I have a solution. A very workable, legal, realistic and inexpensive solution, for everybody. But the liberals don't want to hear because of their own, anti-American agenda. They march to the beat of a different, foreign, drummer.
We get exercised over so-called 'assault rifle' massacres because it's mostly white people being killed. On any given weekend, more black people die from handgun bullet wounds than from the "massacre du jour", but we don't get excited about rounding up ILLEGAL WEAPONS because white people don't die of gunshot wounds from illegal handguns. If we confiscated every single 'assault rifle' in this country, the gunfire homicides would drop from 8,000 per year to 7,700 per year, and inner-city black communities would still be victimized by illegal handgun homicides. Maladjusted young white males with access to
'assault rifles' occasionally massacre groups of white people*, but making white people safer isn't going to solve the firearms violence problem in the United States.
* Yes, I know that the El Paso massacre was aimed at Hispanics, but there were whites included in the fatalities, including a German national, and no blacks.
1
The American Revolution started when the British marched on Lexington and Concord to arrest traitors and confiscate their weapons. It is interesting how Mr. Blow would have sided with the British. Obviously, average citizens can't be trusted with weapons which will allow them to protect their natural rights of life, liberty, and property.
1
Red flag laws sound good however our police simply cannot be trusted. They will use that law to take away guns from minorities for no reason and it will turn out to be another war on drugs.
Australia's, gun buy back program only got them <20% of weapons and it was mandatory. That is the best case, the worst case is civil war, and the left running out of people willing to take guns from other citizens. You think the cops they hate on day and night will? To use the military would require martial law and door to door searches. You think soldiers are going to go kick down the doors of their parents aunts uncles, siblings and take their guns? This is nothing more than theater and virtue signalling for the feelz not realz crowd. Nothing he is recommending is doable out side of the DNC winning full control of all branch of federal government. Good Luck.
2
I would not try to ban or especially, confiscate guns. There are too many and good people would be killed in the process. There is any easier way to do what we want. Every gun needs ammunition to work. If we ban the sale and distribution of ammunition, then in a few years 300+ million guns will become expensive bricks.
There will be people who will say their are too many ways to smuggle, by pass, etc, etc. They want a perfect system. There is no perfection, except is baseball. This will work well enough to make our nation a safer place. Walmart has already taken an important first step on this road. Others should follow.
@Bruce1253 Banning ammunition is no different than banning guns and will result in the same Civil War.
@Jason
It is unfortunate you feel that way. We are on track to kill 15,000 people this year with guns, and another 20,000 will suicide by gun this year. If a foreign nation killed 15,000 of our people, we would be at war. We are doing this to ourselves and I would say that no less of an effort should be undertaken to stop this atrocity.
The constitution was never intended to be a straight jacket, it was designed to grow and change as our country did. That is what the Amendments are all about, even the founders recognized this. The first amendment was ratified in 1791.
It is time to change the Constitution once again, we cannot allow a small group to hold the rest of our nation hostage. 15,000 people slaughtered each year is a very good reason to change.
"... the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Let those who believe themselves to be strict constructionists of the Constitution in the absolute right to bear arms pore over that statement for a while.
So far the Supreme Court has bent over backwards to twist and turn the words of the 2nd Amendment away from the idea of maintaining a militia, which is what the Constitution says, and away from the concept of "arms" as conceived by writers of the Constitution.
In the 18th Century, "arms" were muskets, muzzle loading guns which took about 3 minutes to reload a single shot.
That was an "arm" in the Constitution. They had no conception of semi-automatic rifles that could fire 2 - 3 rounds per second with lethal effect from each bullet. They had no idea of the concept of a 20, or 30 or even 100 round magazine.
Interpreting the Constitution in accordance with current standards is one thing. But the idea that an AR-15 is the equivalent of a musket is an intellectual stretch beyond delusion and represents a Supreme Court that has allowed its hormones to gain control instead of a logical interpretation of the intent of the writers of the Constitution.
2
So, when Democratic candidates such as Obama state that they aren't coming after people's guns, should gun owners believe them or Beta and Charles Blow?
This editorial will be cited as evidence that the requests for "reasonable gun control" are really stepping stones to confiscation.
Besides, see that success of other confiscation schemes. Best performing is in Canada with a 20% recovery. NJ had an effort in the 90s that had 5% compliance.
@James 0% compliance so far on so called "High Capacity Magazines" in NJ.
We need to also consider longer sentences for repeat gun offenders, which the Chicago Police superintendent has recommended, but which seems to fall on deaf ears in our state capital? Apparently any amount of NRA money makes great ear plugs. Of course the NRA's other lever is their conjured fear of lost votes among white voters. So Chicago's problem becomes a black neighborhood problem, not "our problem" for the majority of representatives in Springfield. But as a former Chicago resident, I know what everyone in Chicago knows: you aren't safe from gun violence in ANY neighborhood. Perhaps if Superintendent Johnson emphasized this, more reasonable sentences for repeat offenders would become law. The same is true for all of our states with major cities.
I own and sometimes carry a gun for self defense. I am not a felon and have no history of domestic violence, which means that the state that I live in cannot deny me a handgun carry permit. I don't own any of the so called "assault rifles" and don't see any reason that anyone should, but the chickens have flown the coop of gun buybacks in America. You can't possibly expect it to do anything but create a huge new black market. Gun's aren't incredibly difficult to manufacture, and 3d printing technology will make it even easier in the next few years. I doubt that the same people who smuggle shiploads of drugs and people into this country will fail to exploit a new market. Right now, the effective penalty for carrying a gun without without a permit in Chicago is less that two years. Felons in possession rarely serve five years. Straw buyers were rarely prosecuted until recently, although lying on the required federal form exposes you to penalties of up to seven years and a large fine. Rather than some unworkable plan that will alienate the law abiding gun owners, let's make the penalties for illegal carry and use absolutely draconian. 10 years for carrying with out a permit and 25 to life for a felon in possession---enforced across the board--would go along way towards reducing the everyday gun violence that we see in this country.
In addition to all of the suggested gun laws, we must address the growing white supremacy radicals, the hate spewed publicly and on the internet - and especially at the political rallies of the Current Occupant.
Hate is what fuels the act of pulling the trigger in these mass killings.
1
Three cheers for Beto O'Rourke. He is the only person brave enough to say what other politicians should be saying.
1
All non “bolt action”, rifles should be banned. That would make mass shootings impossible, and I could still go hunting.
2
A vast number of guns x a modest number of violent criminals and violently insane = lots and lots of dead people.
Semi-automatic weapons, like the AR 15, make things a lot worse. Forget about technical definitions of what constitutes an “assault rifle”. If it can fire as fast as you can squeeze the trigger, it’s got to go.
Background checks are a great idea and will make things a bit better, but we can’t hope to identify in advance all or most of the criminals and insane who’ll become "active shooters." For example, the Las Vegas shooter hadn’t shown up on anyone’s radar before he killed 58 people. And the “good guy with a gun” theory failed completely in that case. An armed police officer “froze” in fear and failed to intervene, for which he was later fired.
Getting semi-automatic weapons out of civilian hands is a very modest proposal. Unless they are being overrun by wild boar, no one needs one for personal or home defense. There are so many of these that are privately owned that restricting sales isn’t enough. They can be stolen, borrowed, or privately purchased. The sheer number has to be reduced through compulsory buyback programs.
"The people resisting regulation say that any new legislation is a slippery slope for an aggressive agenda to massively restrict guns. I say my great desire is to thoroughly hose that slope with oil." Good for you and good for Beto!
An uncomfortable truth in the current gun debate is that there a substantial number of "Americans" who believe they have the "right and duty" to take on the very government and constitution that is the basis of gun rights. There is a point in their minds that they will be called to lead a revolution against the United States that they no longer respect or recoginize. These testosterone fueled manly men (yes, most are men) are not into actions benefitting the majority at the inconvenience and cost of the minority. Humane action and common sense is required and is widely supported by that majority, while those who love their guns and have an impending duty, feel that any prudent and civilized changes amount to castration of their manliness and "patriotism".
It is often argued that a person who wants to get a gun for evil purposes will get easily one, so any ban is worthless. Hmmm. So a middle-class, pimply-faced 16-yr-old decides to shoot up his high school, but he needs an AK. He can't get one at a gun show anymore. Will he drive around town looking for a violent gang to sell him he? Will he hike out in the woods and find a friendly militia wacko to lend him one? No to both. Massacre averted.
When a gun owner says that we will have to pry that gun out of his "cold dead hands," my response is, "Okey-dokey."
3
Antique musket ownership is what the second amendment is about. Not AK'47s.
I don't often agree with Mr. Blow but on this I'm in 100% agreement. What will we accomplish with universal background checks when the last tragedy involved someone who failed a check but got a weapon anyway and others passed background checks?There is no earthly reason for someone to own an assault weapon or buy one. This is not an attack on the Second Amendment; it is just an interpretation of what it means and that is something ultimately for the Supreme Court. Conservative justices are not lunatics.
Licensing and registry are probably enough. People tend to act more responsibly when they are made aware of their accountability. You are liable for the possession, transfer and use of any firearm you ever owned. If we're going to speak honestly, firearms should really require personal liability insurance too. You're on the hook for any deaths or injuries that gun causes. Until you transfer the title, this is your problem. That'll get people thinking. Gun sellers should want universal background checks.
When the constitution was adopted, the peak of gun technology was a flint lock musket. It took a measure of expertise and many seconds of time to repeatedly fire the weapon. We now have rifle and hand gun technology that automatically reloads the weapon each time it is fired giving almost instant refire capability. That technological advance makes mass shootings possible. I doubt that SCOTUS would find that the second amendment would extend to guaranteeing any and all gun technology advancements in private hands, and that may be the way to unwind publicly owned war weapons.
Combining suicide and mass shooting is a mistake. They are separate problems requiring different approaches. Suicides can occur in any number of ways and never require a semi-automatic gun.
WW1 was fought with the manually reloaded M1903 infantry rifle. It held 5 rounds in the magazine and required the shooter to move their trigger hand up to the beach to cycle the bolt, then back to the trigger for each shot. That isn't a mass shooting weapon and mass shootings didn't happen back then.
It is time to address gun technology regulation. Technologies that allow rapid fire should be banned completely, whether rifle or handgun.
Here's a possible approach to the assault-weapon-ban conundrum: offer at no cost, a "legalization kit" that contains a special 10-round magazine, such that when inserted, permanently damages the ejection mechanism in a non-repairable way. In this manner, you convert the weapon to a manual-reload device with limited capacity, exempt from the ban. People can still keep and shoot their AR-15s, but the ability to commit mass murder would be severely curtailed.
2
@David D.
Wait. You want people firing damaged rifles? That flies in the face safety and common sense.
The chances of dying in a mass shooting is now about the same as being killed by a lightening bolt. Over the last 20 years, the United States averaged 51 annual lightning strike fatalities per year. As the Los Angeles Times recently pointed out, “For decades, the toll of mass shootings has risen steadily. During the 1970s, mass shootings claimed an average of 5.7 lives per year. In the 1980s, the average rose to 14. In the 1990s it reached 21; in the 2000s, 23.5. This decade has seen a far sharper rise. Today, the average is 51 deaths per year.”
Of course this decade might tun out to be anomaly, but one would expect the number of mass shooting fatalities to increase as population growth creates more mass shooters and more targets.
There are more than 17,000 murders every year. Mass shootings account for about 0.2 percent of murders, but if the trend continues, they may account for about one percent of murders within a few decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-01/mass-shooting-data-odessa-midland-increase
@William Case
Yeah, I'm unlikely to be struck by lighting. But buildings still have lighting rods and I don't stand under trees during storms.
I'm unlikely to be eaten by a shark. But we still post warnings when sharks are sighted and people stay out of the water.
I'm really tired of "well, there are lots of other ways you could die!" being used as an excuse to not address gun violence.
4
@William Case
Let me know when you figure out how to prevent lightning strikes (there are ways to drastically reduce risk, of course). For now, there is a way to prevent mass shootings; ban semi-automatic weapons. We trade off public access to a gun technology for a few more live people who get to take their chances with lightning. No brainer.
3
@April, yes, and besides the tragedy of the count of these deaths we also have the damage to our national psyche, the fact that in what we once thought of as the greatest nation in the world this is how we're reduced to having to live our lives. Mr. Case repeats the NRA talking points, concluding that all this is not-so-bad; sorry, but I have to disagree--we can be better than this.
2
I couldn't agree more - many more gun control laws are needed. Problem is, there are far too many guns on the streets for that to be a short-term solution to the problem.I believe that should be seen as a potential long-term solution, perhaps twenty to fifty years down the road.
There needs to be more attention paid to shorter-term solutions. More focus on mental health issues could help but I don't see that doing a lot to solve the problem, either. So what will? I wish I had the answer. Does anyone?
I believe our country's best minds need to start putting their heads together and come up with some fresh new ideas. Otherwise, mass shootings may continue unabated, and perhaps become worse and even more frequent, far into the future.
Here is one of the solutions that you want to keep on ignoring. The rest of the world has already found the answer. It’s called less guns.Other than some small countries with other problems such as Yemen, every other country in the world already has found the answer. The US prefers to keep its blinkers on.
“Red Tape”?
Unfortunate use of anti-government rhetoric.
I have a couple of questions, to introduce more honesty to the discussion:
Are would-be gun owners so lazy or incompetent that they won’t or can’t fill out a form?
Are would-be gun owners so impulsive that they can’t wait a few days for their license?
Are would-be gun owners so anti-social that they can’t understand the suffering of their fellow citizens?
4
It is refreshing to see Charles divert his attention from Trump to a real issue. The madness of Trump is solvable only by prying his billionaire backers’ fingers out of our government. The same is true about gun control.
1
It used to be that you could not enter a classroom, store or restaurant without shoes or a shirt. Yesterday, Walmart asked shoppers not to enter with weapons exposed. While in the past a store owner could refuse a biped's entrance without shoes, merchants weren't sure how they'd enforce no AR-15s, AK-47s, without, I assume, armed security or police "hold-up". If this is not a measure of the dissolution of Humanity, what more violence do we need to see as a society or culture? That our elected, political authority figures privilege corruption, defense, and shame rather than educating our human potential means we are seeking the worst rather than the best from our human evolutionary potential. Are we reptilians and mammalians in nature or are we humans? To take deliberate and thoughtful action requires a neocortex, that is teaching Post-Simian defense and shaming mechanisms toward Homo sapiens, with the rights and privileges thereof. Gun control laws are now needed since a constitutional misunderstanding of our species potential has been greatly neglected.
The AR-15 is NOT a weapon of war! NO military in the WORLD uses it. When I was a kid my dream was to buy a VW Beetle and this "Porsche" conversion kit. It made the Beetle LOOK like a Porsche, but it wasn't a Porsche. When do we discuss disarming CRIMINALS instead of law abiding citizens? How about EVERYBODY show ID when voting? It's only a little red tape for you to ensure our voting system. How about MANDATORY DOUBLE MAXIMUM sentence for crimes committed with a gun! Get the criminals off the street, unlike in Chicago where we routinely hear of a crook being arrested for armed robbery who is out on bail/parole for another armed robbery. What the left thinks is "common sense" is anything but. Common sense is going after the people committing the crimes, not law-abiding citizens who just want to go out and shoot some paper targets.
2
@SGT Wombat
You self-proclaimed gun safety experts need to stop telling us what won't work and tell us what will work.
Otherwise I'll go on believing you think this is an acceptable level of violence and want to do nothing.
1
@Vicki Since Florida has a gun death rate two and a half times that of either NY or NJ, I’m not sure any idea related to guns from Florida is worth following!
2
So let us be honest.
"Even in the radical District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision in 2008 that established the right to bear arms as an individual right,... "
The Heller decision did not establish the right to bear arms as an individual right. It has been an individual right as long as the USA has been a nation. The Heller decision addressed an unconstitutional law in the District of Columbia. It didn't establish a new right. Read some real history.
Anyone who has taken a collective bargaining class knows if you ask for a dollar you will only get a quarter. Background checks is not the answer. Assault rifles are the problem. No civilian needs anything faster shooting then a repeating rifle whether lever or bolt action. Beto is correct, assault rifles need to taken off the streets.
2
Beto is right. We have a national health emergency and I'm sick of the Democrats in Congress for remaining silent. Gun violence is now our Number 1 domestic issue and it would behoove the Democratic Party to get behind Beto's proposal and nationalize it. With 90 percent of Americans for gun regulation it's not only morally correct, but politically correct as well. No one feels safe walking or even, after Odessa, driving the streets. I'm about to go to a meeting at my local synagogue this morning and have to pass a security check to enter. This after the massacre in Pittsburgh. It's time for all Democrats to end their silence and unite behind a single comprehensive gun regulation bill like Beto's. This may be our last chance to end the out-of-control gun massacre epidemic that the N.R.A.that Republicans and a few Democrats have brought upon us. It's time to wash the blood off our hands and vote them out. Listen to Beto; listen to the brave young Parkland survivors; listen to the still grieving parents in Newtown; and then vote #NeverAgain for those who keep protecting the gun lobby and not us.
1
Over and over we hear the statistic "40,000 people killed by guns" every year. It becomes meaningless, just a number.
But it's as though we took the population of a small US city and killed every single person there.
Imagine going to Calexico, CA and wiping out the entire population. How about Texarkana, TX? Gone. Burlington, VT? Bye, bye. Maybe Panama City, FL?
And yet, this is what happens every year in the US - we kill the equivalent of a small city. And the next year, we do it again. A city - slaughtered.
We, the NRA and various other gun lobbies, members of the Senate and Congress, we the voters - we do this.
4
Thank you, Mr. Blow, for this column, and thank you, Mr. O'Rourke for your honesty and common sense on this issue.
3
The Supreme Court must eventually reinterpret the second amendment making it possible to severely restrict gun ownership.
Anything less and America will continue on its downward spiral of killing.
Some asked what it was that elevates someones love of a weapon of death and destruction over the safety of his or her fellow human beings. In the case of the NRA and gun manufacturers money seems to be the driving force. But what is the make up in the personalities of the staunchest gun toting fanatics? Once we can figure it out we can try to address the problem. On the surface a few things seem obvious. Fear of the unknown often crops up in conversations with gun fanatics. I've heard them say time and again that they need to be ready when the race wars, government, next mass shooter, road rage incident or mugger attacks. Then there is the smarmy bully. This person, almost always a male, loves to stand in front of the world and declare that nobody is going to tell them what to do with their guns. just try and take it from them and you will get what's coming to you. There are variations on all of these kinds of people but at their core there is something we need to figure out so we can defuse the intractable wall between the rabid 2nd amendment nuts and civility.
@Magan
The elephant in the room is misogyny. Nearly all mass shooters have a history of anti-woman rhetoric and/or violence. Most "average" gun-toting fanatics are pretty anti-woman, too, in my experience.
2
Beto's from a gun-happy state and thus his principled statements about the current state of the madness associated with assault weapons and other weapons used in the genocide in the country is nothing else but a public safety matter. Certainly, when water in communities is deemed unsafe due to lead, when lead is used in the mass murders, it is deadly indeed. We need to address this as Beto is in the manner he states. Scalia's originalist ruling needs overturning. Stay strong, Beto. Excellent performance at CNN's climate change discussion last night.
Mr. Blow was doing so well, then he fell down with "Guns can be effectively and constitutionally regulated in this country." Prior to this obligatory nod to good policy, he actually made it abundantly clear that "massively restricting guns" is his real wish. Stop the lying indeed, the gun-right thinks it "sees right through your lies", which becomes what they consider the REAL issue.
The funny thing is, I am actually sympathetic to the need for gun regulation, the problem is that a considerable portion of our populous see that as a direct threat to their very lives. Aggressive legislation may be possible in the future* but prohibition would go the way of Prohibition, as fierce independence is in the American character.
*If you really want to pursue punitive confiscatory policy in this area, you'll have to wait for so much more death to accumulate that a majority of the public is roused to backlash. This may take a while, though time is on our side. Sorry about all the dead children, thoughts and prayers y'all.
The gun lobby had a stranglehold on the GOP even before the worst Supreme Court decision in history: "Citizens United."
To save lives we need a new Supreme Court, which means voting Democrats into power.
Only by expanding the court seats will we begin to wash away all the needless spilled blood.
Without real reform and sanity, anyone anywhere can be killed by a gun.
I don't want to live/die this way. Do you?
1
No. I won't be selling any rifles to the government. I'll be keeping mine.
2
That gun ownership made sense in times long gone I can understand. But today? My family lived, and I still do today, in the northern city of Basel (Switzerland). The town is divided in two parts by the river Rhine. The so-called lesser Basel is what you might think, erroneously, located on German territory. During II WW my grandmother, who was Jewish, decided to buy a pistol. She was so hateful of German people that she proclaimed to shoot everyone she would encounter. Well, fortunately it never got that far. After the war was over she discarded that pistol. Her reasoning was that guns are here to kill and there was no reason to own one privately. Now that makes sense to me. A side note, that part of the city was almost bombed by the allies because they considered it German territory. We were lucky, it could be averted. An other one of our Kantons (state) was not so lucky. It also had parts of the city on the other side of the Rhine and was bombed to the ground. Please think over your gun ownership policies.
The gun lobby has effectively whipped up a “hair on fire refusal” to talk seriously about reasonable gun restrictions. But the gun lobby is hemorrhaging credibility with every mass shooting and with every shamefully petulant riposte to the growing demands that the madness be stopped.
And make no mistake, the scourge of gun culture and the “free for all” firearm glut is about suicides, domestic violence, and tragic accidents as much as it is about deranged agents of chaos shooting up school children, concert goers, pedestrians, motorists, movie watchers, shoppers, disco goers, immigrants, black people, women, and random examples of humanity whenever certain miserable malcontents happen to snap, crackle or pop.
But the so called “responsible” gun owners? Where are they? WHO are they? All I see is a bunch of incoherent disgruntled coots and cowards mumbling menacingly about THEIR RIGHTS as if any “right” came divorced from responsibilities.
2
Yes, Beto can certainly be a breath of fresh air, as is Blow's understanding that we cannot always clearly say that this or that proposed legislation would have made any difference in this or that mass shooting.
This is a public health crisis and we are fighting two lobbies, NRA and the pharmaceuticals. Currently, as I understand it, it is not even required that toxicology is available on mass shooters. We are not even allowed the information to properly investigate the potential influence of legal drugs on these events.
Please don't tell me that you and nearly everyone you know take antidepressants and aren't mass shooters. I live in a rural area and pretty much everyone around me has guns, some assault style weapons. And they are not mass shooters either.
Recently I read 13% of population takes antidepressants? I don't know if that is true but surely a lot of folks do, and if you don't think big pharma wants to keep that going I do have a bridge to sell you.
Two lobbies to fight. We need the toxicology information to begin to discern what the heck is going on.
1
If Robert Francis O'Rourke, Jr., wants to repeal the Second Amendment, then I fully support his effort.
But his proposals are as blatant an infringement of a constitutionally protected right as is bans on partial-birth abortion or imposing poll taxes. Declaring something a "public health emergency" does not negate the Constitution,
So, stop lying about gun control.
1
"But also, the opponents are right in some of their arguments. Can I or anyone else point to a specific proposal and say it would have affected this or that specific mass shooting? "
This is a favorite argument used against so many laws and proposals, ignoring the fact that a negative can't be proven and then letting perfect be the enemy of good.
No one can ever say how many mass killings have already been prevented by current law for that matter, event as the number of dead spirals upwards.
And no one will be able to point to the number prevented under a regime of stricter laws either.
And that's not the point; Stricter laws will prevent more killings and that's why we need to start now.
Eventually the stats will show a decline, but this is long a long term problem, and so is the solution.
1
This column is out of touch with some basic realities.
There is no epidemic of gun violence. 40,000 deaths may sound like a lot but in a nation of over 300 million it is not that much. The US takes this on the roads every year and nobody seems to mind. There have been a lot of NYT articles recently about guns, but I don't recall any about traffic safety.
Two thirds of gun deaths are suicides. These have nothing to do with semi-automatic or military-style weapons. They are probably mostly from guns that have been lying in a drawer for many years. They will not be affected by restrictions on heavy weapons or background checks or anything else. When there are a lot less than 300 million guns in the country these numbers may start to change. That is decades or centuries from now.
Mass shootings are, like terrorism, very media-genic. But they kill almost nobody. Your odds of being killed in a mass shooting this year are around one in a million. The public, statistically innumerate though it may be, understands this. The price of gas or the availability of chicken sandwiches is much more of a reality to almost everyone. People don't care.
So, get used to guns. They are not going anywhere.
1
There was a time when serious gun owners had a respect that could appear to impute to firearms sentient attributes. That is, just as there is a cautious awe for the most fearsome predators, owners aware of a gun's awesome killing powers took all precautions and respected their imagined preference to remain mostly hidden and left alone.
These intricately engineered creations were designed for specific uses, if not necessarily honorable, surely limited. A gun crafted for use on the battlefield that is used to tear apart child's face is disrespected, as is cavalierly brandishing them, or firing them to celebrate whatever.
To illustrate this long lost sentiment about gun etiquette, I tell the story of a old woman back in the 1950's who wandered from her country home and was lost in the woods. A search party was formed that included a majority of hunters. One man showed up with a pistol on his hip. The group turned to him somewhat surprised at the presence of the gun and one quipped, " What are you going to do when we find her, shoot her?"
Yes, there was indeed a time when many gun owners honored a firearm's preference to be rarely seen and even more rarely heard.
When do you think that this stopped? I do not think that is has.
@Casual Observer This stopped for those who think it necessary to strap on a gun to go shopping for a rutabaga. This stopped when many began to think it just fine to own militarized firearms. No returning WW2 veteran of my acquaintance back in that time thought that either necessary or appropriate. This stopped when NRA cultists began to invoke the second amendment in convoluted ways as if it were sanctioned by Scripture.
1
There are way way more anti-gun activists now than NRA members. The anti-gun organizations are all fragmented. Perhaps they should come together to form an ANTI-NRA coalition so they can have a uniform mission statement and demonstrate their numbers and Power?
I totally agree with the idea that guns, from here on out, will be regulated, licensed, and hopefully made unavailable and unpopular.
Guns are pseudo penises. Do away with the patriarchy and the gun problem will solve itself.
3
I believe that guns are popular in part because they're bound up with an archetype of what many people think of as a masculine, American, male. It's a connection with our frontier pass that has become a prop for their self esteem and feeling of power and importance. To my mind, it's an unhealthy cultural and political force that needs to change, but I don't really see how it can be given how deeply rooted it is.
1
Unfortunately, and despite popular demand, the U.S. is controlled by the radical Right, and no one in this right-wing administration, or among elected Republicans, has the nation's public health in mind.
The Republicans are all about decreasing the quality of life for all, just so the few already-wealthy can become wealthier. They are the party of reducing Social Security, Medicare, free education, destroying pristine environment and killing endangered species so a few can obtain more fossil fuel.
They are the party that eliminated clean air and water protection so factories and chemical companies can pollute these resources.
"To promote the general welfare", and "to promote...science", as outlined in the Constitution, are the last things on their agenda.
This party seems to have a death wish for Americans, which runs through all its legislation. Gun deaths mean nothing to them.
They prefer power, winning, being in control, wealth for the few, with the help of the NRA, Big Pharma, ConAgra, Big Chema, and fossil fuel-rich donors.
They must be voted out.
As to gun owners -- they've never lived in an America without guns. They have no idea how great it feels to live in a gun-free society, as in Europe. Moreover, Europeans disdain gun violence and America's "cowboy culture".
Getting Americans to stop loving well machined death weapons, to not choose violence and killing, to lose that killing mentality, that will be the hardest sell.
1
Agree but an insurance policy requirement would also be helpful. Gun owners would also need to purchase a lockbox for home and car or submit proof that they own a lockbox for guns.
1
"They are right when they say that restrictions on new purchases would place a burden on responsible gun owners — the overwhelming majority of gun owners — when only a tiny fraction participate in shootings. To that I say: AND?! Nearly 40,000 people in 2017 were killed by guns in this country. If a reduction in that number comes with more red tape for you, then so be it."
Do you feel this way about stopping and frisking black males? Or does inconveniencing and burdening a group for the supposed "benefit" of society only apply when it's gun owners?
Until recently, Trump's re-election team was concerned about getting big crowds and about ensuring high turnout by his voters. Now, the Progressives and columnists such as Mr. Blow have assured that Trump will be re-elected.
And even better: with their adoption of support for extreme climate policies, CNN and the Progressives are now ensuring that Trump's win will be a blowout.
On the bright side, Mr. Blow will be assured of four more years to write his columns condemning Trump and his supporters.
Commentary of a Hungarian made to me during a visit to Budapest last week: "It is very sad that Americans need guns to protect themselves from one another. What is wrong with your society where your citizens do not live in peace but rather in fear of your very own neighbors? It must be a terrible worry and burden to have to bear no matter where you go. You do not seem to live freely." That same person did not want to visit the U.S. with friends and family for the posssibility of being caught up in the crossfire of another mass shooting. I had no answers for him nor made any excuses for the tragedies of the gun culture in this country nor the value we attach to the lives of our citizens iin the 21st century to uphold an archaic amendment to the Constitution. It is pure insanity.
1
A note from Canada that we feel the same as the Hungarians do.
What is wrong with you people? Still fighting the Alamo?
Worried about the invasion of commies coming over? (Go talk to Moscow Mitch about that- after all, he’s practically invited them in)
A handgun to protect yourself-fine. War style guns with multiple 50 round magazines- you’ve got to be joking.
You’ve got to register and pass exams for driving, teaching, flying, and dozens of others. Is it so much of an imposition to register and pass a basic exam to buy a gun? If you’re so worried that there’s now going to be some sort of a secret list keeping track of you, you’ve got a paranoia streak a mile wide.
Speaking of "Lying About Gun Control"... lets try and stick with some FACTS...
#1 "Gun violence" does not exist... if someone jumps off a building to commit suicide, they didn't die from sidewalk violence...
#2 +-11k people are murdered with firearms each year, break down the top motives and demographics of those if you want to fix problems.
#3 suicide numbers don't change due to gun access, look at Australia's numbers.
#4 "weapons of war" more lies? but let's go with that... tell me, how with regulating a weapon that is used in LESS then 1% of murders have a effect on crime?
#5 "studies to figure out which measures would work best."
studies like the FL study that shows arming teachers is 1 of the best ways to stop school shootings?
@RUSS - Thanks for relaying the NRA talking points. On #1, guns aren't the problem, it's refreshing to know that if a maniac murders a couple of dozen people with his assault rifle I don't need to agonize about what I might have done to keep him from getting that weaon and his hundreds of rounds of ammo; without that he would have found some equally-effective way to kill all those people anyway, maybe...I dunno, I'm having trouble coming up with what that is.
1
@RUSS:
1. You’d prefer “violence from people firing bullets from guns” OK it’s longer but accurate.
PS: “sidewalks” are passive, the act causing the death is the jump. Should we call gun violence “bullet hitting internal organs, causing cessation of heart and brain function”?
3. Probably better not to compare with Australia, whose suicide rate is nearly half of ours! (8 per thousand compared to 14)
5. As I read it the Florida Commission said arming teachers MIGHT have saved lives at Parkland and it’s ONE of the best answers? What are the others? Or don’t they fit your agenda?
And 4. Why do you care about school
shootings...they are less than one percent of shootings!
2 Generally the NRA has done its best to prevent government research into violence using guns....since the other term seems to upset you so much!
Sorry these are out of order
1
As I mentioned before in a letter to the editor, while reducing gun violence is a desirable goal, our political system is rigged in such way that if the Democrats run on that, we'll have four more years of Trump. Is that worth it?
I too appreciate Beto’s clear approach to a major, avoidable, public health crisis. We all need to take a fresh look at gun ownership and the risk to all of us. We have elevated gun ownership over a right to live. I hate the resumption of the death penalty. There is no question that we need new priorities. These gun priorities fall hardest on the poorest among us. As an educated woman raising three kids after a divorce I had a taste of struggle and deprivation and want more protection given to all our children. Our city streets are filled with guns. I thank Walmart for their cutting at least some gun sales. Beto is showing himself to be clear eyed and strong. Thanks Mr. Blow.
Thank you for another insightful column, Charles, and thanks to Beto O'Rourke for speaking truth to power. He will probably not be our nominee, but whoever is needs to listen to him. This is beyond a public health issue. It is all about public safety and public trust, both of which have been undermined by the perpetual violations of human decency by the jerk of the White House and amplified by the overwhelming number of guns in our country, too many of them in the hands of people crazy enough to use them on other people.
You know what’s strange? There are are two causes of about the same number of deaths each year and for one we have no problem in attempting to reduce the fatalities, in ensuring users reach a certain standard of proficiency, in punishing those users that misuse them, and in ensuring the thing itself is made safe. Those are motor vehicles and drivers. The other of course is guns!
Regarding those who complain that "only a tiny fraction participate in shootings," how many times in recent years have we seen shooters with no prohibiting criteria? Until that day, those shooters were "responsible gun owners."
The exceptions are proof of the universal threat of trusting people to have dangerous things.
1
A public (mental) health crisis.....why should I have to be anxious about being blown away while attending a community event? Thanks to restrictions on smoking, including restrictions on advertising and high "sin" taxes, I don't have to breathe a lot of second hand smoke at public events. I see some parallels here (I'd rather have Beto's plan, but there are some smaller measures that would start to make a difference).
Registration and licensing of all guns, including means-tested fees, are reasonable and constitutional even under the Republican Illegitimate SCOTUS. Look to Canada for a good example. The rest of the suggestions are also good, including buy-back provisions for military style weapons, followed by confiscation if necessary. Make exemptions for collectors and for guns kept at gun clubs.
Let me offer a few more potentially helpful suggestions. First, allow regional variations in law. Northern Wisconsin does not need the same possession and carry regulations as Chicago. Second, go back to the "old" rules: 1) NO CONCEALED WEAPONS. 2) NO LOADED OR UNCASED GUNS IN CARS OR CITIES. 3) NO MORE THAN A 5 ROUND CAPACITY. 4) NO HOLLOW POINT OR ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.
I own a dozen guns and have hunted all my life. What we have now is crazy and rules seem to have been made up by adolescents.
The NRA and the gun crackpots have convinced (too many) people that registration means confiscation. It's a mantra premised on the notion that when a despotic regime comes into power the first thing it will do is confiscate all privately owned guns.
Trump hasn't confiscated any weapons. So much for the dogma.
I wished as a country we would stop hand-wringing over gun control. The notion that we have too many mass shooting is such a misnomer. The truth is we don't have enough. Until gun violence shakes the lives of enough Americans to spur them to act, we are simply spinning our wheels with these recurring town halls and politician diatribes. Imagine having a minor ailment that you live with for years. Until it really becomes painful and debilitating, you are not going to seek treatment. This is the state of gun debates today. Until it affects the everyday lives of a majority of Americans, we're not going to intervene.
I don't understand the Democrats' worrying about alienating voters with sensible proposals for gun control. Most of those voters whom they worry about aren't voting D anyway. Tell it like it is--people will be astounded, and it will be like a breath of fresh air.
Anything else that kills nearly forty thousand Americans a year has ongoing research into ways to lessen the toll. A few cases of Ebola had this country in an uproar. A hundred deaths daily--two-thirds of them from suicides--from firearms? Nah. A 9/11 every four months, and we would have the country on lockdown. Yet, we allow that many murders from them annually.
1
The US population is 50% larger today than it was 50 years ago. It would be astonishing if this wasn't reflected in the counts of crimes.
I am not a gun owner. I am no gun fetishist, constitutional originalist, or fear monger.
However I am a black man, acutely aware of the failures of our domestic law enforcement to secure and protect the rights of people who look like me. Gun control which seeks to disarm people generally, while placing no restrictions on the military style arms frequently used by law enforcement, will never have my support.
There is an attitude most commonly espoused by those who have no reason to fear the police, that assumes the police will serve as a neutral arbiter of justice and will never accidentally shoot you in your home or simply fail to respond quickly in your time of need.
So I ask: If you support gun confiscation, do you support disarming the police at some future point? Do you support banning private security from carrying guns on behalf of those with the means to afford it?
If not, you are implicitly demonstrating that you actually only support gun control for the poor and dis-empowered. Failure to consider those who the police cannot or will not protect, is truly unfortunate.
I hope that as you push for a goal that I share, less violence in this country, you will consider the implications of guns only in the hands of the wealthy and powerful, as was the case in the Jim Crow south. If you think that oppression can't happen here, recall that segregation, enforced by police via the barrel of a gun, was only ended in 1964. 55 years ago, younger than some readers here.
@David -No one is suggesting a removal of shotguns, hunting rifles and revolvers and pistols with smaller magazines from the ownership of civilians. I do not understand your argument.
@Norman Canter, M.D. I am asking why the average police officer requires "large capacity magazines" and "military style rifles" if truly they are only useful for killing as many people as possible in a short time.
Either they are not useful in a defensive context and no one should own them - or they are and we should be wary of deciding that only the police should have them. I'm not talking about SWAT teams - I'm talking about the average patrol officer having an AR-15 in their squad car, which is currently the case.
Similarly, why do many state laws exempt off-duty and former law enforcement from magazine capacity limits and even sometimes assault weapons bans?
I have a hard time reconciling the idea that these guns are uniquely dangerous, but that we should be comfortable with their possession by the police.
I will make a final note of your use of the term "civilian" here -- I agree police are civilians, not soldiers, and that gun control should with very few exceptions apply to all civilians.
@David: The treasonous NRA runs an arms race between the US public and the police.
The various proposals for gun control are useful, I suppose. But we don't address the real sickness that infects our country. The loud insistence on the right to bear arms has a cultural corollary: Americans, especially men, believe they have the right to use arms, not just bear them. Use them to intimidate others. Use them to settle minor grievances. Use them to win arguments. Use them to get revenge against imagined enemies. Use them to feel "manly." With more than 300 million guns in the country, and a collective mentality of righteous, rugged, individual power, this problem will continue regardless of gun control efforts. It's not that we shouldn't try. But we must recognize that any concession to the right to bear arms is also a tacit concession to the relatively unfettered right to use arms. I don't care whether the gun shoved in my face, or carried to my granddaughter's school, or paraded around the mall is registered, insured or otherwise regulated. I just want the culture to shift so that any such gun owners are seen as anti-social and gradually slink back into the paranoid shadows that spawned them.
4
I spent a year in the Northern I Corp in Vietnam and carried an M-16 and M-79 grenade launcher 24/7 and used them as they were intended to be used. Weapons of war should not be available to the public. I did not fight in a war to come back to Dodge City. I support O'Rourke's proposals and like the letter submitted by Don from Ithaca, NY, my original hometown.
5
@Robert Fabbricatore Do you consider a Beretta 92FS to be a weapon of war?
The best way to address the guns already in circulation would be to require insurance for gun ownership. A mandatory buyback for 400 million guns would be prohibitively expensive (and would likely meet with substantial noncompliance). The insurance requirement would address most of the concerns Mr. Blow raises in his column. If you had to purchase insurance for each gun you own, you might reconsider keeping some of the guns you have, while also making you think twice about purchasing more.
The insurance requirement would reward responsible gun ownership (safe storage, proper training and lack of claims) with lower premiums while significantly increasing costs for irresponsibility. Plus, the costs would be borne by gun owners themselves instead of all taxpayers. Noncompliance would be a felony, disqualifying offenders from gun ownership.
2
@Kristi And comments like this are exactly why "nothing gets done." It's a well settled principle of insurance that insurance does not, and cannot as a matter of public policy, cover intentional acts. Therefore, any required insurance would cover accidents only, which are relatively rare and already covered by homeowner's insurance in most cases. You will never find an insurance company to underwrite policies for murder. Ever. By demanding such policies that will be unattainable, you're just calling for a ban. If you're going to do that, be honest about it.
2
@Jon W.
Wrong. It would encourage responsible gun ownership while discouraging “impulse buys” of guns after every mass shooting. I read the crime statistics in my zone of the city every month, and every month, there are many guns stolen out of people’s cars and homes because they were improperly stored. What if, instead of those people running out and buying more guns to replace those that were stolen, their premiums went up, or they eventually became uninsurable? We would also then know exactly which guns were now in circulation for committing crimes or on the black market.
2
@Kristi Did you not bother to read my post? The insurance you are demanding is NOT ATTAINABLE. No insurance company will write that policy, for anyone.
1
An important factor in the failure of the current administration to propose and enact stronger gun control legislation is the amount of money donated to Republican lawmakers by the NRA. With Trump receiving over $30 million from the NRA, and McConnell and other Republican politicians receiving from $1 million to close to $3 million just in 2016, we can't expect them to act on behalf of their constituents--they, along with a majority of Republican Congress members, will do what they are told to do by the gun lobby.
An article in the Miami Herald on October 5, 2017 re the NRA states "In 2016, the group’s reports filed with the Federal Election Commission showed it shelled out a record-setting $55 million combined on independent political spending and direct contributions to candidates in federal races.
But two NRA sources told McClatchy that the group spent even more -- close to $70 million, and perhaps much more."
According to many sources, very few Democrats accepted dollars from the NRA, and the few that did, received just a few $thousand. So we need to vote in 2020!
2
The ban and buy back of assault weapons should also include all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines so that the later cannot be modified to work around what is defined as an assault weapon. This has been very effective in Australia.
2
@R Arnts - The traditional ban on automatic weapons has been quite successful. I would think that a US ban on semi-automatic weapons or assault rifles would be as successful if it carried the weight that the current ban on automatic weapons now carries.
@R Arnts You realize that you're calling for a ban on nearly every modern gun in existence?
@Norman Canter, M.D. Only because they're not that useful, so no black market opened up for them.
As a transplant to Texas. after 10 yrs I am still shocked by the passion around gun ownership in this state. Beto's courage in this position cannot be overstated.Not speaking as a diehard Beto fan but as an admirer of those who put themselves at grave risk for their beliefs, and whose position will not be forgiven by their neighbors.
6
The 2nd Amendment does not permit unlimited ownership of guns, and the Supreme Court most recently ruled that ownership is subject to constraints. Period.
1
As I recall it the reason why we had such restrictive gun laws prior to the say 80's is the gun violence by organized crime back in the1920's era. The Thompson machine gun was the weapon of choice I believe the bloodshed and association with organized crime became just too much.
Somehow our current OCD focused on gun's without limits and rights completely outweighing responsibilities I hope will pass - once we sufficiently terrify our selves that is.
2
Why not handguns? 2/3- 3/4 of gun deaths are to handguns.
@Kevin - For most purposes, personal protection and home protection, revolvers would be quite adequate and arguably safer and more dependable for most citizens since they are less likely to be discharged accidentally and have a capacity of 5-6 rounds.
As someone from Texas, I think that all the measures O'Rourke has mentioned are ok. There are some problems I have. However, I believe that the biggest thing that bothers me is the noticeable lack of mention of Justice System reform. While most of these gun control acts proposed are tremendous and should be encouraged, you cannot ignore the history of using gun control to harass people of color. One famous example was in California when the Black Panthers would protest the government and police by openly carrying their guns around. With California's open carry laws back then, they were entirely in their rights to do so. However, of all people, then-governor Ronald Reagan passed a law banning open-carry in all of California. This was explicitly meant to target the Black Panthers to stop them from walking around with their guns. However, maybe that's just because of Republican control of the state back then. Surely somewhere like New York as recently as the 2000s wouldn't have anything like this. Wrong. As recently as 2012, NYPD protocol was to stop and frisk people of color to see if they illegally had guns. This rarely amounted to anything except stopping and frisking 4.4 million people from the years 2004-12. If we are going to have a serious conversation about gun control in this country, we need to have a serious discussion about its use to control and harass people of color.
3
This is not exactly pertinent to this column, but, interestingly, if a person wanted to engage in target shooting in NY or NJ (and maybe other states, but I only know about these two), one must not only get a permit, but one must also own a gun. In Florida, an adult can go to any of various gun ranges in this state and "rent" a gun, including an AR-15 or similar weapon, and shoot at targets. The ranges provide safety information, some modest training and the ranges themselves are supervised. There is no need at all to own any kind of firearm in order to recreationally engage in target shooting here. Perhaps states like NY and NJ could learn from this.
1
Thanks for mentioning this. I don’t agree with Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws, but it does show that we can make some headway with small changes to customs. Want to fire an assault rifle just for the sheer fun of blowing stuff up? You can go rent one and not worry about all that intrusive paperwork and training.
Although, I do remember a story of a young girl, maybe nine, whose parents decided she needed to learn how to shoot an Uzi. They took her to the local range, and under the careful tutelage of the instructor, managed to blow the instructors head off when the predictable muzzle rise of an automatic caught them both by surprise. Happy Birthday kid, life will be so much better for you now!
And then there is the story of the dad providing the example, for his ten year old, by having him watch his shots from behind him - safest place, right? Except the spent cartridges flew up in the air, one landed in the collar of dads shirt, and it was really hot, so Dad did what any right handed shooter would do...used the barrel of the gun to try and dislodge it. Oops, “accidental discharge”. Oops, son with hole in head, dead. Darn gun! Was not supposed to do that.
If you believe that Good and Evil exist, that God represents good, and Satan evil, and that good is offered by God and evil by the Devil for us to freely choose - which has given us the Gun? Why do we choose to keep that offering around when we see what it brings us?
A primary reason for the enactment of the 2nd Amendment right to form militias and to "keep and bear arms" was the fear of slave revolts as had happened through out the slave holding regions in the Caribbean. Slaves were not allowed to read and not allowed to be part of a "free State." As a result of the emancipation, the purpose for 2nd Amendment no longer exists and it is time that it be revoked in its entirety, not just by nibbling around its edges.
4
@bigeasycowboy - Unfortunately you're wrong. The primary reason for the 2nd Amendment, along with the First Amendment, was to placate anti-Federalists who feared a stronger central federal government that might arise and challenge States rights. A secondary reason was to keep King George III and the British Empire at bay. Slaves had nothing to do with it.
1
@Bill C and big easy: yes and no. In slave-holding States, a slave revolt would surely have been a threat.
And the First Amendment argument is week.
But one of the main reasons for the “militias” was to avoid a regular national standing army, both as potential suppressor of the States and for a much more frequent complaint then and now: MONEY! Standing armies were (comparatively) expensive, militias cheap. Militias were used to put down Shays rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion .
@Bill C. "State's rights" are moot under any conception of equally protective national law.
Judging from your title and subtitle, you think candidates are lying about their desire to ban guns, not whether or not gun bans really work. I think, before we get passionate about measures that have never been proven to work, and before we get honest about that passion, we should find out if they work. Good think there was an assault weapon ban under the Clinton administration in which we learned that crime did not go down under such bans. So I guess he's very honest about being passionate about something that does not work. Good for him. What's the point?
2
@PJABC I should probably give some examples as it is impossible to convert gun ban advocates.
All the cities in this country have the strictest gun laws and the most gun violence, like Chicago, etc.
Most places with the most relaxed gun laws, like Vermont, have the least gun violence.
It's not the guns, it's the criminals and the crazies.
@PJABC also, all cities in the US have the strictest gun laws AND the most gun violence, like Chicago. Also, most places with the most relaxed gun laws have the least gun violence, like Vermont.
Is that not proof that gun laws don't work? Why would someone be honest about being passionate about something that has been proven NOT to work unless they want to pander to the ignorant?
Fact check re: mass shootings and assault rifle ban. Article in this paper today.
Don't vote for anyone who is against improving gun safety. They must be roundly, thumpingly defeated and their stance on this issue identified as a factor in their political demise.
6
We passed the point of reason on gun control a long time ago. One of the reasons that this election is so vitally important is to come back to reality on how to rein in guns and protect our citizens. The NRA is becoming like some bogeyman in the background. Every time someone speaks about the slightest protection level, it is magically stopped. Enough.
3
All our legal rights are limited. The SCOTUS got it wrong in Heller when they decided to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part of the second amendment. Think you have an unlimited right to vote? Think again. All citizens less than 18 years of age are prohibited from voting. One has to---gasp---register to vote, which includes verifying one's residency and identity. We can't vote wherever we want or whenever we want. We aren't entitled to vote on most issues--we vote to elect representatives and we sometimes vote on specific referenda or plebiscites, but only in specified circumstances. We can't vote more than once in each election. So why should one's right to bear arms be any less circumscribed?
4
This will all work itself out.
Like climate change.
When pink lungs are a rarity, and we are dropping like flies, society will act.
Today there are only four hundred thousand guns in America
and it’s a minor problem.
When there are two billion guns in America and it becomes a major problem, society will act.
@New World I think you mean 400 million not thousand, right?
The argument that anyone needs an assault rifle is just nonsense. Part of the problem is determining what qualifies as an assault rifle. I think the definition of assault rifle should be based on capacity and range. Regardless of the type of firearm you have, it should be licensed and registered, just like a car. And the type of weapon should determine the type of license you have, just like it does with a motor vehicle. I'm tired of all the excuses and bluster. I'm proud of Beto for standing up and pushing for action. Congress needs to act in the interest of the people and stop worrying about their own elections. Bullets don't care if you're democrat or republican.
7
How about the appeal and replacement of the 2nd with an amendment that makes sense in 21st century America?
Betto is right in that this is not an issue to be addressed by polling for the most popular position.
Make guns difficult and expensive to own. Make the licensing procedure rigorous - make it arduous to own something that can snuff out life.
Time to call out the NRA for who they are - The Merchants of Death.
8
I absolutely agree that the remedy for the 2nd Amendment lies in the repeal of it. However, there in lies the rub. A repeal begins in Congress which is hopelessly gridlocked and incapable of enacting any law let alone a repeal of any amendment. If we imagine, much like belief in unicorns and rainbows, the such a repeal were passed to the Several States for a two thirds ratification there are overwhelmingly crimson States that would render any consideration DOA.
Every instance of a mass murder only adds to the nearly 400,000,000 weapons owned by our citizenry largely due to unfounded fears that, at some future point, there’ll be a confiscation or ‘buy back’. I wish it were not so but it’s the reality of our times.
@bobbybow -The meaning of the 2nd amendment should be clarified. What is the role in regard to a militia? Are there any militia at this time? Hows is the right to bear arms related to the role and existence of "a militia" It is not necessary to revoke the 2nd Amendment, but it is time to clarify and define its meaning for our current society.
“There are more than 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States, or enough for every man, woman and child to own one and still have 67 million guns left over.” If guns made us safer, we would be the safest country in the world. As it stands now, our gun death rate is 25 times that of any developed country.
9
There's no need to confiscate any weapons. Just make it illegal to store them anywhere but at a gun range.
3
@Georges Kaufman It is already illegal to shoot another person. Simply making something "illegal" will not stop it from happening.
1
If and when, the USA can stop worrying about "winners and losers" we may be able to change policy. Mr. O'Rourke's gun control plan is fantastic because serious measures must be taken. But, when I read/hear responses such as, we'll lose the presidential election, we'll lose House and Senate seats it's infuriating! Grow a spine!
Gun control is a public health crisis and should be treated as such. When will enough, be enough! Obviously, the deaths of small, innocent children in Newton wasn't enough. It should have been.
5
It is hard to imagine a law that would have less impact on the number of murders or gun violence than a ban on assault rifles.
The most FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that in 2017, which was the year of Las Vegas mass shooting,
—7,025 people were murdered by handguns;
—1,591 people were stabbed to death,
—696 people were beaten, stomped or kicked to death;
—467 people were clubbed to death;
—403 were killed by rifle fire, including assault rifles;
—and 264 were killed by shotgun blast.
If we banned assault fires, we would not save 403 lives a year; killers denied rifles would used types of semiautomatic rifles, handguns, or shotguns
Banning assault rifles might achieve a slight reduction in the number of those who die in mass shootings, but that’s questionable. The number of fatalities in mass shootings depends as much on the nature of the target rather than the type of weapon used. Banning handguns would be more effective.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
1
@William Case The question we as a society should be asking is what good is it doing to keep assault weapons available to the public? What are we getting in exchange for all the carnage they are creating? ...AR-15''s and the like are overwhelmingly used in mass shootings. Banning them is a direct response to that. Assault weapons ban is not designed to address the overall homicide rate.
2
@ William Case: you forgot to included « accidental » deaths by firearms (think of toddlers killing their parents/siblings for example) and suicides by firearms. One of my sons will be applying to 2 Colleges in TX, I already told him we won’t help if he opts for TX. (If admitted there). I hope he gets admitted in one of the 2 Colleges in Canada he will be applying for... I know I can’t protect him at all time and forever but trying to lower the probabilities. He grew up with drills no kid should go through, this situation is not normal and needs to change.
@Jeanne
Accidental firearm deaths doesn't come close to traffic deaths.
Many people who use firearms to commit suicide would find other ways to kill themselves.
Heller will go down as politically-motivated flawed decision and will eventually be reversed. The so-called conservative "textualists" like Scalia conveniently ignored the "well-regulated militia" language in the 2d Amendment to reach their malignant result that the constitution confers a personal right to own guns.
7
Eventually? Like 50 years from now when we get a progressive majority on the SC again?
2
@Tracy The history of the Second Amendment indicates that its purposes were to secure to each individual the right to keep and bear arms so that he could protect his absolute individual rights as well as carry out his obligation to assist in the common defense. It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an "unorganized" armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant. This concept of an unorganized, armed citizenry clearly recognized the right, and moreover the duty, to keep and bear arms in an individual capacity.
@SGT Wombat -That is quite contrary to the definition and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as stated in Black's Law Dictionary 7th Edition.
I agree that an aggressive approach is what's necessary. I believe that when a gun sold to someone who has not oassed a background check is used to kill other than in self-defense, then the seller should be indicted as an accessory to murder.
5
In Japan, guns are all but outlawed, and outlaws do not carry guns because they know that getting caught with a gun will get them a much longer jail sentence than getting caught with drugs. There are fewer than 10 shooting deaths in most years. I wish we could have that.
3
Once again the link between two stories strikes me. In Alabama, mostly black men are held for unbelievably long stretches of time in appalling conditions for relatively minor crimes. They are clearly victims of an abusive, non-representative and discriminatory government, exactly the type of government the founding fathers had in mind when writing the second amendment. The second amendment is there so that the repressed could form well-regulated militias and overthrow a tyrannical regime. In the current political reality, the closest scenario would be that black people would overthrow the tyrannical GOP in Southern states .
Of course, that is not what the NRA and other gun lobbyists have in mind. The gun crowd will only stand up for white people shooting black; not even for black gun owners who face disproportionate punishments for their illegal gun ownership in states like New York. We should call them what they are: the pro-gun crowd is a white supremacist movement in see-through disguise.
4
@Véronique -Arguably, for whatever reasons, the possession of illegal firearms is more common with urban African- Amercans than with other groups and uncommon with urban whites in Northern cities.
@Véronique so you are in favor of mass executions, blood running in the streets, illegal seizure of power and random killing of white people - and all because some robber got life in prison? When people talk about “overthrow of a tyrannical regime”, they have in mind some Hunger Games pretty picture of waving flags and singing songs, not what a revolt really looks like. People of Alabama voted for GOP - you may not like it but it is what it is. The Second Amendment is an archaic and dangerous relic of the past. It has no place in a civilized society - and neither does the overthrow of an elected government.
Please include injuries from guns as well as fatalities in the statistics. Too many people assume that injuries are no big deal and there is a quick recovery. People could have lifelong bowel, lung, spine, etc issues. Maybe injuries should be divided into “minor” and “major” for statistical purposes. Assuming people are fine in a couple of months if they are injured is an incorrect impression that should be corrected.
4
Former teacher here: as students head back to school this week, think about your child and grandchildren being trained in lockdown drills and the anxiety that accompanies this part of school. Instead of alleviating the threat of gun violence by regulating gun ownership, we take our little ones to therapy to deal with these threats and the anxiety that lockdowns and evacuation drills evoke.
Now think of your spouse or parents who are teachers or your third grade teacher. Would you have wanted them armed in your classroom? More guns are not making us safer. Full stop.
5
@SNA YES I would want my teachers armed! They care for their students welfare, at least I hope they do, and it's cliché, but when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. In 1980, in the Chicago suburbs, I brought some handguns in for show and tell, NOBODY got shot, so what's wrong with people today?
This hysterical rhetoric over guns is both disingenuous and counter productive. If you want to regulate weapons you should be honest about the data and the threat they represent so that reasonable people do not feel as though you are fear mongering.
Mass shootings represent an extremely small number of total homicides involving guns. According to the FBI's data, in 2016 there were 11,004 homicides where guns were used. Of those, just 374 involved rifles. That's rifles in general, not just "military assault weapons". Over 7000 homicides involved handguns. Yet I'm not reading an article about handguns being regulated due to a public health crisis from their use in widespread violence, instead it's about a minority within a minority of cases.
To put this all in perspective 37,806 people died in car accidents in 2016. That's well over triple the total number of gun homicides, and over 100 times the number of rifle deaths, which I'll remind you is more than than the total number of deaths from "military assault weapons". And yet there's no talk of declaring a public health crisis over this.
I'm not saying "don't regulate guns, they're fine", I'm saying this "public health emergency" nonsense is just that: nonsense. It is political theater. It is meant to make people feel afraid so they vote out of fear rather than reason.
The NYT should not peddle this sort of nonsense.
6
How many random massacres in nightclubs, shopping malls, movies theaters, schools, and concerts does it take before there’s a public health crisis? How many must die? How many of the rest of us should worry about getting caught up in the mayhem? How many active-shooter drills must our children suffer?
In Australia, the answer ten years ago was: 1. In New Zealand last year, the answer was; 1. What’s your answer?
Don’t tell me I’m just being emotional. Don’t tell me nothing can be done. Everything can be done, and has been done, successfully, around the country and around the world. Licensing, registration, regulation, and liability. We know what works; it’s provable and obvious. What we lack is the willingness to look at the facts and disarm the manufacturers of arms and disinformation.
3
It’s not the typical, one on one murders that haunt us, those have and will always be present in any society, with guns or not. What creates the most fear is the idea that any person walking down the street, driving by in a car, or entering your school, nightclub, supermarket, church, concert venue, office building, anyplace where people congregate (except the place where laws are made), can by himself main and kill dozens of innocents in a matter of seconds with a device that is easily obtainable and protected by law as a constitutional right. That is chaos, because there is no way to predict who or when or where it will happen. It creates a pervasive fear that stays with us from massacre to massacre. No place in America is immune, except, again, where constitutional decisions are made.
@Joel - The streets of Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and many other cities are routinely subject to shootings that may be caused by semi-automatic pistols rather than rifles. That was not so much the case in the days when revolvers were common and semi-automatic pistols were not.....when I was a surgical resident at NYU-Bellevue in the 1950s-60s. Semi automatic pistols are simply a much more accurate and effective way to kill people than revolvers.....times change, laws must change.
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court (2008)--Justice Antonin Scalia.
Even this extreme right-wing justice, hostile to most civil rights, recognized the common sense proscription against unlimited, unchecked gun ownership. He belonged to the Right. He was the Right. Why can't the Right see his point of view?
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does not include the right to end another life without just cause. And anger; or whim; or miscalculation; or carelessness are not "rights" to own a gun.
Beto O'Rourke has one thing right at least, Mr. Blow. We'll never live to see it.
3
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18 You have the unalienable right to protect yourself. I choose to do that with a firearm. If you'd like to do it another way, my right and use of a firearm does in no way impede your right and your right does NOT override MY right to protect myself anyway I choose.
If Beto O’Rourke ever gets the chance to implement his plan it will be a disaster. I wish NYT columnists would occasionally read the articles that paper they work for publishes. In 2015 the NYT addressed the consequences of what happens after politicians call for new gun restrictions. More people buy guns. In December 2012, Mr. Obama asked for new buying restrictions after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The next month gun sales exploded...2 million new guns were purchased...double the usual amount. In 2016 when President Obama tried to make it harder to buy assault weapons after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif. Gun sales the next month shot up with 1.5 million news guns being purchased. Fear of gun-buying restrictions is the main driver of spikes in gun sales. The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens, while criminals, terrorists, & deranged people always find ways to obtain guns illegally. It, therefore, seems to me that the focus of politicians and others should be not on trying to get all guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but to focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and others most likely to use guns unlawfully. This is easier said than done, but trying to curb misuse of guns will almost certainly be more productive than the current futile efforts to ban guns altogether. Go here to read more https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions.html
4
I'm somewhat safe with my automatic weapons, but I need other
items: hand granades and a launcher, a bazooka, and a tank. And I am not allowed to buy them. What kind of government do we have?
2
Go Beto! Many volunteers in gun violence prevention say we need to take it one step at a time. I say we need a leap! We need it now.
This is a public health epidemic, it is killing by Senatorial indifference to the citizens of this country anywhere, anytime, of any level of affluence. Registration of guns and licences for the owners is common sense. Washington bows to a club instead of to the people of the country.
We must ban all assault, military, police type weapons and the magazines that feed them.
Beto gets my vote.
4
Yes, but will he support the demilitarization of the police?
1
Assault rifles, or as the gun makers like to call them, modern sporting arms, are a pestilence upon all of us.
I’m with Beto. Ban them. Confiscate them. And pay for them. Isn’t there something like the eminent domain law that would cover that? The price in dollars would be offset n multiples over time by the reduction in spilled blood and the cost to the country in lost lives and psychological side effects.
Can the NRA be labeled a terrorist organization and dissolved?
Until that time, every politician that took money from the NRA bears some of the blame. I don’t know how they sleep or even look in a mirror.
Once and for all, can there be a clear reading of the 2nd Amendment that explains the difference between the right to possess a weapon as it relates to raising a militia, but how it doesn’t specifically permit the proliferation of assault rifles, and use that as a legal basis to institute the ban.
2
@Steve Ell So what do you want to arm the militia with? You want to emphasize Militias, they need to be armed with weapons comparable to what/who they will be up against. That means FULLY automatic assault RIFLES M-16s and M-4s, and not puny AR-15s.
@Steve Ell And how do you propose confiscating the guns from the people who refuse to give them up? Are you yourself willing to risk your life to raid a previously law abiding citizen's residence to take them?
Or will you just watch the epic shootouts on cable news?
1
@Scott law abiding citizens won't like it but the will give up their weapons. those who break the law can face the consequences. do you think a large number are survivalists will hole up in their homes and shoot it out with authorities? those are probably the same people who have caused the problems the nation is facing. you know - one bad apple can spoil the barrel.
The American people have taken a simple test for gun safety every year for fifty years and we have failed it every time. It's time to give us the grade we deserve and take our guns away.
3
Robert O'Rourke doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination. Most of his policies won't hold up including this gun control plan. The US Supreme court will say it is unconstitutional.
Blow's silence on the almost weekly mass shootings in Chicago and the shootings in Baltimore, Detroit and other big cities is disgusting. Ignoring the mental illness crisis in the US is deplorable. And Robert has no plans to improve opportunities for distressed people, except for those who are in illegally in the US.
More than 1800 people have been shot so far this year in Chicago. More than 67% were shot with an illegally obtained gun. Most shootings were not even investigated and the shooters are likely still on the streets. And no that 1800 does not include suicides.
What Blow and Robert suggests will not change a thing. Illegally obtained weapons will become more plentiful. I have no problem with licensing guns, I already have a license and I pass periodic background checks that are far more detailed for my job. I have no problems being in a well regulated militia, I served in the Air Force.
This stupidity must stop. The US is not homogeneous. What works for NYC won't make sense in rural areas. And will Charles and Robert personally protect my family in South Tx from drug runners and human smugglers? No, they push policies that further endanger the lives of farmers in this region.
1
Beto is right. We have a national emergency and I'm sick of the Democrats in Congress for remaining silent. Gun violence is now our Number 1 domestic issue and it would behoove the Democratic Party to get behind Beto's proposal and nationalize it. With 90 percent of americans for gun regulation it's not only morally correct, but politically correct as well. No one feels safe walking or even, after Odessa, driving the streets. I'm about to go to a meeting at my local synagogue this morning and have to pass a security check to enter. This after the massacre in Pittsburgh. It's time for all Democrats to end their silence and unite behind a single comprehensive gun regulation bill like Beto's. This may be our last chance to end the out-of-control gun massacre epidemic that the N.R.A.that Republicans and a few Democrats have brought upon us. It's time to wash the blood off our hands and vote them out. Listen to Beto; listen to the brave young Parkland survivors; listen to the still grieving parents in Newtown; and then vote #NeverAgain for tose who keep protecting the gun lobby and not us.
1
I wonder: does organized crime fund the gun lobby, the NRA and the gun-supporting pols? Organized crime is a business. Businesses always want to see that helpful legislation is passed, and to stop unfavorable laws. Therefore ...
Imagine if the response to thoughts-and-prayers politicians was "And how much money have you taken from countract killers and drug lords?"
3
I attended the March with the Parkland kids in DC. The day before I was at a DC museum, sitting next to a woman from Iowa, by chance. We struck up a conversation. She had her masters degree in something - my point, she had to have some intelligence.
Then she proceeded to explain how she feared the entering of her home by some kind of special police to confiscate all the guns in her house, should gun laws change.
I just shook my head and walked away. Still trying to figure out - was she that naive or was she just saying what the NRA teaches?
1
Clearly the second amendment does not give citizens the right to own military style weapons intended for mass killing. It was intended to give states the right to have their own armies--state militias. By interpretation (was it Scalia?) it was expanded to give citizens the right to own a gun. A simple gun, enough to kill the few intruders who might threaten the citizen--but not AR-15's or AK-47's--that can kill in a few minutes a whole crowd of young people who have come peacefully to a night club to relax , or to families who have come to a crowded store to buy. Second amendment rights are not limitless, and can be regulated.
Mr. Charles Blow is an honest writer whose passion and anger are understandable. O'Rourke whose community was targeted by a mass killer is also sincere and passionate. Both Charles Blow and O'Rourke are emotionally moving in their pleas to do something to stem the flow of blood. This op-ed piece speaks for itself.
There is another op-ed piece in the Times, appearing at about the same time (9/4 or 9/5) by a Stanford college professor and a Stanford student--Prof. Donohue and Boulouta---which must be read in conjunction with Mr. Blow's article. The other piece is based on documented research and its title succinctly states its thesis. It deals with the 1994 to 2004 period when military style weapons were banned . The title :" That Assault Weapon Ban? It really did work." Read it.
Justice Scalia, the most conservative of the Justices wrote this:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
The NRA and its adherents to its extreme rhetoric would not agree with Justice Scalia. This just shows how extreme and delusional the NRA is.
The rabid, "take it from my cold, dead hands" gun lovers, the people screaming about their personal rights as law abiding citizens, the fear of government control over their cherished weapons of war..... all disappear if it is one of THEIR kids shot, maimed, disfigured, killed while attending a concert, movie, school,......
The more people personally affected by gun violence (and the number is obviously increasing), the more this kind of legislation has in passing. A shame it takes so many innocent people to die first.
2
We act as if someone is coming to take away your musket. Here is the choice. Either be civilized or expect that gun violence here will be no better than many undeveloped nations.
"Guns can be effectively and constitutionally regulated in this country." But they won't be "effectively and constitutionally regulated. Pie in the sky comment.
Who pays for the medical damages caused by shooters
with assault weapons? What if the people who survive
getting shot have no health insurance? Can the NRA
be made to pay for doctors, hospitals and rehab for
survivors?
3
@jahnay They sure can. Just like GM pays for drunk driving casualties.
The slippery slope is real. But the slope goes in the opposite direction from that claimed by the NRA. From front loading muskets the lethal NRA slippery slope slides inexorably down to weapons that can kill and maim dozens of innocent people in less than a minute. What next slippery slope horror can we expect from the NRA?
2
Every state has a Department of Motor Vehicles, and obtaining a driver's license requires passing a DMV eye examination. During the 1970s, I lived in a courtyard apartment building and noticed that one lobby had a bat in the rafters. The building had an elderly live-in janitor who wore thick trifocals. Due to visual impairment, the Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles had already revoked the janitor's driver's license. In addition, the janitor had Parkinson's Disease with hand tremors.
Imagine our shock when several building residents and I met the janitor in the lobby and watched him use his trembling hand to pull out and aim a small pistol at the bat. No branch of the armed forces would allow anyone with such impairments to serve in a combative role. Yet the NRA and fellow gun nuts rejoice in the freedom of this man and others like him to own and use firearms.
2
Lying to American public has served GOP well through past 50-60 years, no chance - as there's no money in it - that they'll stop lying now. Non-corporate-compromised Dems to every office, including Senate majority 2020, with prayer that most of us live that long, spared another hail of LaPierre-endorsed munitions.
As a matter of fairness, the federal government, aided by all fifty states should furnish every adult of color a new semi automatic pistol and/or rifle. This would signal the start of the long overdue reparations due our black citizens. For purposes of equity, no background checks, no licensing, no training requirements would be the order of the day.
1
I didn't see the standard blurb about "so-many" percent are in favor of sensible gun laws. If it exceeds 66%, repealing the Second Amendment should be an easy lift.
So, will Beto be calling for a repeal of the 2A? That would allow of the guns in America to be safely and permanently locked away. No more suicide by gun. No more mass shootings by mentally ill people. Baltimore and Chicago could stop their body counts.
Look at it this way Charles, on December 14th, 2016, Adam Lanza murdered his mother, then killed 20 kids and 6 teachers. That was 5 weeks before Obama was inaugurated in his second term. Over the next 4 years, Centennial Co, Orlando Fl, San Bernardino Ca, Washington Navy Yard, just to name a few, added to the toll.
Based on the last presidential debates, Obama is not being remembered as a great president. But, had he started the process, the 7 year process, each mass shooting could have provided a nudge closer to success.
The founding fathers took on the most powerful nation in the world and they did it with muskets. They pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. How about it Beto, what are you going to pledge?
Beto is at 1% for a reason. If the D's take this position, Trump will be president for the next 12 years.
1
As the crowd in Dayton, Ohio told our governor when he tried to speak to them after the deadly domestic terror incident there, "Do Something!" and he's trying to. It's time. Let's go.
201
It is correct, the 2nd Amendment does not give carte blanche to possessing any kind of weapon. The ownership of machine guns is highly regulated (see the National Firearms Act) and requires registration for guns made before 1986. It is impossible for citizens to own machine guns manufactured after that date. Citizens are also not allowed to own shoulder fired missiles or artillery. To say that banning the ownership of assault style weapons violates the 2nd Amendment doesn't hold in light of these exceptions.
More to the point, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have deliberately misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment. We have police forces, a national guard and a military. We no longer need a standing militia.
669
@Don: Right. I'd say, it's not so much that we don't need a standing militia, as that we already have one: the National Guard. And our police forces serve a lot of the function of the old militias. The point is that a guy with his own private weapons has nothing to do with being a "militia", and the independent armed groups that might even call themselves "militias" are nothing of the kind, as they set themselves up as independent of elected authority, or even in opposition.
121
@Don The state militias were, together with the Continental Army and the French, the force that defeated the British. The argument at the time was whether a standing army or state militias should be the primary defense of the Country. The Third Amendment was part of the compromise. In New York and New Jersey, rich people had their homes confiscated by the British standing army's generals. The New Yokers didn't want the US Army to do the same.
The SCOTUS decision in Heller totally eliminates the "militia" reality that was the issue of the day.
Yes it does seem silly, in hindsight, that the issue of a standing army was in doubt. But the issues were quickly resolved by events, and all eventually agreed.
In 1792, President Washington, signed a law that required all men in the Country, 18-45 years old, to perform two weeks reserve duty, bringing their own musket and ammunition.
I have no knowledge whether that law was ever enforced , but it showed those who supported a "militia" defense what would be required to be a viable method of national defense.
10
@Don A lot of people, including myself, think the NFA restrictions are unconstitutional too. The fact that these infringements exist doesn't prove that other infringements are constitutional.
5
What would you be willing to give up to end mass shootings? I'd easily agree to take 10 years off my life to save hundreds of lives. I'd certainly give up a kidney if it meant kids in schools wouldn't be hunted. I'd empty my retirement account if I would mean that shoppers and movie goers wouldn't have to think about the nearest exits in case gun fire broke out. Honestly, I think I'd sacrifice my own life if I could end of these horrible shootings because eventually someone I love, maybe even me, is going to be the victim and I'd give anything to stop it. I'm not overly generous - I'm pretty sure most readers are with me on this. So why is it so hard for people to give up an inanimate object like an assault weapon to save hundreds of lives? There is something about those gun loving folk's relationship to these weapons that has yet to be explained - and it certainly goes deeper than a love of the constitution.
768
@Smithy
For a person who feels fundamentally powerless, gun ownership gives a sense of safety, security and power. They are not necessary in a society where most people feel confident and safe.
54
@Robin
"...a society where most people feel confident and safe." Unfortunately, it only takes a minority who don't feel safe to make it less safe for the rest of us.
84
I can answer that question: Fear. Same thing that stokes Trump’s base on a daily basis.
I feel the same way as you do about “What would I give up.” In my case, I’ve already given up something: I have (well, had) two friends who were murdered with guns. The first one was a college classmate who went to graduate school at Columbia; came home one day and surprised a burglar in her apartment. He shot and killed her. The second one was a close professional colleague of mine for years. He had made his way up to middle management in his high-tech startup company (one of the original architects and manufacturers of BlueTooth devices); had a wife and two young kids. Was forced to fire a non-performing employee, who came back to work a few days later and killed him along with two other company employees, leaving his widow to raise their two children. Nice, huh?
If just one of the right-wing SCOTUS justices had my own experiences to guide them, I think the Second Amendment would last about one day. Problem is, they’re so insulated from real life I think they’ve lost a good part of their humanity, hidden somewhere under those black robes.
64
I have followed Beto O'Rourke since the beginning of the Texas Senate race. He campaigned with Moms Demand Action for gun control in Texas and was rewarded with gun nuts showing up at many of his events in our 'open carry' state toting AR-15s to intimidate him and his supporters. Beto never backed down.
He was a relentless and uncompromising campaigner who, when a Ted Cruz staffer in a red county asked him to condemn Colin Kaepernick, refused to do so. He never tried to reassure Republicans he wasn't really a "liberal" (as Texas Democrats who dare to run statewide inevitably do) - he was proud of it.
In the end, among the 4.1 million votes he got were the votes of Texas independents and 500,000 Republicans. Sometimes, being an uncompromising and ethical person even converts your 'enemies'. Honor is so rare among politicians.
918
@Eilidh Ritchie, if he does not win the presidential nomination, I would beg Beto to run for senate and pull out all the stops in order to regain and restore credibility to that chamber of congress.
26
@Eilidh Ritchie: I'm a transplant from NY, so the gun "laws" here in TX are, to say the least, scary. But as soon as I heard Beto talk during his Senate race, I was sold. He's not afraid to say what he thinks...so much more refreshing than the toddler in chief who says things that offend almost everyone. I'm not sure if Beto will get the nomination, but he can always run for the Senate again. And this time I bet (and I hope) that he beats Ted Cruz!
14
@Eilidh Ritchie. I started supporting Beto when he got in the car and live-streamed the drive to D C with Congressman Will Hurd (who I wish would become an Independent or a Democrat, rather than quitting the House). We’ve had a small monthly donation to Beto since he started his campaign for the Senate and have one to this day. Beto is the real deal.
3
Other industrialized countries have strong public health care. For some reason, we can't do that here in the United States.
Other industrialized countries have strong controls on firearms that, in every case, dramatically curtailed gun violence in those countries. For some reason, we can't do that here in the United States.
Other industrialized countries have strong family leave policies that ensure that new parents are able to care for their newborns without fear of losing their paychecks or their jobs. For some reason, we can't do that here in the United States.
And we have the hubris to take about "American Exceptionalism"? We are exceptional only in our mediocrity, indifference, violence and cruelty. WE CAN DO BETTER.
13
When the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment in 1791, they were writing about single shot muskets and flintlock pistols that were loaded and reloaded one round at a time, and the average rate of fire was three or four rounds per minute.
The founding fathers weren't writing about today's semi-automatic machine guns, bump stocks and 100-round magazines that fire multiple times a second.
If you believe in the 'originalism' of Constitution, then you're entitled to about four gunshots a minute to protect yourself.
The idea that anyone is entitled to shoot hundreds of rounds per minute is patently absurd, insane and would send the founding fathers running for their pen quills to clarify that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to give carte blanche to modern gun fetishists attracted to obvious weapons of war.
Self-defense is one thing.
The unregulated right to massacre a small village based on the mood swings of an angry male with poor coping skills is NOT what the founding fathers supported.
Get real, America.
Today's Second Amendment has been hijacked by the radical right into oblivion.
Time to reel it back into reality.
1360
@Socrates: We are both in agreement with Charles Blow's article, but I have to disagree with your line of thought. It's not that the writers of the 2nd Amendment, and the references to the militia in the body of the Constitution, didn't want to refer to the most deadly weapons available in their day. In fact, the arms they were thinking of would have included the artillery of the times. Because they were in fact talking about a disciplined, heavily armed militia, subject to state and federal authority as described in the Constitution. Remember, when the British marched out to Lexington and Concord, they weren't stopping at each farmhouse to confiscate the farmer's musket: they were after the militia's artillery. Of course, the farmers with their muskets were a force to reckon with, but it was the placement of artillery captured at Saratoga that finally drove the British out of Boston.
The point is, The 2nd Amendment is all about what we now call the National Guard: the people, armed with the most formidable weapons available.
Well, it's a complicated issue. But what's clear is that the people were intended to have access to the most deadly arms of the day: but not necessarily in their private homes by any means. The militia was under the command of local, state, and federal government. It made perfect sense for specialized weapons to be kept in central armories, and all militia weapons were subject to inventory and inspection.
122
@Socrates
It's more to do with the fact that the USA was very sparsely populated and its existence was not yet consolidated (the founding fathers didn't know their country would be the world's lonely superpower one day). It had only 3.8 million inhabitants in 1790.
The new founded country was still only a tiny strip of land in the northern Atlantic ("The Pond") and, as events in 1812 and 1861 were to demonstrate, there were real existential threats to it.
12
@Socrates Thank you for this. You said it so well and had me nodding my head vigorously with every written word. If only politicians could broadcast your words to the public so that the logic can finally pierce through the daily death bubble that only Americans seem to live in. If only.
151
Thanks for this good analysis on Beto O'Rourke's stance on gun control. This week in Milwaukee someone pulls out a gun, shoots and kills another person during a traffic altercation. Insane. Guns are not protecting us. Guns are killing us. Gun control must be looked at as a public health and safety issue. Fear mongering by politicians must also be looked at as part of the mental health issue connected with gun violence. O'Rourke knows the political game being played. The rest of us need to wise up to it.
5
Gun control is another issue that highlights the polarization existing in America today. While a majority of Americans seem to support some type of controls, many still oppose any restrictions. As with virtually every important problem facing the nation, I ponder how solutions that you and I find so obvious and necessary trigger vehement opposition, even animosity, in others?
2
Assault weapon gun violence will only end when authorities go door to door and seize every assault weapon from every home.
Short of that it's all conversation and nothing significant will be accomplished towards reducing mass shootings.
1
The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice
7
@New World Burger was a great jurist but a lousy historian. The 2nd amendment guaranteed two rights. First clause, the right of states to keep their militias so they could hunt down fugitive slaves and put down slave rebellions. This was done because the slave states were not going to ratify without it and hence no USA. The second clause was put in to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This is because the individual right to keep and bear military weapons came from the English Bill of Rights of 1688 where the right was granted to protestants. That would have migrated into US law and have established a religious preference. So, the pre-existing right was expanded to apply to all the eligible populace thereby not establishing a religious preference.
The two guarantees were only tangentially related to each other in that an armed populace made it easier to have a militia.
See Thomas Cooley's analysis. Here in section 5D.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/comment.htm
Because this kind of proposal speaks to gun people’s fears of confiscation, I think a more doable law would be to stop completely the sale of guns to all except for the police and army, and some small category of hunters, although eve those guns would get into the general population, I’m sure.
I am grateful to Mr. Blow for pointing out our insipid talk about gun control, but even Mr. O’Rourke’s proposal does not go far enough.
1
@Marilyn Cleland -- I agree completely. Offer domestic gun makers irresistible economic incentives to get out of the business. The importation of civilian weapons would need to be banned as well.
Then, ban high capacity magazines. Strengthen background checks too, but don't assume background checks are a panacea (many mass shooters and domestic violence killers don't have a record and have passed checks).
Have a voluntary assault weapon buyback with a stipulation that the participants are also barred from acquiring another such weapon in the future.
Last piece, anyone whose gun is stolen from an unlocked car or building, or whose gun gets in the hands of a child under 10, is banned from further gun ownership.
Otherwise, gun possession laws can be left largely unchanged. With a gradually declining supply of guns, Economics 101 can go to work. Guns will become more expensive and harder to get illegally (no more Saturday Night Specials). People will be more careful about protecting guns from theft and accidental use by children.
1
They reason I don't find Beto O'Rourke's gun safety plan practical at this moment is that our country cannot even resolve this fundamental dilemma: according to multiple polls in the past few years 80 - 90% of Americans support background checks. A strong majority apparently even support some kind of "red flag" laws to at least temporarily remove guns in high risk situations. Who on earth are those few opponents of these measures that they can so intimidate our elected federal and state officials? Better stated, who are these cowardly people who rigidly refuse to enact such basic gun regulation measures in the face of such overwhelming support of the people who put them in to office? If we can't even start with basic and widely accepted measures, then thousands more heartbreaking scenes of dead and terrified innocents will finally tip us over in to more draconian measures that will deeply divide the 80-90% who are currently united behind some common sense actions. For once in this bitter partisan era, let's build on something that responsible gun owners and non gun owners can agree on.
4
@Bean They're called the NRA and the Republican senators who receive funding from it and/or are terrified of being targeted by it come re-election time should they go against whatever the almighty NRA wants.
1
@Dusty . I know. It still amazes me that the NRA can use those 10% who oppose the measures to terrify grown men and women who apparently have nothing else in their lives but their elected office. Sad.
With the rise of these tragic unexpected public massacres, citizens are going to have second thoughts of taking control and arming themselves with guns. Some of us may go in search of a weapon for self-protection.
When young people attended a concert in Paris and were killed by a gunburst of violence, President Trump allegedly ventured that one should be armed and prepared.
Unless one lives in a fortress with a security guard, and there are such residences, being in possession of a gun might give the owner a dubious sense of security,
There are few households in the rural regions of Upstate NY that are gun-free. True, these arms are used for hunting and the first rifle seen here was an Australian model, where the owner lamented that some of his weapons had to be turned in by law.
'So as not to upset the gun lobby and lobbyists' sounds weak in the face of what is happening to children going to school, to cite one example among others.
This reader knows little about guns, but an acquaintance mentioned that Americans do not know how to use these when in danger. How many of Mr. Blow's readership have done some research on the damage if not fatal of a bullet wound?
Joining him in highly commending Beto O'Rourke for his take on the issue of gun control. He is offering a solution, one that is going to require strong leadership.
6
According to Pew, 14,542 murders happened out of 2017’s
39773 gun deaths. Sounds like less than half our yearly figures are actual murders and gun suicides were 23,854 per Pew. 60% of gun deaths were suicides; 37% of gun deaths were murders.
It’s odd that concern about suicide is not greater since mass shooters are suicidal and are most often (the high victim number type) killed by police guns...and they know that will likely be their end.
2
I don't see how any "gun control" will get past a SCOTUS review on Constitutional grounds. It seems that without repealing the 2nd Amendment; an answer to this travesty will be forever beyond our grasp.
1
@Jeff Westbrooks Republicans have been thwarting gun control since the 1960s - nationwide. They even managed to compromise the assault weapon ban of the Clinton years by inserting a Sunset Clause.
Sane gun control might save even one.
7
@Jeff Westbrooks
Isn't it worth the attempt to revise a 243-year old amendment? Perfectly reasonable at the time since "the British were coming", but rest easy NRA and Pierre LaPierre, the Brits now accept the US as an independent country.
@Jeff Westbrooks You are correct. Repealing or at least drastically changing the 2nd amendment is the only legitimate way to revoke a right. Doing what needs to be done otherwise is fraught with risk. There are few things riskier than giving crazy people legitimate grievances.
1
This conversation is great start, and Beto`s courage and clarity are laudable. The next step, already being too lightly placed on increasingly firm ground, is to amend the constitution itself. Until relatively recently, the second amendment was thought to apply to militias only. The disease of gun ownership for all is a phenomenon brought about the numerical minority and infects us all. If we can accept that the overwhelming majority of Amrricans do not own or want to own guns, we can get to work on perfecting the Union in this regard. Repeal and replace. Here is actually a cause to which this otherwise abhorrent slogan applies...The Second Amendment.
7
@Harry Newman Replace all Republican politicians in
2020. The most destructive force in America needs to
be voted out.
There is certainly nothing in the Constitution to prevent gun violence from being studied as a public health crisis, but Congress passed a measuring forbidding that back in the 1990s. That might be a start here: Lift that law and begin serious public health research. One small step. I appreciate Beto's passion on this issue, and Charles' as well.
17
Can we also ask if the NRA still has an educational purpose and not primarily a political one?
There is nothing in the Constitution to forbid a mandatory gun buyback program. Eminent Domain allows any governmental agency to purchase private property to serve a public good.
The Australian gun buyback worked to prevent mass shootings and reduce both homicides and suicides.
16
I’m having a little trouble reconciling mandatory gun buyback (in short, confiscation) as being constitutional in light of Heller and McDonald. If you have an individual constitutional right to own a firearm, how would a mandatory buy back be constitutional?
1
@Riversong "The Australian gun buyback worked to prevent mass shootings and reduce both homicides and suicides."
LOL... no... no it didn't... homicides went UP and suicide numbers didnt change...
@John G It wouldn't be. Otherwise Trump could buy the Washington Post with public money and get rid of it. There's only one way to legitimately revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right and that is by constitutional amendment. Which I am very highly in favor of our doing.
O’Rourke didn’t skip a beat: “I want to be really clear, that that’s exactly what we’re going to do. Americans who own AR-15s, AK-47s, will have to sell them to the government. We’re not going to allow them to stay on our streets, to show up in our communities.
I agree with him. But is it even possible to identify who bought one of these?
7
@Pete Thurlow You just make possession illegal and if caught with one you go to jail. Keep it under wraps in your home but not bring it out into the open. Kind of takes the fun out of having one.
When my responsible law abiding gun owning friends used to say "They want to take away all my guns" I could say no that is not true. Now they can point to this article and Beto's words and say "see I told you" and I have no response. Banning guns or mandatory buy backs will just re elect Trump. Be careful what you wish for.
4
Since Blow stated that 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, and we know that most gun suicides are committed by men, position this as a fight against the war on men.
4
@Cynthia It just goes to show that in 90% of situations paradoxically buying a gun makes you less safe not more safe
Next from Trump, after he wins in 2020, will be measures to provide free guns and ammunition to poor and low-income people in our inner cities in the interest of making their streets and schools safer.
5
There is a link between guns and mental illness. The gun is a symbol and an instrument of death and violence. That’s what it’s used for. Period...To kill. Even when used for legitimate hunting, it means death. If one feels it necessary for self-defense, it’s because one lives in fear so strong that clothing self with an instrument of death and violence is found necessary. How unrealistic for most of us, and unfortunate for the rest of us. Certainly, nothing is ever black and white, but it seems to me that the mental illness grows in severity the more guns and ammo you chose to own, unless maybe you’re a military ordnance historian or something. I’m uneasy around guns, and I’d instinctively distrust anyone with 30 of them and 40,000 rounds of ammo in his basement. It’s sick. So to me, staunch support of unfettering restrictions on Second Amendment rights is supportive of mental illness.
3
Yes, Mr Blow, a hundred times, YES:
“This triangulation, calculation, poll-testing every move — that’s what got us here in the first place."
And greed, greed got us here and has locked us in - and we need to break free, we HAVE to break free.
For our nearby Newtown families and community, and for families who have lost loved ones to guns across the country -thank you for your column.
265
@common sense advocate To this column I would append Emma Gonzalez' speech.
We can, and should applaud Beto's clarity. But, we need Gonzalez' raw emotion to turn around the current situation on guns and so many other fronts (climate, trickle down economy, minority injustice).
For our future generations, and those who love them, we need to stop being ruled by politics and politicians that Gonzalez correctly and passionately called out.
9
@R Ho - I love Emma Gonzalez's passion, and I recommend your comment. There are even two more levels to add: yes, we are ruled by politics and politicians, and then they are ruled by lobbyists and NRA report cards, and then they are ruled by gun manufacturers' drive for revenue. Every once in a while, I daydream for a second that gunmakers start making pots and pans with all of that metal instead - we'd have two wins: fewer gun deaths, and a society that eats more home-cooked meals to lower the rising obesity rates!
csa
12
@common sense advocate There are actual real world cases. The elite bicycle maker Orbea used to be a gun & rifle manufacturer. Pots, pans and bicycles, what's not to like?
5
It seems pretty clear to me, at least for the 2020 elections, the "establishment" has been vanquished, or on the way to being vanished, leaving only the radical-left to duke it out with their grassroot-Republican counterparts.
1
@batazoid Agreed. It is very concerning to me how far both parties are now drifted into their camps. I suppose we've been here before. It may end up being a good thing in the end but oh boy is it stressful to live through.
@Brian Brennan
I agree. It also means Pres. Trump has the higher moral ground going into the 2020 elections. Now if Pres. Trump can take advantage of this fact and run the do-nothing RINOs out of the party for at least his last four years, we might have a chance.
Many people who oppose gun control laws are genuinely frightened. They think they need guns to protect themselves and their families. I think one way to counter these fears is to emphasize the enormous harm guns to do to children.
1
I would like to meet this mythical “responsible gun owner” as I live in a area where people are free to fire away in their backyards. Neighbors on both sides of me frequently fire into the woods with apparently are high capacity semi automatic weapons. There have been two incidents within the last year where people sitting in their homes have been struck with stray rounds.
This is a responsible gun owner’s actions?
12
@Paulie
Their guns make them feel "manly" which is why guns keep getting longer and more powerful. Real men don't need such toys.
@Paulie not only that, but 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides. So... you only increase the odds that in a moment of great distress (that you can't even conceive of until its too late) you will commit suicide.
Mr. Blow says in 2017 there were more than 39,000 deaths from guns in the U.S., that's about the same as deaths from traffic accidents; why is there no uproar about serious measures to reduce that carnage also ? The Dept. of Transportation tells us the leading cause of death in traffic accidents is speed. We note that speeding is rampant on our roads. We note that cameras to detect speeders are commonly available, and that when employed reduce speeding, why not increase their employment ? Yes, this weird commenter favors both prohibition of assault rifles and the like, and the wholesale deployment of speed cameras.
3
@eclectico : The motor vehicle accident rate is a red herring and straw man argument. The US has been mandating vehicle safety since the introduction of seat belts and padded dashboards. It has been considered a public health issue for half a century, while guns are off limits to research and regulation.
12
@eclectico You understand that cars serve a purpose other than killing people, right? Guns don't - that is, they are all down side, no up. And cars are highly regulated - licensing/registration/insurance/safety requirements. As things stand now, the country can't get by without cars. If all guns disappeared tomorrow, well, the world would keep moving forward, despite the whining from the pro-gun enthusiasts.
1
@RMS
Are you saying that because cars are useful, they should be given carte blanche to operate with reckless abandon ? How about our food, because food is necessary our suppliers should not have to take precautions regarding the safety of our food supply ? And, of course, there are some who feel guns are useful. And finally, are you saying it's all right to require seat belts, and to require manufacturers to install safety devices, but never, never prevent me from speeding.
American gun ownership is based on the vision of the lone gunner, who faced with tremendous odds, uses his AR-15 to mow down an attacking mob of bad guys. By doing this, he makes his family safer. To make progress on this, we need to know what the real effect of gun ownership is. I recall a paper by NIH from the 1990s that shows that having a gun in the house increased the probability that a family member will be killed by a gun (i.e. did not make the family safer). The dominant cause of this was suicide, as I recall. Congress reacted by prohibiting further studies. Let's discover the truth about gun ownership, and in particular, the effects of ownership of high capacity magazines and assault weapons. Many gun owners will not care if statistics say they are increasing the risk that their children will die from guns. Their vision of personal superiority is such that they cannot believe it applies to them. Until it does.
7
We are spending $billions annually increasing school security, public events security, mall security - you name it - to make us safe from gun violence. Money and time wasted. Gun deaths continue to rise and will continue to do so unless and until gun ownership is drastically curtailed.
The American dream is not home ownership. It is shooting an intruder to your house. I know many quite likable and sensible people who really believe that having a gun makes them safer in their own home and in the same breath will say they do not lock their doors.
To me gun ownership is the ultimate Catch 22. If you want to own a gun, you are probably not the sort of person suitable to own one.
12
Regulate ammunition. It's really the only solution.
My father who is one of the most law abiding gun owners you'll ever meet won't give up his guns. He almost never shoots them. He just thinks they are remarkable examples of a craftsmanship and elegance. He likes to polish them and display them.
He's happy with regulating ammunition as a solution.
yes there will be a black market. yes people will make their own. But if a gun owner is so law abiding they shouldn't have a problem with this.
Start a national database. Track how many rounds people get. Put serial numbers on the cartridges. Give a discount for returned cartridges and get the lawful people in the loop.
Then you can focus on the criminal. And most of all you can put a dent in people stockpiling rounds and rounds then using them to kill dozens of people.
This is going to be an iterative process. Start with what you can and work toward a better goal.
13
The Second Amendment was intended by the framers to provide for the form of national defense that existed at the time of its creation many years ago. The passage of time and the creation of standing armies have rendered the amendment moot. The only hope that this pointless anachronism will ever be discarded is that the courts eventually hold that the amendment is no longer of any force or effect.
13
@Clark Landrum: Yes, and those who call themselves "originalists" when it comes to the Constitution should read the 2nd Amendment with the mindset or those who originally wrote it.
But anyone with a decent understanding of the English language can figure out the 2nd Amendment refers specifically to militias and "the people." It says nothing about individual persons. It is hard to believe successive Supreme Courts, including a passel of "originalist" judges "interpret" the Amendment as the National Rifle Association would have it rather than what the original writers intended. Does the NRA really scare the justices of the Supreme Court that much?
4
Except, of course, the Supreme Court has done just the opposite, recognizing in the Heller and McDonald decision the individual right to possess firearms. You may not like it, but that’s the law. There is a solution to all of this, but one gun control advocates never seem to endorse. Amend the Constitution. It’s purposefully hard to do, but has been done a number of times. However, it requires compromise and consensus building, commodities in short supply at present. At least endorsing that position would be intellectually honest.
3
@John G
A constitutional amendment would be better but that will never happen. Much like the electoral college will never be abolished.
I agree with Charles Blow, and I seldom do! I completely agree with his concluding paragraph. I thoroughly concur with Beto O'Rourke on this issue. Until now, I have viewed Beto as a total lightweight - I might be wrong. Justice Scalia's majority opinion regarding 'District of Columbia v. Heller is a good guideline.
By the way, if you did need to defend one's family, a revolver keeps one hand free to open and close doors- a semi-automatic assault weapon is a poor choice for many reasons.
6
If cars were treated like guns then:
• If there were a registry of car owners then the government could take away your car!
• Requiring someone to pass a test in order to drive a car places an undue burden on responsible drivers.
• It is wrong to require background checks before issuing a driver's license, because it shouldn't matter if a person has a history of drunk or erratic driving — everyone has a right to drive.
• I should be able to drive my car anywhere and any time I want. Making pedestrian paths and car-free zones is completely wrong. If I want to drive my car right into the mall, I should be able to do that.
• What's wrong with selling cars that don't have turn signals, brake lights, headlights, seat belts, or airbags? If I want to have a car like that I have a right to it.
• And what's all this talk about speed limits? Why should the government get to decide the speed limit? If I want to drive fast, I should be allowed to. The next step will be not allowing anyone to drive over 20mph!
• You can pry my car keys from my cold dead hands.
52
@pmbrig
But, but, but..."driving isn't a constitutionally protected right"... say opponents of gun reform.
So tired of those that hide behind their interpretation of the 2nd amendment (conveniently omitting the 'well-regulated militia' part) while 100 Americans die every day.
3
@pmbrig . Well put. And for those arguing that "driving is a privilege and not a right", I'd counter that freedom of movement has been declared by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right and where I live, there is not much freedom of movement without a car. "Ah but cars were not in existence in the time of our founding fathers". Well either were assault style weapons and large capacity ammunition.
4
You missed the Amendment:
“A well regulated automobile fleet, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and drive cars shall not be infringed.”
Without it, cars keep getting treated like cars rather than like guns.
1
Just treat guns like cars. Licence, training, insurance; registration and VIN-numbers, with paperwork required for every sale. It would save lives, it would work, and it's utterly morally defensible. Finally, how about every gun-thusiast excited by the 18th century interpretation of the Constitution's Second Amendment also has to only see a doctor who uses an 18th century interpretation of medicine? No?
54
@JJR Haven't we been told, driving is a privilege?
Beto O’Rourke is absolutely correct - and his logical position on firearms is one of the things that make it impossible for him to win the Democratic nomination or even dream of becoming President.
Because the sad fact is that American culture is gun culture. Taking up arms is so inextricably wound into the tissues and organs of the history, mythology, psychology, and popular entertainment of the nation that, like a metastatic cancer, even careful surgery to excise it could be perilous.
The NRA and its bought-and-paid-for enablers in Congress have one thing right - this is a mental health problem.
But it’s not the mental health of mass shooters that is the causal factor - it’s the mental health of the nation. Where firearms are concerned, the USA seems to be classically bipolar - bouncing between repeated lamentation and regret over gun deaths and strident, absolutist declarations about the sanctity of the Second Amendment.
Just as cognitive therapy is generally ineffective for bipolar patients, it seems unlikely that logic, reason, argument, or talk therapy will ever make any difference.
Where firearms are concerned, the Nation is trapped and lost in a labyrinth of delusions, doomed to fear forever the demons it imagines are lurking everywhere.
23
If we're calling for openness and truth-telling, stop with the vague and always-undefined references to "military-style assault weapons". Be clear that the target for regulation or confiscation is all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines.
The term "assault weapon" was coined to intentionally muddy the debate and lead people not familiar with firearms into conflating regular semi-automatic weapons with fully-automatic machine guns. Laws defining them have been partially based on cosmetic details that have little to do with their lethality.
5
@KevinK - was coined to intentionally muddy the debate
No, it is used just like "SUV" or "sports car" or "laptop" to refer to group of like things rather than having to list each and every make and model.
Calls to list each and every specific model are simply disingenuous calls to put up road blocks to stymie any discussion, debate, or outcome.
And appearance does make a difference. If it didn't why did people buy them over a more conventional appearing weapon? A aggressive stance is supported by an aggressive appearance. Just like some people like big aggressive looking trucks and dogs. Additionally most descriptions I've seen include mention of ammunition, velocity, capacity, and firing speed capability.
12
@KevinK
All firearms are assault weapons. What gun is useful to trim a bouquet of flowers? Or calm a crying baby?
If you hunt for food, keep your rifle. If you live in an isolated place and need a shot gun to ward off bears or other pests, keep the gun in the shed. If you shoot for sport, keep your gun at the club, like you keep your gym gear or bowling shoes. No one needs a military grade gun. They are good for nothing but mass shootings. No matter how "popular" they are, is no excuse. Jim Crow laws were popular for a long time too--that was no reason to maintain those laws. Mass shootings get a lot of attention, but the suicide rate facilitated by the ease with which Americans can obtain guns is a health hazard. I'm with Beto and Charles--the guns have got to go and the Supreme Court's rationale for supporting a wrong interpretation of the Second Amendment is literally responsible for many of these deaths.
79
@SNA:Everything you say is true, but we have heard all these arguments before,but every time I read logical reasons for banning assault rifles, ABH gets that old Thomas Hardy feeling, that nothing will really change. 1 of the attractions of those on a shaky mental, psychological platform who decide to go out and shoot people is, perhaps, just perhaps, the ease with which atrocities can be committed, and if an assault rifle carrier can get off almost 30 shots in less that a minute, how gratifying that must be to the shooter.After the massacre of children and their teachers at Sandy Hook folks said,"nada mas,"but this did not stop the killings. May as well wish it to be midday when its 2 P.M. in the afternoon.
1
@SNA What is a military grade gun? Further, if such arms are "good for nothing but mass shootings" why are they common in police cruisers across the country? I'm unable to reconcile the idea that such guns are only used for mass killing, but that the police should readily be carrying them on our streets.
1
I find it so incredibly interesting that the American people, especially all these don't tread on my second amendment rights folks, have ABSOLUTELY no problem with the security measures at airports, government buildings and so forth. Why hasn't anyone taken out the 'unreasonable search and seizure' argument. Why? Because people are so frightened that someone will blow up the airplane they are flying on they are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for the cause. I might add look at the total sacrifice beyond having your documents scrutinized and walking through the detector...having to arrive 1 1/2 hours+ before flights. the long lines, the requirements of the small bottles and plastic bags, and computers out of the bag and the shoes and belt off and... . If that were not there and 40,000 people per year were being killed, the outcry to do something would be enormous. But sacrificing ANYTHING for the second amendment...That is intolerable. No matter how many people are killed. We can't study it. We can't make people wait a month, We can't look into the background of every buyer. We can't limit in any way what can be purchased. We can limit the size of your shampoo bottle on a carry on but not the size of your gun magazine. Red flag laws will...allow some scary looking guy who is all sweaty and talking to himself from 'boarding the airplane' but little else security wise. And acting like that will be enough to keep a bomber off the plane.
43
@Walking Man I have huge problems with the "security theater" we have at airports. They do nothing and they've failed repeated tests at actually spotting dangerous items.
6
@KevinK This is off topic but, anyway, how often do these measures work vs not work? I know you think "they do nothing" but you're flat wrong. They may be over engineered or inadequate for some requirements, but they certainly have been effective at stopping hijackings. And how many times have you heard of shooting on an airplane?
4
@Walking Man
The " the 'unreasonable search and seizure argument" was raised and found unwarranted in the situations you note. After 9/11, a couple of jerks wanting to attend the next Superbowl complained to the courts about the inspection of their bags being just that, and the court told them to take a hike. Don't recall if the judge actually laughed . . .
1
Blowback, noun
1. a process in which gases expand or travel in a direction opposite to the usual one, especially through escape of pressure or delayed combustion.
2. the unintended adverse results of a political action or situation.
Both weapons themselves and the use of these very weapons threatens us with blowback. Good gunsmithing can limit the effect of blowback on the weapon but there is little which can protect us from the societal, personal and even moral consequences of the proliferation of weapons in our culture. If 40,000 annual deaths does not change our minds, how about 60,000? Or 100,000? Or 1,000,000 deaths a year?
To steal from Edward Anhalt's Oscar-winning screenplay for Becket, "Is there no one who can free me from this meddlesome..." plague?
3
Hunters safely use long rifles and shotguns. Shotguns are best for home defense.
No civilian needs a military-style assault weapon or accessories that allow guns to function like them (e.g. - hi-capacity magazines).
The 2nd Amendment has been regulated since the 1930's to improve public safety. It is not an absolute right.
16
The people arguing against gun legislation are essentially saying their 'right' to own all sorts of guns is more important than the right of another person to draw breath.
What's not understood anywhere is simply one of probability. No single law would directly eliminate gun violence. However, a simple reduction of just 5% in the chance that a mass shooting occurs represents 1000 lives.
These people should really understand probability and statistics more. The problem however (as it has always been) is Congress. The Republican Congress in 1994 forbade the collection of data by the ATF and CDC of gun violence statistics, requiring any such statistics to be gathered by 3rd party (and possibly biased) organizations. The problem with this is that such statistics can be summarily dismissed on the grounds the gatherer 'might' be biased. Declaring gun violence as a public health issue would at least allow for the possibility of the CDC gathering actual data on the matter, eliminating an argument against gun legislation. Yet this proposal has been disallowed by Congressional action for over 20 years.
Our responsibility as citizens is simple. Vote out any person who would support owning a hunk of lead vomiting metal over living breathing human beings. Otherwise, the rest isn't possible.
28
@JustJeff
Not essentially, it's exactly what they are saying. But it its even more than that, that any inconvenience to them is more important than the lives of others.
5
@JustJeff
"...a simple reduction of just 5% in the chance that a mass shooting occurs represents 1000 lives."
You're not helping your argument with statistics off by a factor of about 20 (and that's counting ALL mass shooting deaths since 2000) any more than Seth Aaron Ator, latest Texas shooter, who drove a car with a Beto sticker. Perhaps your intent is to provide comic relief.
Want to do something meaningful to reduce gun deaths?
Start with the source. Since Republicans, especially their no longer so covert apparatchiks on the Supreme Court, refuse to read in entirety and comprehend the Founding Father's intent and meaning of the Second Amendment, it must be rewritten in language that Republicans cannot willfully misinterpret. I suggest:
"American citizens who are determined, following law enforcement and medical background checks, not to have a criminal record and not to be a threat to themselves and neighbors, and who successfully complete a gun safety course, and who have $10 million (indexed to inflation) gun liability insurance coverage, may register to own (not sell, trade or give away under penalty of law) a single hunting rifle capable of holding a single bullet in its chamber at a time."
Feel free to make changes/improvements to the above language to prevent Republicans from misinterpreting its intent.
Next, we must legalize physician assisted suicide. Suicide by gun is an act of desperation. Along with this change in the law, our state and federal governments must commit to treating mental illness as an emergency. Treatment must be included in every health insurance policy. Government funding must be radically increased to provide adequate medical treatment services and to incentivize research into treatment.
Finally, if you really want to stop gun violence, vote Republicans out of office. That will make everyone safer.
29
It's time to end restrictive traffic laws. A tiny fraction of bad drivers, probably with mental issues and who have not passed a background check, cause all accidents. Responsible drivers should not have to endure the onerous burdens of stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits etc.
Drivers must be free!
40
@UH So are you recommending a 28th Amendment securing our right to drive?
1
@UH
Yes. I hate those pesky stop signs. We need to be free to do what we want to do.
3
@UH
I cannot understand how so many people think this thinking is amusing. Or intelligent. Or sane.
1
Private sales of guns are legal. But more enforcement is needed. Background checks should be mandatory, and the seller should be required to have a license, otherwise be charged with a felony. Change all of the loopholes in the private sale of guns which would be a good start.
5
@Pvbeachbum
How is a private gun sale tracked? There are many millions of guns that no doubt aren't in a database. Millions that can change hands without a peep from anyone. Millions of loopholes.
1
Keep reading the Scalia judgement and you get to: ‘We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” ‘
It reads as though the court is actually encouraging Congress to ban assault rifles, and that the DC vs Heller ruling applies to ordinary handguns only.
13
The second amendment was based upon the need for a
"well-regulated" militia. We already have one.
It's the National Guard.
Unless there has been some major change, a person can still acquire a permit to own a fully-automatic military rifle.
Make it necessary to have a permit to own a semi-automatic military assault rifle as well. And of course this permit is only issued after meeting several tight criteria in a simple back-ground check.
Those already out there would be grandfathered, but the permit and back-ground check would still be necessary.
This totally appropriate concern about our skyrocketing suicide rates needs to be supported.
But we should be addressing the why's and not the methods chosen by the individual, when they reach that point of hopeless despair in their lives.
And, like it or not, the almost ancient existential argument setting up suicide as a basic individual right, has merit too.
And then the whole issue comes back to healthcare.
We have poor citizens dying on a daily basis due to our lack of decent, basic healthcare, easily accessed.
Mental healthcare is another complex problem that goes begging a solution, while another crazy hits the streets with a legal, semi-automatic military rifle designed to kill people.
Wait a minute, who are the real crazies here?
12
@Bruce "The second amendment was based upon the need for a "well-regulated" militia. We already have one. It's the National Guard."
The 2nd Amendment allowed for state residents to be armed so that they may, if necessary, form militias within their state and take up arms against a federally controlled standing army. This purpose is very clearly explained by Madison in Federalist Paper #46. The National Guard is part of that standing army against whom our founders warned as they are controlled not just by the governor, but by the U.S. President (see SCOTUS case "Perpich v. Department of Defense" for clarification on that fact). As such, the National Guard cannot be counted as a 2nd Amendment definition of a state militia since they are very much a part of the standing army concern.
@Independent Observer
thanks for the observation. It has been made by many of my friends too, who differ with me over gun control. But I think it's too theoretical and simplistic, considering the changes since the 1780's, when the baby U.S. never had much of a standing army and needed a militia to be able to respond to international threats of the time. But if we are going to be prepared to rise up against a tyrannical Federal government, we are going to need a whole lot more than semi-auto rifles. We would need 50 cal. machine guns, mortars, grenades and launchers, a few towable howitzers, not to mention a little air cover too. I'll bet you have friends in the Texas National Guard, same here. I can't see them as enemies and do no believe they would obey orders to attack their own people regardless of what Federal tyrant issued them. It's hard to imagine having to make our general societal arms availability regs dependent upon such an obscure possibility. But anyway, thanks...
1
@Bruce
"Grandfathered." Are you kidding me? That is what made the last rifle ban toothless. You have to start grinding up, and melting down, all detachable mags over six rounds. Rifle and pistol mags.
Why don't we require gun owners to have liability insurance, just like we do for automobiles? It is puzzling why this gun control option is rarely mentioned since it surely would be effective in reducing gun ownership and would not involve legal problems associated with outlawing guns.
18
@wyleecoyoteus
If a new requirement mandates that all gun owners have liability insurance, then hundreds or thousands of gun owners will ignore the requirement. Next idea?
@wyleecoyoteus
Why don’t we require gun owners to have licenses and take gun owning training like we do with cars. I think gun ownership provides many owners with a false sense of security and self worth. Just like voting for Trump. We are a sick heartless unprincipled nation and our attitude towards guns proves it.
1
The total resistance of the NRA and many conservatives (on gun issues) to passing gun legislation is all about money. The NRA has become an arm of the gun manufacturers and they refuse to support ANY legislation that might reduce gun sales.
As for the argument that none of the proposed gun safety legislation would not have prevented the massacre de jour, all we can do is look to other countries (any of them) where there are regulations and observe that their citizens are much safer than ours. Obviously what we are doing isn't working, so let's at least try some sensible gun regulations which don't infringe on the right of gun ownership for safety and hunting. Over a period of several years, I'll bet the number of mass shooting will be down substantially.
7
@RF
Money and ideology--the average conservative voter is not getting any money out of their support for NRA candidates. In fact, many of them don't even own guns and never will. Still, they support their interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
1
@RF
I've told my daughter many times over, "Always follow the money".
Guns, Opioids, Savings and Loan Crisis, etc. The list is endless when it comes to making a buck.
3
Compelling owners of assualt rifles to sell them would lead to hoarding, hiding and a thriving black market.
Start with a ban on sales of any new weapons of this type.
Then pass a law that upon the death of an owner, his/her heirs must turn in all and any weapons.
"Dead" people have no 2nd amendment protection.
Many owners will fail to "will," their weapons over to family members, simply because so many people, even those who know they are dying procrastinate. People will argue that family members simply won't comply with the law, but most people are law abiding and will comply.
2
@A P
There are lots of good ideas here. We just need to throw the bums out so we can get the laws passed.
There should be a Federal Tax Stamp on all firearms that accepts magazines of over 10 rounds of major caliber. The government did so with automatic weapons and short barrel rifles and people, except for a few stopped buying them. A tax stamp in effect registers the weapon and keeps track of it.
It's the only feasible thing to do.
I think the simplest way to reduce gun violence are red flag laws.
It places no burden or threat on existing gun owners or the gun industrial complex.
However, I'd have no problem dropping a dime on a relative or neighbor who I thought was a threat to themselves, to me, or my community.
2
@FrankWillsGhost Why are universal background checks and registration of guns considered a "burden" on gun owners? We routinely do it for cars, for example. There might be some small inconvenience, but, if it helps reduce gun violence, that inconvenience would be worth it.
5
@FrankWillsGhost I remember reading about background checks in some country (forget which) which included interviewing the applicant's ex-wives/girlfriends/etc., to see if they were comfortable with that person owning a gun. Seems like a good idea.
@FrankWillsGhostb - ", I'd have no problem dropping a dime"
Maybe you wouldn't but what if the neighbor or relative was a raging bully? What if your husband, boyfriend was a controlling man who threatened you and wouldn't allow you to use the phone? What if you called and the relative or neighbor was pals with the cops, or one of them, or just someone who could be a good old boy and fool them into saying "he's OK, just let calm down". Would fear of not being believed cause you not to call because what if they didn't take the guns what might he do? And what if they did them? Would fear of his revenge cause you not to call?
Red flag laws are a band aid. They are part of the tools that we need, but can't be the only solution. Fear and intimidation are effective at countering them
If we don't try to put limits on gun ownership, we will end up with confiscation. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. Things will get so bad - I'd argue they have gotten so bad - that the reaction will be sharper and more severe.
Gun owners should understand the idea of recoil. Of equal and opposite reaction.
There is no one idea that will eliminate 40,000 annual deaths. But several ideas can reduce that number. We still lose more than 30K to car accidents, but we through many different actions reduced total fatalities even as we have driven more.
We can do a lot, and if we don't start then the movement will grow strong enough to outshout even Wayne LaPierre (who oddly, is pro everyone havng a gun or ten, but is afraid for his own safety and wants to live in a fortress. Huh.)
4
So for those who generally follow laws, we will increase restrictions.
For those who generally don't, we are going to rely on buybacks? Or get warrants for every one of the millions of illegal guns already in circulation? Because stop and frisk and search and seizure without a warrant is unconstitutional.
Pass all the laws but with 390 estimated guns and millions more already held illegally, what happens when people don't comply?
Millions of illegal immigrants have shown all of us just how impotent the federal government can be when people simply ignore laws.
6
@CNNNNC So you are saying that all those allegedly "law-abiding" gun owners are not so law-abiding after all?
Fifty-three people died in mass shootings in this country in August. Yep, just one month. So what are we doing?
Lock down drills
Panic buttons
Security cameras
Metal detectors
Teachers armed with guns
Bullet proof backpacks
Guns on college campuses
Churches preparing for shootings
Schools designed for shooters rather than children
We do these things because they are within our power and because those in power continue to stall progressive measures to curb gun violence.
But let’s get to the root cause of the problem: people with guns that shouldn’t have them and people with guns they shouldn’t have. Those blocking gun safety are very willing to talk about people who shouldn’t have guns and blame mental health as if it is the only problem. But the truth is there are legal guns on our streets that were designed to do one thing - kill the maximum number of people in the minimum amount of time.
I was reminded today that false humility breeds lack of action. We tell ourselves that we can’t do something because we are not good enough, smart enough, powerful enough and so on. But sincere humility compels us to act. Politicians will not take the action we desire until we force them to do so.
25
A thoughtful column, as usual, from Mr. Blow. However, I am always astonished that everyone misses the main issue. Unfettered capitalism.
The push back from the NRA and the gun industry is because the gun industry wants the right to sell guns: any type, anywhere to anyone ultimately. Capitalism needs to expands it's markets. Capitalism would love it if every home in American had a hundred guns. That would make some good money.
22
Admitting that "reasonable" gun control laws are actually one step toward massive restrictions on guns is why it will be practically impossible to get the cooperation of the 100 million families that have a gun in the house to buy into solutions.
We gun owners know this--the place to stop the slippery slope is at the start.
3
@Travelers
So what do you suggest should be done?
"...a mandatory buyback could be met with a constitutional challenge."
Any gun safety legislation will be met by a constitutional challenge. Count on it.
Therefore; take the US Constitution out of the discussion and repeal the 2nd Amendment. That is the conversation we need to be having. Half-measures availed us nothing.
The reason for the 2nd Amendment, a sprawling, brand new nation with no formal police force, ("a well-regulated militia",) no longer exists. The original purpose of the amendment has been so twisted from its original intent as to be unrecognizable to the authors.
There is no constitutional protection for the posession of a car, or a house, or a computer, or anything else, and yet.....
So let's cut to the chase. Move the discussion to where it needs to be; the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
16
I sample the comments and find at least a few who tell me that they would totally refuse to register their weapons is such registration were required.
As a citizen of two countries, faced with such a blanket statement, I often examine the law in the country from which I write, Sweden.
The law: In order to own a weapon you must be 18 years old or older, must apply for a weapon license, and will be granted one if your personal record - police, perhaps other - shows no reason not to be granted a license.
If you buy a weapon for another person, the weapon you buy must have been licensed to that person and this must be reported when the new person becomes owner.
I see no reason at all not to have such a national law. I know very well that many of the weapons used in crimes in Sweden come from the vast supply of weapons accumulated when Yugoslavia, for example, divided and terrible wars were carried out.
I see no difference at all between requiring that I register my car and have a license to drive a car and requiring that I register for gun ownership if I wanted to own a gun.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
62
@Larry Lundgren - To those of you who clicked on recommend I note that maybe many of you are able to think as I do, no problem at all with gun registration.
It is in such contexts that I think perhaps I would not be seen as typical American or even 100% American but rather as more typical Swede and to tell the truth, maybe that goes back to my upbringing by having a father whose Swedish parents were absolutister - believed that one should be able to maintain control by never drinking alcohol.
@Larry Lundgren I don't know if you have seen the dustup between AOC and (R) Rep. Crenshaw but it is one that shows how stupid some people are, or thinks we are. Who in their right mind would ever loan a firearm to a friend for self-protection or hunting is asking for trouble. You feel threatened, call law enforcement. Rep. Crenshaw is from Texas so all one has to do is go to a gun show, private sale or across state lines to purchase a firearm without a background check. I just think of someone getting out of their car, pull out an AR-15 and snap in a double-barrel clip then walks toward you - does that give you any comfort? Do you think it is being done just for self-protection? I blame a lot of this on NRA members as they say one thing but do not take action against their own leadership who block all gun laws...
@Larry Lundgren
I'll say this for the Swedes: they have very high rates of individual firearm ownership.
I know many Swedes who understand perfectly the interest in hunting and shooting sports, because they engage in both very frequently.
I often refer people to the Scandinavian widespread use firearms when they complain of the supposedly incomprehensible interest of Americans in the subject!
When I read this article, my mind immediately went to the senseless killings in Newtown, Connecticut. I wondered how we are still having these conversations about the right to bear arms. Imagine ... a young, troubled man owning guns. First he killed his mother. Then, he went to a local ELEMENTARY SCHOOL and shot teachers who were trying to protect their tiny first grade classmates. Then he killed the innocent little children ... precious children who may have, if given a right to life, had grown up to make meaningful contributions to our country.
How can anyone who lived through the SANDY HOOK HORROR be anything but in favor of gun regulation? The truth of the matter, then and now, is that the politicians are bought and paid for by the NRA. The NRA does NOT represent gun owners. It represents GUN MANUFACTURERS. This is, as usual, all about money, power and greed. It’s well beyond time for a change.
162
@JAY
"The NRA does NOT represent gun owners. It represents GUN MANUFACTURERS."
This is so, so true. My Congressman gave a presentation on guns that specifically made this point, with video and photographs of the smiling executives of the gun manufacturers shaking hands with the NRA. Seeing is believing.
25
@JAY: One day while driving in traffic, I was behind a car that had a bumper sticker that said "Grandparent of Sandy Hook victim". I pulled up next to that car and looked over at the driver and made eye contact. I mouthed, "I am so sorry". He nodded, tears filling his eyes. In that moment I realized that we will never be free of this sick fascination that people have for their guns and our government that refuses to take action to limit these senseless murders. Every time there is a new tragedy I shake my head knowing that the usual platitudes about "thoughts and prayers" will be rolled out by the hypocritical politicians that are bowing to the NRA. I know it's fatalistic, but I just don't have any faith that we will do anything about guns. If we didn't do it when first graders were massacred, we never will!
180
@Cecilia - Good job, you read the headlines and believed them. Now read past the headlines. More than 98% of gun deaths do NOT involve assault weapons.
We need to quit lying about what the 2nd amendment was and is first and foremost. It is an individual right to keep and bear military weapons. Don't believe me? Look up Thomas Cooley's, the leading constitutional expert of the 1800's, analysis. It's true that the 2nd amendment right is not unlimited but the weapons that it was okay to ban were things like concealed weapons. Military weapons that could be kept and borne were exactly the weapons that could not be banned legitimately.
We have to be honest and quit tiptoeing around and fudging the facts for the sake of expediency. The 2nd amendment needs to be either repealed or drastically altered by the process of constitutional amendment. That is the only legitimate means of revoking a constitutionally protected right.
If we cannot be forthright and honest about this, no good will come of it. There are few things more dangerous than giving crazy people legitimate grievances.
3
@S. Wells
"military weapons"
Incorrect. We don't allow military weapons like fully automatic rifles or hand grenades.
The real misinterpretation is in the term "bear arms". That references the militia part of the amendment; you could train with a group to act as a unit. (For when those ungrateful slaves revolted, or the natives got uppity, of course.)
A correct current interpretation would allow ownership for home defense and for hunting, which would exclude military attributes like large magazines. And registration is a reasonable fit for both eras.
4
@S. Wells
" It is an individual right to keep and bear military weapons. Don't believe me?"
Well, sorry, I don't believe you.
The original author, George Mason, put a conscientious objector clause into the Second Amendment.
If the Second Amendment was always intended to be a private right to own guns (and, apparently, open carry them in defiance of society and good manners), then what is the point of a conscientious objection clause?
The Second Amendment was originally intended to ensure that a mass levy was achieved, without people being excluded on the grounds of religion or politics, but also not forcing anyone to serve either.
The committee removed the conscientious objection clause because it was deemed to be indefensible in a court of law.
1
@Francis King Here's the pertinent bits of Cooley's analysis.
"The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose."
"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited."
I think the long term compromise is for civilians to possess only revolvers and bolt-action rifles/breech-loading shotguns - concurrent with a gradual de-militarization of our law enforcement agencies.
6
@MikeDouglas That has been my suggestion also. Those types of guns cover all the legitimate uses that a civilian has for a firearm. There is no reason whatsoever that a civilian should need a gun that carries a magazine of ammunition..
Although, I would add six-shot revolvers to your list.
And yes, I also agree that the police should be demilitarized as well.
2
@MikeDouglas
Under the firearms laws of the UK, it is lawful to own (with a Firearms Certificate [license]) semi-auto shotguns, pump action shotguns, 22lr AR-15s, etc.
So you are proposing tighter regulations on firearms choice than the UK - right?
The UK hasn't has a mass shooting by a licensed gun owner in the last 30 years, where the police have followed the law as laid down by parliament. Do you believe that the success of the UK system has been achieved by limiting access to types of guns, when the UK has no regulations on magazine size, and states like Massachusetts still have shootings?
Do you think that gun licensing, the main difference between the UK and Massachusetts, might have something to do with it?
@MikeDouglas
There is no "compromise" Mike Douglas. "Compromise" simply means more gun insanity. Ban the gun. ALL guns.
2
Arriving late to an intelligent conversion is somewhat of a gift.
So, It's beyond the time to restore intelligent conversation to our American political discourse.
Former Sec of Defense Jim Mattis, now making his media rounds on his new book, has helped spur a mandatory responsibility of all citizens to restore sanity to that conversation.
The current right-wing authoritarians running the Trump administration are NOT pro-life.
They never were pro-life -- and NEVER, will be.
Try this starter kit.
Dismantling the EPA is not pro-life.
American voters -- it's Time to get smart !!
Vote these insanely selfish people out of power.
10
This is the first time in my memory that we've had politicians -any politicians - speak honestly and passionately about any subject. Could it be that America finally is beginning to realize that delusion, corruption, and dysfunction have brought the country to critical mass?
19
Here's another idea (from a foreign country):
Allow people to own them BUT only when stored at a licensed gun range. They have to stay locked up at the gun range except when in use on the property. They can't be removed, or the gun range will be fined and ultimately lose their license. If you want to use the gun at a friend's range, you have to call ahead and arrange (and pay) for the gun to be transported.
Sure, the owners will howl, but they will oppose any effort to regulate these especially deadly guns.
5
@Thomas
"Allow people to own them BUT only when stored at a licensed gun range. "
That depends on where the gun range is. An open air gun range is very noisy (people shooting have to use ear defenders) and so they are usually positioned way out of town - about as far from civilisation and the police as it is possible to be.
This means that they are criminal magnets. Storing guns at a gun range does happen in the UK, but this is a good reason to think carefully about the idea.
There's also the matter of cleaning the guns. Gunpowder eats guns. The modern gunpowder is bad enough, but old style black powder does nasty things to guns if you don't wash the barrel out on a regular basis.
In the UK, it is considered normal to store guns at home.
While it is not popular to say: The NRA is right about the fact that people kill people. Perhaps that is why the first clause of the Second Amendment calls for "A well-regulated militia..."
The lack of oversight, actually the outright disdain for oversight, is the real problem. There are people who should not bear arms for a variety of reasons. Consider the rejection rates of the military and state police academies. They declare that these individuals are not competent to bear arms in defense of the nation. Yet, we interpret the Second Amendment in a way that says anyone, even those who could never get a job as a police officer or member of the military because they could not pass the screening or accept the discipline required can, as civilians, have all the firepower they desire with absolutely no civil oversight or responsibility. They have the power of killing in their hands, why aren't the states making them come for screening, evaluation, training, and qualification on the weapons they desire to possess. Why aren't they required to participate in drills that will put them among others who would notice that something is seriously wrong and report that to the civil authorities.
Regulating people is harder than regulating the hardware but it is more effective. Bring back the state controlled militia with the power to regulate their members.
7
@George N. Wells We have state-controlled militias. They are called the National Guard. Are you suggesting that gun ownership should be restricted to those who are actually in the National Guard?
@Samuel, et al.,
Yes, or the state police or militia as associate members. These organizations already have the tools required to screen, evaluate, train and qualify all individuals wanting to keep and bear arms. They can also impose the necessary discipline with regular drills.
The founders understood that the "Citizen Militia" needs to be under the jurisdiction of civil authorities and subject to that discipline. Read Article XIII of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (the basis of the Second Amendment) to understand what the first Congress assumed when it passed the Bill of Rights.
I do not subscribe to the idea that the right to keep and bear lethal weapons is "God Given." I've never heard the sermon defending the rights of people to kill each other just because...
The assault weapons are for military not for civilians that is the principle no 1 we should follow. To protect yourself you don't need ten guns, this is principle no 2. Background check for every arm sale is principle no 3.
8
We all agree on cars, don't we?
Anybody over 18 can legally own and drive a car.
But, can they just just walk into a dealer, buy one and drive off? NO THEY CANNOT, and we all know why.
Driving is awesome, but it can also be dangerous for
yourself and for others.
This is why, in order to drive, ALL OF US have to do
the following things.
- Take driving lessons
- Pass an exam, to prove we can actually drive
- Pass a test to prove we mastered the rules of the road
- Pass vision exams to prove we can actually see where we’re driving and what’s happening around us.
Is all this enough to drive off with a car? No, it still is not.
We ALL must also meet the following requirements:
- Our car’s VIN must be personally registered to us.
- Our car must display unique driving plates to allow law enforcement to clearly identify its owner
- We must ALL have car insurance, to guarantee that we can pay for whatever damage or harm we may accidentally cause.
These are rules that we ALL accept as necessary.
It’s basic common sense
You see where I’m going with this: GUNS CAN BE DANGEROUS TOO.
Heck, they were invented with the specific purpose of
being dangerous.
If we have these laws for cars, what’s all the fuss about having similar laws for guns, which are much more dangerous?
This is NOT about the 2nd amendment, but a simple public safety issue. This entire debate is only about the gun industry wanting to make more sales, and the GOP being on their payroll.
62
Actually, anybody with the money can buy a car. There is no requirement that they be licensed, nor must they register it. License and registration are required to operate cars on public roads.
7
@Donkey Spin
Furthermore, the argument by the gun lobby that one particular gun restriction or regulation would not have prevented one specific gun death or another is disingenuous.
Regulations and required safety features affecting cars have not prevented all vehicle deaths. But they have certainly prevented hundreds of thousands.
3
@Bob White
In the UK, you don't need a license to own a car, only to drive on a public road - as in the USA.
If the UK you don't need a license to shoot a gun, but you do need a license to own a gun (following extensive background checks). You can shoot a gun without a license, but the gun owner must supervise. Open carry is strictly prohibited, and guns are carried concealed and unloaded.
1
I follow the local jail bookings and am amazed at the number of felons charges with being in possession of a firearm. And I am further amazed at the number of these charges which are dropped.
I am all for gun control but in the meantime we should uphold the laws already on the books. Prosecute gun crimes to the full extent of the law.
16
America, as you deal with gun restrictions, don't forget gun manufacturers.
The likelihood of the industry increasing its market among disenchanted people in countries with even less gun controls because of the loss of domestic markets is great and scary.
Make it count for everybody.
6
Arriving late to an intelligent conversion is somewhat of a gift.
So, it's way beyond time to restore intelligent conversation to our American political discourse.
Former Sec of Defense Jim Mattis, now making media rounds on his new book, has helped spur a mandatory responsibility of all citizens to restore sanity to that conversation.
For starters, the current right-wing authoritarians running the Trump administration are NOT pro-life.
They NEVER were pro-life -- and NEVER, will be.
Try this intelligent starter kit.
Dismantling the EPA is NOT pro-life.
Vote these insanely selfish people out of power.
Is our only other choice: --- to buy more guns to take them on? Think about that!
Some people think that's a SANE choice.
James Mattis is not insane, but we know who is, don't we.
We do not have to put up with leadership that is driving us more insane, everyday "they" remain in power.
15
The proposal by Beto O’Rourke to ban and buy back some firearms is nor the best way to keep the country safe. The modern solution is mandatory firearm and ammunition insurance.
The legislation (at the state level) would require insurance to buy, sell or own firearms and ammunition. Normal home defense firearms in the hands of experienced hunters and target shooters would pay very little for insurance because the risk of harm is small. A military style weapon in the hands of a retired soldier might cost a bit more (and vary with the ammunition) and in the hands of an inexperienced 21-year old would likely be prohibitive.
Private insurance does five things which the Beto approach does not:
1. it compensates victims
2. it creates a demand for safer and less lethal firearms and ammunition for lower insurance rates.
3. it encourages people to get rid of unnecessary firearms and ammunition they no longer need.
4. it encourages gun manufactures to retrofit and design safer firearms for lower insurance payments.
5. it encourages confidential private insurance companies, not the government, to use artificial intelligence to review and monitor the social, employment, criminal, financial, and other factors which might affect the risk for each insured.
3
@Eugene Patrick Devany
While I am in favor of mandatory insurance for gun owners, all the compensation in the world will not help someone killed by a gun.
1
The (next) president should callup a militia. He or she can do this under the 2nd Amendment, just as president George Washington did to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. It would be composed of every able-bodied gun owner. It would include both training and evaluation - mental and physical - on how, and whether, that person should be allowed to own a gun. Probably, no one will qualify to own an assault weapon. This large militia's first task would be to round up the guns from those who refuse to participate in the militia.
An alternative to serving in the militia would be to sell one's guns to the government.
4
@Scott Baker
The Second Amendment, as originally written by George Mason, had a conscientious objection clause. I guess he saw you coming.
I love the comments section and I love Las Vegas. My best guess is that Beto, of Texas fame, has a zero chance of being president, ever. Enacting meaningful gun control in Texas would be unacceptable to the majority of Texans, including moderates of both parties. I focus on Texas because for "Beto" to do anything he has to be elected in Texas and by making gun law his showcase issue, he may have "shot himself in the foot".
5
One reply writer already states that gun violence is not a Public Health threat.
We can hardly measure the true nature of death by bullet as a public health issue since the CDC is forbidden to support research in the field.
We need one or more articles examining the quality of the data for these three: Death by gunshot, death by automobile accident, death by smoking. Any such article must include a comparison of the quality of US data with the quality of data in one or more advanced countries.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
3
One of Beto O'Rourke's solutions to the mass-shooting crisis, to force gun buy-backs, may seem extremely offensive to many Americans. But if one does see this crisis as a health emergency (the CDC would see it as such if allowed), then it makes perfect sense.
During the Ebola scare, conservative American politicans were quite comfortable with removing people from their homes and locking them away rather than trusting them to stay away from the public.
When assault rife bans existed, gun deaths went down. Gun control works.
The reality is that the NRA/gun lobby far outspends those who want gun use reformed. So O'Rourke is sharing exciting inspirational ideas that probably can't happen in the next several election cycles. But he reminds us to think and dream creatively and with courage. Clearly, Beto O'Rourke has a lucrative future as a sought-after speaker if his election cycles end.
Shout out to Pelosi and the House of Representatives for passing a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which the NRA was against because it prevented abusers from buying guns.
16
Sorry, but the mathematics proves that gun violence is not a significant public health threat. They desire efforts to reduce but are not deserving of treating as a national emergency. Gun deaths are less than automobile accident deaths and each of these are nine percent of deaths due to cigarette smoking.
5
@Casual Observer
Presumably there is a number between 40,000 and 400,000 that is over / under for how you define a "public health crisis". How about 160,000? For every fatal shooting there are, I believe, 3 non-fatal shootings. Excluding suicide, the difference between a fatal and non-fatal shooting is luck and the impact when someone is shot is rarely limited to the individual who was the "victim" and of course, the victim is often not shot but threatened, robbed or raped by someone with a gun. If you are going to do the math, do it right.
11
@Casual Observer So, you think 40,000 or so deaths a year isn't a "significant" health hazard? Interesting take. (For purposes of comparison, the UK suffers from 50 or 60 gun deaths a year.)
3
The issue is very simple. Are people who own any guns trustworthy? Beto and Blow say, no, they are not. So it is imperative to begin removing those guns. The weapons of war talk really is nonsense and they know it. Semi-automatic guns have been used since the 1800’s by civilians. Semi-automatic hunting rifles have been in use for seventy years. They are safe in the hands of all but a very few. Blow and Beto know this is true.
Here is the deal. Handguns are used to kill all but a few every year. The number of homicides by rifles and shotguns of all kinds is about the same as with knives. They are not a significant kind of gun used in gun violence despite the mass murders. Mass murders are defined as four or more victims. About two thirds are committed with hand guns and a quarter with semi-automatic rifles. Nearly all suicides are committed with hand guns. More people die in automobile accidents. People driving distracted are more of a threat to others than are guns.
Cities have have big problems with illegal use of guns than the rest of the country and stricter gun control laws might help. A national registry of guns and licensing, red flag laws, and rigorous means to keep guns away from teens and potentially violent people would help. The rest of the country would benefit but the strident anti-gun advocates clearly want to take guns from people who are unlikely to do harm. That kills any possible consensus. Blow and Beto will use any means necessary to get what the say.
3
@Casual Observer I believe that when you write "Handguns are used to kill all but a few every year," your thinking has been blurred by agenda. Regarding personal safety, there are no absolute principles embedded in a society, only common sense and (hopefully) the consensus of those with sense. And that would dictate: You've got to draw the line somewhere. If a decent, humane society can outlaw personal use of drones, bombs and poisons, why not an extremely, superfluously dangerous rifle?
1
That rifle is not inherently anymore more dangerous than any rifle. The harm done by rifle bullets is devastating on the human body, they inflict big wide wounds with organs crushed into gelatin by their force. Most rifles can be fired multiple times before reloading. Anyone can squeeze a trigger twice in a second. Even single shot guns may be fired reloaded and fired several times a minute. The weapons of war talk is hyperbole to convey the idea of the guns being dangerous to those who have no knowledge of guns.
Here's a suggestion that will be scoffed at:
Require those who legally buy a firearm to show proficiency in the basic use of the weapon. This comes along with certified bill of health and eye test.
Require re-testing every few years and more often as one gets older.
Those who cannot pass the test or do not want to take the test should be required to hand-over their weapon to local law enforcement authorities. The person then has X amount of time to pass the test. After that, if he or she does not, the weapon becomes the property of those local authorities.
There are places in which this system functions and works.
8
@Joshua Schwartz
No, no tests. No one gets to have a gun.
1
@Joshua Schwartz
Also: liability insurance.
Well said Charles. We can’t be afraid to speak out because the carnage seems endless and no citizens had any right to own an automatic assault weapon. No one for any reason. Period.
17
Nobody should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon. But is there a law against it? That probably depends upon the definition of ``nuclear weapon''.
3
Thanks, Charles. Although 30% of Americans own guns, most guns are owned by a tiny minority, who hoard them. Most of these hoarders don't commit crimes, but mass shooters come disproportionately from their ranks. Owning assault rifles is like have a home lab that brews botulism and anthrax. Yep, if the aliens invade (I mean extraterrestrials) anthrax may be useful, just like AKs. But it's patently obvious no country should permit it. Would you like to live next to someone who has a biotoxin lab? Then don't be happy about someone with assault rifles next door, either.
14
Yes, you are representing the reason that we cannot get reasonable regulations. The perception that guns are like a deadly pathogen which despite empirical evidence to the contrary cannot be kept safely. Gun owners are an abiding threat to all others. The mathematics contradict this view but when have people let facts alter what they feel in their hearts.
Gun owners are like everyone else. They are no greater a threat to others than any others. They know as much and other people’s fear of what they know not what will not shame them into surrendering their guns.
1
@Casual Observer The fact is, gun owners ARE a greater threat to others than people who do not own guns. Your argument is defending every mass-shooter's right to own as many weapons as they want, and saying that until they literally commit the crime, there's nothing we can do so *shrug*.
That is absurd. I'm sorry if you feel inconvenienced by these strategies that might save the lives of other Americans. That sounds very frustrating for you. But the idea that someone who has the capacity to snap, and walk into a school with a semi-automatic rifle that carries a 30 round magazine, is somehow equally threatening as someone who has the capacity to snap but does not have access to such a deadly weapon, is patently absurd.
Yes, most gun owners are law abiding people who wouldn't consider perpetrating these acts. But Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen right up until the moment that he killed his mother and then drove to butcher an elementary school with legally purchased guns. Dylan Roof was a law abiding citizen, until he walked into a church and started killing people.
Do you genuinely think that if neither of them had access to the legally bought firearms that they used to commit their massacres, that those massacres would have still occurred? Could Lanza have run around a school with a knife and killed 30 people before being stopped? The idea is laughable.
2
@Casual Observer Many "deadly pathogens" don't kill 40,000 people in the US a year. And yes, if you have a gun, you are a "greater threat" to me and my children than are people who don't have a gun. You are also a greater threat to yourself, and to your family. https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/
Within the last 2 decades the USA has become a really violent country, and it is only going to get worse, much worse. Nobody is talking about real solutions. Real solutions are the solutions that the rest of the First World uses.
13
This is one of the least violent eras in human history. In the United States, the likelihood of anyone being shot, injured or killed, is 30 in 100,000 per year. That risk means than unless a person lives over 3000 years one could not be certain of being shot and would need to live 1500 years before achieving a risk of 50 percent we are in an era where advocates use fear to achieve support, not reason.
2
@Casual Observer These numbers are small comfort to those whose loved ones are no longer with them. When it is you or your family the percentage is 100%
1
Guns do not = "America".
Except while other nations look on with horror - Americans are killing each other off.
Killing other citizens while at work, at worship, while learning, while shopping, while at the movies, while at a club, or a festival,
or a farm market.
I cannot fathom the thinking that says gun responsible ownership which will save innocent lives is punitive, unfair, or discrimnatory
to "good people". I think they mean "good white people."
3
"Regulated" is the third word in the Second Amendment. Time to do a lot more regulating.
17
@emsique That's not really what it means in that context.
"well-regulated", in 1783, meant something closer to "in proper working order", rather than "subject to government controls".
The word you should focus on is "State". A well regulated militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE... The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist so that people can go hunting, or protect their homes, or even protect themselves, and it DEFINITELY doesn't exist so that they can overthrow the government. It exists so that they can be conscripted into service to protect THE COUNTRY. The threats in mind at the time it was written were a British invasion, angry native tribes, and slave revolts. Those are the things that the Second Amendment exists to prevent. Congress needed a way to call up troops to deal with them if they occurred, but it couldn't afford to equip those troops, so people were encouraged to privately own guns essentially as a money-saving tactic of Congress.
Today, since we have a fully equipped standing army, AND state National Guards, the entire 2nd Amendment is completely obsolete and should be dismantled.
1
I'm a licensed gun owner a law abiding citizen but criminals and the mentally ills should not have guns.The problem is that the criminals will not give up their guns no matter what laws you pass
The killings in Chicago are done by criminals with one of the toughest gun laws in the country.The lame mayor says those guns are from the "outside" .So what?
To stop and frisk is the best way to eliminate illegal weapons but the problem is people like Charles who cry racism because cops search black teenagers and not white elderly nuns.
When you accept your anti cop rhetoric as part of the problem with rising murder rates in the inner cities only then you can have a seat at the table to discuss gun violence.
7
@Gdk. You are a licensed and law abiding gun owner, until you are not. You are not a law abiding gun owner when you allow chaos, murder and mayhem in the streets. Yes, you law abiding gun owner, you are responsible for mass murder and it is high time to heavily regulate so-called law abiding gun owners to stop you from mass murder.
1
Do cops generally search elderly black nuns?
Its not just the gun manufacturers and the gun lobby, its gun owners who hold on to the violent status quo with white knuckles.
To me, for the most part, "responsible gun owner" has become an oxymoron.
You need to put your very silly hobby away when it is this lethal.
What else is there in our culture that does so little good, causes so much harm, and remains legal? You get put in jail for dealing in or using dangerous drugs. You have to wear a helmet on your chopper. You can't smoke a cigarette within 30 ft of public doors in many cities.
I can accept that some people hunt and that they might own a rifle or even a few for different types of prey. That some people may truly need a pistol for self protection.
But 393 million firearms in the US?
The selfishness on the part of gun owners, and their unwillingness to sacrifice any of their questionable rights at all, in order to solve this problem, is profoundly depressing. Because it is precisely their problem and for them to fix.
Something in our war loving culture seems to immunize them from shame.
33
There's no 2nd amendment right to individual ownership of a gun.
2nd Amendment: "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 part of "A well regulated Militia" did right-wing, gun-worshipping Scalia not understand?!
For over 200 years the federal courts interpreted the 2nd Amendment correctly, and there was never an individual right to own a gun until the Heller decision written by Scalia in 2008. Scalia, legislating from the bench, created a brand new right under the US Constitution, using the 2nd Amendment as an EXCUSE!
Now look at what Scalia has caused! Just imagine the death, violence and destruction Scalia's unconstitutional, unlawful decision has caused all across America. And it's far from over. Thousands more innocent Americans will die because of Scalia's decision and his right-wing, gun-worshipping philosophy.
Scalia was in favor of the death penalty for those who committed murder. As far as I'm concerned, Scalia has murdered thousands of innocent people, men, women and children. Scalia's death has allowed him to get away with contributing to mass murder.
Remember the 20 tiny tots and 6 adults shot to death in Sandy Hook, CT! That was just 4 yeas after Scalia's Heller decision. Australia has taken the right approach to mass murder. They've change their gun laws and confiscated most guns. Australia is now free from mass murder by gun.
25
@NY Times Fan
There is ample evidence in the records of the debates about the Bill of Rights that the second amendment is specifically about guaranteeing the Southern states the right to maintain state militias for putting down slave rebellions, because the Southern states did not trust a federal militia with that job.
Unfortunately, the self-styled "originalists" on the Roberts Supreme Court not only ignored this information but also made what they had to know was a completely specious and anachronistic interpretation of the word "People."
"People" in the Constitution means an assembly of citizens acting together, not individuals. Individual rights are couched in different language, e.g. “no person shall be denied … except …” and so on.
So now we are stuck with an interpretation of the Constitution that is patently ahistorical and wrong, until some future Supreme Court sets it right, or until we collectively decide simply to legislate or amend our way to sanity.
4
@herzliebster
A scholarly, legal reply. Thank you!
I'm afraid there is no hope for the USA. There is a criminal in the Oval Office, who, working with Moscow Mitch, the Supreme Court seat thief, is packing the entire federal judiciary with right-wing ideologues from top to bottom.
Then there's the issue of zero democracy in the US (the US Senate and the Electoral College are both ANTI-democratic, and that's just 2 of a dozen anti-democratic issues America faces).
The lawlessness with guns in this country will continue beyond my death no matter what happens politically in 2020 and beyond. America is a hopeless, violent mess with a population of angry, misinformed, destructive and violent people who support an illegitimate, unqualified, racist would-be dictator.
So I guess I'm past dealing with technical legal matters based on a document that was a corrupt compromise with slave holding racists... who are still among us today, except they're not actually able to hold the slaves in physical captivity. But they would if they could. I'm done with expecting or hoping that the US will change for the better. It a nice experiment (though a fraud by the Founding Fathers from the start, really)… and it failed miserably in the end!
1
Like the rest of fact based America, Chales M. Blow has to admit that "Lying About Gun Control" has worked pretty darn well for the GOP. America's mass shootings are an effective emotional distraction. If for the past 40 years, the general public had been focused gun control and abortion the massive transfer of wealth to the top .1 percent would have been much harder to hide.
12
An overwhelming majority of Americans want common-sense gun laws, including a ban of assault weapons. We will no longer be held hostage by the NRA and the republican party. Vote in 2020.
9
Essentially anyone who wants to or does own a military style assault rifle with oversized magazines should not be allowed to have them. They're not useful for any purpose other than murdering fellow citizens in large numbers.
7