They would be better to not do it. I mean, do they only listen to corporate peoples?
Whose! Google = cowards. Which search engine doesn’t support mass shootings? I can’t google it.
3
It’s a step in the right direction by these companies ,tho a bit late. But remember, they’re rich executives and this is about the only issue that potentially could personally affect them, families and friends. They’re fine with paying people low wages. Also very cowardly of the big tech companies, FB,Google, Apple. Everyone is so afraid they’re stocks will fall. If the majority of people in this country are against the sale of military grade weapons and want better background checks etc., our government must follow the will of the people.
6
Saying something is “unacceptable” is usually the last declaration before doing nothing.
Following Australia's lead and banning/buying back all semiautomatic firearms is the single most effective way to meaningfully reduce firearms deaths in this country. Australia has not had a mass shooting since.
Dylann Roof, the shooter in Charleston, used a semiautomatic Glock and had eight 13-shot magazines. He fired seventy-four shots and killed nine people. If semiautomatic firearms were banned in this country, he would have only had a six-shot revolver. With such limited firepower, he may not even have attempted it.
Write your Senators and Congressman and tell them to ban semiautomatic firearms. Legislation for anything less (e.g. background checks, mental health) is a waste of time and effort: it is the instrumentality (semiautomatic) that is the problem.
11
@NorthernVirginia I normally don't address a comment to a person. Revolvers can be reloaded within a second or two. There are devices, e.g., the HKS Speedloader, that drop six rounds into the cylinder in a second or two.
A ban on semi-automatic firearms will be over-turned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court usually upholds its precedents. In US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects ownership of military-type firearms.
Miller, a career criminal and a fugitive, was not represented. No one told the Court that the weapon at issue - a sawed-off shotgun - was widely used by front-line US troops in World War I. The Germans - outraged by combat use of a "hunting" weapon - protested via the Swiss (neutrals). The US rejected the German protest, see: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d912 .
In 1939, there were many front-line war-fighters, who had found sawed-off shotguns to be very effective for clearing trenches. Our Courts rule based on evidence. The Miller Court had no evidence that sawed-off shotguns had recently been a common combat weapon.
Semi-auto firearms, about which many fulminate, derive from military-issue rifles. Ownership of semi-auto weapons plainly is protected by the Second Amendment.
1
@Jay E. Simkin wrote: “There are devices, e.g., the HKS Speedloader, that drop six rounds into the cylinder in a second or two.”
Since, as you say, there is no difference between a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol, then you will be content with a revolver and all of the speed loaders you can carry.
In reality, however, there is simply no comparison between the two, and under the best circumstances a revolver could not come remotely close to pouring out the rapid, nearly uninterrupted stream of lead that a semiautomatic pistol can.
8
Good to hear corporate America has a voice.
Not to be cynical about their motives (as this is welcome news for once concerning the gun glut in US), but given the pinpoint micro-marketing and positioning many of them are capable of, it was only a matter of time before they woke up to the sheer number of Americans fed up with assault rifle wielding nut jobs...heaven forbid you lose customers.
6
After a handful of deaths, it looks like vaping products will be banned from sale in several weeks' time. In the meantime there will be several more mass shootings and no action by lawmakers.
10
@GeorgeNotBush There is no benefit to "vaping", except for device makers.
The down-side to "gun control" isn' unfairness to the vast, law-abiding majority of firearm-owners.
The down-side to "gun control" is genocide.
In the 20th Century, "gun control" laws promoted eight genocides, in which some 50,000,000 were murdered.
Germany enacted "gun control" on 12 April 1928, before the Nazis took power. The goal: to curb fights between Nazi Party and Communist Party thugs.
When the Nazis lawfully took power in 1933, they found in police stations, lists of firearm-owners. Plainly the Nazis did not allow those whom they hated - of whom Jews were only one group - to hold onto firearms.
The disarming of Jews was not decisive: Jews were only one percent of Germans. The prompt disarming of the many other Germans, who hated the Nazis, quickly gave the Nazis an iron grip.
The Nazis were not then wildly popular. They won 43.9% of the vote in an election held on 5 March 1933, even with Nazi party thugs having terrorized other parties' candidates. Even so, the Nazis - short of a majority - had to form a coalition. It had a slim majority in the Reichstag (parliament).
By at once disarming their foes, the Nazis stifled any resistance. By 1938, Nazi policy successes - e.g., the seizure of Austria and a revived economy - made the Nazis truly popular.
The Nazis murdered some 13,000,000 of whom some 6,000,000 were Jews (of whom 1,500,000 were children) and 750,000 Gypsies (Roma).
1
One of the problems that I don't think anyone has caught onto is that the NRA is not just bribing unscrupulous politicians to vote the way they want. They are seeking out gun extremists with political ambitions and aiding their election to office. Our pro-gun politicians are true believers. They won't change their minds on the issue because it's a core belief. We have to vote them out and elect more reasonable legislators.
16
@Jeff What? The NRA's donations mostly come from millions of Americans, not gun manufacturers. 2nd amendment isn't going away anytime soon without an new amendment. Get used to it.
2
“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.”
Justice Scalia
10
@Darren Thompson So far, so good. But you should read the U.S. Supreme Court's Miller decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court usually upholds its precedents. In U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects ownership of military-type firearms.
Miller, a career criminal and a fugitive, was not represented. No one told the Court that the weapon at issue - a sawed-off shotgun - was widely used by front-line U.S. troops in World War I. The Germans - outraged by combat use of a "hunting" weapon - protested via the Swiss (neutrals). The U.S. rejected the German protest, see: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d912 .
In 1939, there were many front-line war-fighters, who had found sawed-off shotguns to be very effective for clearing trenches. Our Courts rule based on evidence. But no one testified in the District Court as to sawed-off shotguns' use in World War I. So, the Miller Court had no evidence that sawed-off shotguns had recently been a common combat weapon.
Semi-auto firearms, about which many fulminate, derive from military-issue rifles. Ownership of semi-auto weapons plainly is protected by the Second Amendment.
1
I grew up during the years that assault style weapons were not available to be bought and traded.
There is no reason for people to have access to assault style weapons unless in the military service.
37
It's time to repeal the Second Amendment. Guns have no place in a responsible society. The idea that guns and unlimited ammunition are available to the public is ludicrous.
25
Nice try; the lib gun haters really achieved a milestone on this one. They sent around a letter; and then published those that signed on to their campaign. I mean why wouldn't they; since every minority... well most people would try to litigate if something happened on their property.
One way to crimp this would be to expose the chain letter to minimize effect.... the other way would be to impose a limited liability into law so the companies don't have to worry as much. Which would have the effect of dropping some support to red flag laws which is absolute hogwash. Imagine anyone you date being mad and running their mouth. At least there would be few lesbians with guns. hehehe. Ok enough, I do support background checks on all weapons. I don't support red flag laws unless there was serious commitments to protect gun owners and limits in the future (for what that is worth). Say a mental doctor only; who is monitored for their advice. A spouse who is not going thru a separation/divorce. Doctors would be out and so would girlfriends... and such. Not sure how I feel about the police after they tried to take guns away from everybody to include law abiding citizens. Anyway; widening the background would be a good start. But looking at liberal states... on how they banned things once they went down that road is a perfect reason why we should not go down this road lightly. The dems have only themselves to blame on cause and effect.
1
@Larry not sure what you're trying to say here or why you feel the need to invoke wierd stereotypes. Were you afraid there may be an increase in lesbians with guns? or minorities with property?
Actually I'm not even sure why they printed your letter.
20
What is wrong with this picture in America in 2019?
So 90% of Americans want background checks without loopholes. Even Trump says he would "think about it" after 3 mass shootings in 1 week, but 1 phone call from old Wayne LaPierre of the NRA (No Regulations Allowed) and strongman Trump crumbles, kowtows, and caves to the NRA. After all, the NRA did give Trump $30,000,000 for his election in 2016 (could have been a little Russian money, really, but we don't know).
Then the House passes a background check bill, and old Mitch McConnell buries it. Says he won't bring it to the floor (along with how many other bills to fix things int his country?). Says he doesn't make a move without getting Trump's okay.
Is that how the Constitution said our government is supposed to work?
Bill passes House, but Senate Majority Leader then must go to the Executive Branch and the President and ask if he/she is okay with every bill before it can be brought before the Senate for a vote?
So, our only hope is to get enough big corporation CEOs to stand up for what is the right thing to do to wrest control of the entire country from the NRA and gun manufacturers in order to reduce America's unacceptable high rate of mass shootings and deaths and injuries by guns? Evidently, 145 CEOs is not sufficient.
Or, since Trump blames the gun violence on gun triggers, then maybe just make guns without triggers.
11
CEO's live in America and watch the news. These slaughters have been going on for decades now, each one worst than the last one. Signing a letter isn't going to do anything. Its just a mindless act to show that they care but nothing comes of the constant thoughts and prayers that all of these people give lip service to.
Guns like corporations are more important than people. My child being shot at school or in the playground doesnt matter.
These CEO's will continue to support the GOP who are brought by the NRA. Facebook not signing doesnt matter because they have been involved in the live streaming of murders by police officers and selling off our democracy for paid advertisers to the Russians.
We live country that is so special that killing children puts us in the world headlines. A con artist president and murderous citizens we are special..
A new day the same old gun issues and do nothing GOP politicians who even when they are shot at still dont do anything.
4
Suddenly now corporate CEOs find a conscience? Don’t make laugh. They just want to sell more junk as everyone strutting in Levi’s will now be seen as all for love and peace. It’s like a return to the sixties only the pot’s now legal only I have no desire to smoke it anymore. Life’s cosmic timing is cruel sometimes.
1
Unless the Chief executives of these best-known companies can come up with more money than the NRA does to bribe the Senate GOP they don't have a chance.
The crooked GOP has too much riding on this so they won't do anything to go against the NRA.
3
If we used the money spent on man-killers on counseling instead, maybe we would have fewer mass killings. We do not need guns today. Hunters now hunt for thrills, no matter what they say. Concealed carriers are too scared to be rational.
Do you really need a gun to be equal to the rest of us?
14
@George Kamburoff. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is to protect yourself, and to defend yourself from tyranny. The British tried to take away American’s guns, leaving us unable to defend ourselves, or our country. If anyone thinks the Bill of Rights was written to protect hunting rights, well......I see your from the left coast.
@Jay
What do you think the army is for?
3
CEOS are late to the game, but good to see them finally have the needed courage. Only the NRA and cowardly congressmen equate gun control with abolition of the Second Amendment. We have all sorts of limitations in regards to every other Amendment. Gun control regulations are needed and totally consistent with the existence of the Second Amendment. Too many people are being killed because of the false equation promoted by the NRA and McConnell.
146
@Poor Richard-Better late than never. Let's hope more corporations and other organizations (subject to hefty insurance policies to keep their environments safe) are shamed into signing on.
14
@Poor Richard CEO's are trying to look good to the public to continue to have customers support them. A little late for any real meaningful conversation from them. Where were they when all those kindergartener's were slaughtered?
16
@Poor Richard That's just silly. Firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product available. Don't think so? Go try to get a license to become a dealer.
The truth is that nothing that is being proposed would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings, let alone the far greater loss of life that takes place in any of our urban (read: Democratic controlled) areas. Lawful gun ownership is not a problem.
Perhaps these corporations would have more impact upon republican senators--and republican wannabe Joe Manchin--if they put their money (literally!) where their signatures are, and start withholding campaign contributions from Moscow Mitch and the rest of the republican senators.
The ONLY thing that moves republican politicians is money. They watch the funerals of thousands of Americans every year who have been shot down in their schools, workplaces, malls, movie houses, bars, restaurants, places of worship, community festivals, etc., without shedding a tear or losing a moment of sleep. But, start cutting their campaign contributions and you may get their full attention. Since, as we know, 20 dead 5 and 6-year-olds didn't.
10
I don't know about other people but I am paranoid going places now.
I haven't felt that way before but I live in an open carry state and a lot of people around here have NRA stickers on their vehicles that say "Stand and Fight". I want to ask, fight what? Who?
Anyone has the right to defend their homes. But these fellow Missourians of mine are so defiant in their gunhappy ways that they frighten me. To me, they are not the good guys.
I believe in live and let live. I don't agree with my red state politics but I accept that others think differently.
The people who spout NRA stuff aren't tolerant of any other viewpoints. It's their way or the highway.
Automatic weapons aren't purchased for hunting. And denying someone an automatic weapon isn't infringing on their second amendment rights.
Anyone toting an automatic or semi automatic weapon is infringing on MY right to walk safely in my community, my state, my country.
We need strong background checks and gun laws that serve US, not the people who want to glorify their egos with a deadly and powerful weapon which kills dozens in a few seconds.
16
"Missing from the list, however, are some of America’s biggest financial and technology companies, including Apple, Facebook, Google, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, some of which debated internally whether to sign the letter."
Missing also from the letter is any mention of the weekly gun slaughter in our major urban centers, in which dozens of black men die or are wounded.
These corporate execs don't speak for me unless they include that carnage specifically, with a call for "stop & frisk" to return to our policing despite Fourth Amendment absolutists.
I believe in reciprocal disarmament. You can have my guns when everyone is the subject of "red flag" laws so that urban high school teachers can be on the phone 24/7 alerting the cops to which gang-bangers may have guns and the cops can pick them up in a form of "administrative detention" from Friday night until, say, Monday morning.
Sound fair?
1
On 9/11, not one gun was used to bring down the Twin Towers, or to kill people at the Pentagon, or to crash an airplane.
When the Murrah Office Building in Oklahoma was destroyed, not one gun was used.
When the mad bomber in the 1950s was bombing NYC, not one gun was used.
Not one person entering a gas chamber at Auschwitz had a gun. Well, just one who shot an SS guard.
1
About time.
4
Maybe if these slave wage companies actually provided a living wage and health insurance without high deductibles and mental health coverage these "troubled souls" who go on shooting rampages could get the treatment they need.
4
When the cry is “Do Something” the first thing we should all do is stop and think.
Background checks could be improved to require that stranger-to-stranger transfers be done through a licensed dealer.
In California, firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must already be made through a licensed dealer. The ten-day waiting period applies. This is sensible. Also sensible is the law’s exemption for the transfer of firearms between a parent and child or a grandparent and grandchild. It would be crazy indeed if a grandpa giving his prize trap gun to his grandson would create two felons.
But Red Flag laws are problematic when it comes to civil liberties. While it might seem logical to allow a family member to call the police and “trigger” a red flag law seizure of someone’s guns, these laws can also be abused, obviously, and the implementation could be the equivalent of “swatting.”
Imagine a SWAT team knocking down your door at 5 a.m., and if they don’t shoot you, they put you in handcuffs for hours while they ransack your house looking for guns, just because some family member made a false report. Red Flag laws can be dangerous.
Many varieties of Red Flag laws are being enacted in different States. It would make sense for Congress to see how these new laws have worked out after a couple of years, before considering a Federal Red Flag law solution.
3
@Larry Proposed "red flag" laws share two lethal defects. First, none provides that one accused of being a threat, should get prompt and full reimbursement from public funds, of his or her attorney's fees and costs. Otherwise, for almost all, a "red flag" order means permanent loss of firearms and the civil right to be armed.
Few have the tens of thousands to litigate with a State. To level the playing field, a "red flag" law must provide for reimbursement from public funds, of an accused person's legal expenses, at their attorney's usual hourly rate. Bills must be paid within 30 days of submission, or there's a 50% penalty.
Second, "red flag" laws must contain a "right of private action". If someone lies to a Court, and so gets a "red flag" order, the person targeted must be empowered to hire an attorney, who is authorized to bring and to pursue a perjury charge, if a prosecutor won't. Few perjurers are prosecuted.
A "red flag" accusation can destroy a person's good name, so there needs to be sure recourse against those, who lie to Courts.
"Red flag" laws without these protections are as much a fraud as are background checks.
1
Bravo to these business leaders for taking a moral stand that is clearly in the interest of America and is on the right side of history.
Now, where are the rest of the business leaders?
3
I am encouraged to read this
To those who would resist this call for a return to sanity and only hope they don’t turn their anger on themselves.
2
In the vacuum of leadership that is our current government, it is inspiring to see businesses step up to fill the void.
3
Until these companies and their wealthy leaders target MoscowMitch and other NRA senators , nothing’s going to happen.
Tell them: no movement on reforms to bring more gun safety to the insane world we now live in, no political contributions.
3
Why would the chief executives of some of the nation’s best-known companies have to send a letter to Senate leaders urging an expansion of background checks to all firearms sales and stronger “red flag” laws? Is this how chief executives of some of the nation’s best-known companies ordinarily get things they want from Senators?
2
It is interesting how the influence of corporate executives is so much more important than the voices of victims or the people in general. It’s welcome, don’t get me wrong. But I would love to live in a country where the voice of the people was more important than big corporations.
9
Large corporations have much more financial clout ultimately than the NRA. Corporations should make it clear to lawmakers that they will not donate to politicians who refuse to address this issue. This is an issue of public health and safety. No one is trying to outlaw hunting. No one is threatening to take all guns away from people. However, to do nothing is unacceptable. Besides by background checks and "red flag" warnings, Congress could direct the CDC to begin studying gun violence. At the moment they are prohibited by law from doing so. When is Congress going to tell the NRA - who represents only 4 million Americans-to take a hike? When is Congress going to tell the people of this nation they are more important than gun manufacturers? Nearly all Americans favor these modest initiatives. Mitch McConnell - it's all on you at this point.
5
In addition upping regulations the cdc should be allowed to study gun injuries and gun violence
7
Meaningless. Will go nowhere. They love Republican tax breaks.
2
Can we see the list, please?
4
If corporations are people, maybe Levi Strauss or Lyft could run for President in 2020.
Why aren't these same executives writing to Hollywood to demand that Hollywood stop producing violent videos, movies, and television shows that bathe our children's brains in blood and gore? By the time a child is 18, he will have seen tens of thousands of murders on movies, tv shows, etc.
If liberals are demanding that the Second Amendment be weakened or ignored, why are they not demanding that these forms of entertainment, never anticipated by our founding fathers, be banned?
2
Keep your eyes on anyone with a gun, especially in stores. They're the ones who are going to shoot.
Maybe just try to avoid open carry states altogether.
Or advocate for laws to require leaving your gun at the saloon door!
2
@Kathy You're in error. New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine have no licensure requirement for carrying weapons, open or concealed. Vermont never did. Maine and New Hampshire ended licensure for concealed carry in 2015 and 2017, respectively.
At least since 2001, these three states have had the lowest incidences of violent crime in the U.S. See F.B.I. "Crime in the United States", 2001-17.
Murders are so rare in New Hampshire that all are prosecuted by the State Attorney General. No County Attorney sees enough homicides to be adept at their prosecution.
By contrast, Massachusetts (MA) - next-door - has many nasty and complex "gun control" laws. MA's violent crime rate is about twice that of New Hampshire. There is no open carry in MA and concealed carry is heavily regulated.
So, where do you want to vacation?
Not surprised that Zuckerberg weaseled out of it. He's perfectly fine with invading every aspect of our privacy on his platforms and exploiting it in every way possible to make a buck but can't protect is "community" from making a statement about sensible gun control laws. So glad I deleted my account. SMH.
7
Corporations are, and always have been, the power behind the throne. The irony is that the selfish interests of the corporations can actually be a force for good. "We The People" have little to no power to influence legislators; but in this kingdom of capitalism, the consumer has a seat at the table.
3
While it fits no ones' ideology, not political left or right, pro-societal business action is happening more and more. Just yesterday it was cruise ships evaluating refugees from the Bahamas. Last week it was the CEOs' "Statement" that their responsibilities go beyond their stockholders. I've been suggesting for a long time that as we're struggling with so many urgent problems, why not take advantage of this unexpected and strange opportunity? Ask, encourage, even incentivize, educate the business community to step up much further. Yes, there will lots of cynicism and ultra-confident assertions that it just can't happen. Businesses just can't be responsible--even if they want to be! But it's becoming clearer, for the reasons mentioned in Andrew's article (not taking action hurts the business; a response to a rival's action; while farfetched to many, possibly even an emerging moral conscious; or some other motive), it just may be. So why not work it into our social and environmental plans, figure out how to encourage it, ponder the inevitable gray areas (e.g. uneven performance in different parts of the company), and see how far it can take us? The first Democratic Presidential contender to do this can claim the idea. It will be particularly hard for certain critics to cite "socialism" the way they usually do when these businesses are doing this voluntarily. If skeptical, which is understandable, look at the "B Corp" movement, Interface, Patagonia. Much more can be possible.
1
With corporation provide armed security?
Dear NYT,
is this even news? seems like press release from the AP newswire. what ever happened to the fires of the amazon? greenland melting? brexit?
@seattleSmartyindetroit
If this comment is actually considered "smarty" by Seattle standards, remind me not to visit there. This whataboutism is exactly the problem that prevents the incremental fixes that we should have made years ago.
3
Apple didn't sign? Facebook didn't sign? Shame on you, you cowards. You should stand up for American lives especially the lives of our children and sign the pledge
8
More American city councils should follow the San Francisco lead, and declare that the NRA is a domestic terrorist organization - a designation that, under the grifter Wayne LaPierre, it richly deserves.
11
@Joe Miksis So the exercise of free speech is terrorism if they take a view of which you disagree? The NRA is right when it says those that go after the Second Amendment will seek to weaken or destroy the First Amendment.
2
Completely missed the point
1
As per usual, NYT’s readers responded with a knee-jerk reaction. Take everyone’s guns, they are killing people. The Guns are NOT killing people, the nuts who wield them are.
Of course, after every mass shooting, which is a horrible fact; are the unsung day to day shootings, mainly between poor, young men. Just look at Chicago. Tough gun laws, highest murder rate in the country. Not by mass shootings, but bad guys shooting either other bad guys or innocent people.
I have a concealed carry permit, and sorry to disappoint both Uber and Lyft, both myself and the driver’s have been armed in both companies cars.
I usually ask if the driver, who have all been male, if they are afraid driving around at night. They don’t offer that they are armed until I do. To go out, get into a stranger’s car, and not be armed, is so bizarre as to not even be in ‘my lane’. I am a woman ‘of a certain age’.
One (not NYT readers of course) only has to read various magazines that are firearms oriented, to read stories where law-abiding people have either held the criminal at gunpoint until the police arrived, or had to use deadly force to protect themselves or family - usually during home invasions. The one place we should all be safe.
No flames please. This is my opinion. I am background checked every time I buy a new firearm. Yes, I have an AR. He has NEVER jumped up and started shooting massive amounts of people. He prefers paper. They are a blast to shoot, at targets. Not people.
@U Don’t Know Me Uses of lethal force in self-defense (or defense of others) are not rate.
"Law enforcement reported 766 justifiable homicides in 2016. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 435 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 331 people during the commission of crimes. (See Expanded Homicide Data Tables 5 and 6.)"
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/expanded-homicide
Note that these data (for 2016) show that private citizens used lethal force properly almost as often as did sworn police officers.
Be advised that in the U.S., police forces have no duty to protect the average person. The U.S. Supreme Court so held in 1855 (South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 296 (1855)).
In the modern words of a U.S. Appeals Court decision: "But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution.”(Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982)).
This is “good law”, i.e., this decision has not been over-turned. This decision binds only Federal Courts in the Seventh Circuit. But other Courts may cite to Bowers.
The bottom line: if we have no right to protection from the government, it follows that we are responsible for our own protection.
3
@U Don’t Know Me
Could you please provide some citations to prove your statements of "...stories where law-abiding people have either held the criminal at gunpoint until the police arrived, or had to use deadly force to protect themselves or family - usually during home invasions. The one place we should all be safe."
Please don't quote "various magazines that are firearms oriented", as naturally those will be biased in favor of guns. I'd like reliable, unbiased sources, please.
Various groups may demand action --- like citizens -- but as long as the NRA and Mitch McConnell along with the Neanderthal Republicans control the Senate, nothing is going to happen. We now have stagnation by design, and little or no legislation is liable to come out of the Senate on any front any time soon. It's a complete rejection of responsibility, and until VOTERS make a change, no change will be forthcoming. On anything.
3
"Doing nothing...is unacceptable."
OK. Now suggest something we can do that would actually help, that could actually be done. That rules out confiscating all semi-automatic guns, because they would just be hidden even if you could get Congress to pass such a law. That rules out background checks, because recent killers have used guns that were bought long before, and nearly all of them would pass background checks.
Unfortunately, the problem is deeper in our culture: Somehow we have the idea that if you are angry, you go out and kill as many random people (not people who have given you some rational, even if unjustified, cause for anger) as you can.
This isn't entirely new, although the availability of semi-automatic rifles is recent. In 1920 someone (never caught) set off a bomb on Wall Street that killed scores of people. In 1929 someone else, apparently angry over school district mergers (school taxes?) blew up a school in Michigan, killing scores of children.
Now if we can just get the gun manufacturers and sellers to sign on, we might start getting somewhere with this.
3
Every business and every school district in America should sign the letter. To not do so is despicable.
And Larry Page's Google won't sign? The University of Michigan should take back his degree.
5
@EKS "Gun control" is despicable. In the 20th Century, "gun control" laws repeatedly promoted genocides, in which some 50,000,000 - including millions of children - were murdered.
Germany enacted "gun control" on 12 April 1928, before the Nazis took power. The goal: to curb fights between Nazi Party and Communist Party thugs.
When the Nazis lawfully took power in 1933, they found in police stations, lists of firearm-owners. Plainly the Nazis did not allow those whom they hated - of whom Jews were only one group - to hold onto firearms.
The disarming of Jews was not decisive: Jews were only one percent of Germans. The prompt disarming of the many other Germans, who hated the Nazis, quickly gave the Nazis an iron grip.
The Nazis were not then wildly popular. They won 43.9% of the vote in an election held on 5 March 1933, even with Nazi party thugs having terrorized other parties' candidates. Even so, the Nazis - short of a majority - had to form a coalition. It had a slim majority in the Reichstag (parliament).
By at once disarming their foes, the Nazis stifled any resistance. By 1938, Nazi policy successes - e.g., the seizure of Austria and a revived economy - made the Nazis truly popular.
The Nazis murdered some 13,000,000 of whom some 6,000,000 were Jews (of whom 1,500,000 were children) and 750,000 Gypsies (Roma).
Still think "gun control" is a good idea?
@Jay E. Simkin
No private citizen needs military-style weapons that are capable of rapidly firing ammunition and committing wholesale slaughter, such as happened during Sandy Hook, the recent Walmart shooting, and many others.
No one wants to take away your hunting rifle or .22. We just want common sense to prevail.
A positive and welcome step. Some brave signatories, given the inevitable NRA-drilled backlash. But some others are conspicuous by their absence - consumer brands, airlines, automakers, restaurant chains and so on. It can only be an act of cowardice by those CEOs, who value their precious corporate PR and outrageous profits over the proper, right & only thing to do. Speak up!!
2
A couple of weeks ago “business leaders” put out a statement that the welfare of customers and employees will become more of a focus than the sacred cow of “shareholder value.”
Now “business leaders” are saying they are behind doing something about “gun violence!”
I’m 74 years old and in my many years I’ve heard “business leaders” come out for many things. In my many years I have also learned that the old adages, “Talk is cheap” and “Actions speak louder than words”, “Put you money where your mouth is”, and “Money makes the world go around” are inevitably true.
So now, “business leaders” how about this old adage...”Put up, or shut up!”
1
Are google Apple Facebook afraid to lose some percent of business because gun owners turn away from them? Likely.
Losing some percent of a trillion? Bezos, Zuvkerberg, Cook really? Can you look in the mirror. Can you explain your kids? Your ping pong table new economy culture - is it a culture at all? Or just a trick?
How greedy and inhumane are these „clean modern sleek“ brands with their shiny dirty products and services. Despicable.
3
What will happen after this letter:
Gun rights folks will scream: Don't do something, just sit there!
meh - ain't going to happen -
Background checks are a consumer fraud, that dwarfs the crimes by Bernie Madoff, the financial swindler.
Only 62 Federal prosecutions followed 76,142 denials (in 2010) of purchase applicants. For the data see, Regional Justice Information Service, "Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010", 2012, p. 7 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf .
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report (No. 18-440, Sept., 2018) shows that of 112,090 denials by FBI screeners, only 12,710 were sent for "investigation". Of that number only 12 resulted in prosecutions!!
Plainly, far more than 12 denials were fully justified. So few prosecutions show that Federal authorities do little to stop those, who seek to abuse firearms.
At end-2017, there were some 411,000,000 firearms in the U.S, excluding military items. The U.S. at end-2017 had about 325,000,000 residents.
It is safe to assume a denied person - determined to get a firearm - will do so. For the number of firearms see: U.S. Department of Justice, "Firearms Commerce in the United States", 2000 and 2019.
Were even half of those properly denied to be prosecuted, U.S. Attorneys would have little time to prosecute other Federal crimes, e.g., espionage, tax fraud, drug trafficking, etc. See: U.S. Department of Justice, "U.S. Attorneys' Annual Statistical Report - Fiscal Year 2017", p. 4. See: https://www.justice.gov/usao/page/file/1081801/download .
These CEOs' faith in background checks is quite simply misplaced.
1
Yes, executives that live in gated communities, behind walls, with heavily armed private security are telling us that gun control is needed, particularly in limiting what Americans can own. I give their words as much value as I give the Hollywood liberals.
Lets talk to employees at these virtuous companies, and ask how well it has gone when they have tried to access Mental Health care. For them, or their family members.
1
Google considers gun violence a non-work topic! What world do they live in? Walmart is not that different and they recently lost 22 customers/employees. What is Google waiting for?
I will avoid Facebook, Apple products, and BOA going forward. There are other reasons to avoid Wells Fargo.
7
If corporations are "citizens," shouldn't they take on the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, such as taking positions on issues?
9
Apple and the other non signers are missing an opportunity to make a positive statement with little or no cost to their business. The risk of blow back to them is larger by not signing than by signing. It's not a good strategy to be behind the curve, none of these companies got where they are by doing that.
4
If a state has right to carry laws, and one of the companies who did not sign on has an office in that state, is it legal to carry the firearm to work?
It would be an interesting corporate policy if such a company bans the firearm at their place of employment in such states.
1
Even with all these stores banning open carry, all they can do is ask you to leave. If you are legitimate - some states don’t require any type of background check, to open carry. No ticket, no laws are broken.
Concealed carry is different. You can still walk right by those signs, if you are a legitimate concealed carry holder. If they happen to see your weapon, they can ask you to leave. A law abiding citizen would just leave.
The only places you cannot go are child care, schools, and to your College professor’s office, if there is a meeting at which you are being investigated. I don’t make the, sometimes silly rules, I just follow them.
This is a problem with a common sense solution. It’s only “politically sensitive” because a powerful lobby has devoted untold million to politicizing it. Let’s just talk about solutions and let the wailers wail over in the corner.
12
@dude The "common sense solution" - "gun control" - in the 20th Century promoted eight genocides, in which some 50,000,000 were murdered.
Germany enacted "gun control" on 12 April 1928, before the Nazis took power. The goal: to curb fights between Nazi Party and Communist Party thugs.
When the Nazis lawfully took power in 1933, they found in police stations, lists of firearm-owners. Plainly the Nazis did not allow those whom they hated - of whom Jews were only one group - to hold onto firearms.
The disarming of Jews was not decisive: Jews were only one percent of Germans. The prompt disarming of the many other Germans, who hated the Nazis, quickly gave the Nazis an iron grip.
The Nazis were not then wildly popular. They won 43.9% of the vote in an election held on 5 March 1933, even with Nazi party thugs having terrorized other parties' candidates. Even so, the Nazis - short of a majority - had to form a coalition. It had a slim majority in the Reichstag (parliament).
By at once disarming their foes, the Nazis stifled any resistance. By 1938, Nazi policy successes - e.g., the seizure of Austria and a revived economy - made the Nazis truly popular.
The Nazis murdered some 13,000,000 of whom some 6,000,000 were Jews (of whom 1,500,000 were children) and 750,000 Gypsies (Roma).
It took a major war - with millions killed, in addition to those, whom the Nazis murdered - to destroy this regime. Still think "gun control" is a good idea?
1
While San Francisco has labeled the NRA a domestic terrorist organization and a few brave corporations have begun to raise their heads above their foxholes, perhaps the long and lonely quest for safety and sanity in this country regarding the misleading advocates of the 2nd Amendment is beginning to gain some traction that must continue for as long as it takes to separate common sense from nonsense. All too predictably, the resistance will be powerful, false, well financed and hypocritical.
Also too predictably, the mass murders will continue until the outrage is effectively channeled into the courage to challenge those who condone the killing of innocent Americans.
Vote.
8
Unfortunately most of these companies nobody has ever heard of or have tiny market shares in their industry. When the big guns like GM, Citigroup, Delta Airlines, Boeing, Netflix, Amazon, Apple etc... get on board then it will be something.
5
Why not list all the businesses?
8
Doing nothing is unacceptable? That is called stating the obvious.
2
Maybe if gun owners put the business end of an assault rifle in their mouths and reached down and pulled the trigger, trump and his minions would move to ban them.
How long did it take and how many deaths resulted from people doing that with vaping products?
I guess it all depends upon who is paying you and how much.
Is there a problem with the logic here?
3
What a ridiculous thing to say. I have multiple guns, carry concealed, always, have an AR, and would never think of eating any of my guns, as a statement to you, Trump or anyone else.
Your statement shows why we ‘responsible’ firearms owners undergo background checks. To weed out the nuts.
1
@Steve Ell You are in error. In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that firearms used by the military were precisely those ownership of which is protected by the Second Amendment.
The US Supreme Court usually upholds its precedents. In US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects ownership of military-type firearms.
Miller, a career criminal and a fugitive, was not represented. No one told the Court that the weapon at issue - a sawed-off shotgun - was widely used by front-line US troops in World War I.
The Germans - outraged by combat use of a "hunting" weapon - protested via the Swiss (neutrals). The US rejected the German protest, see: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d912 .
In 1939, there were many front-line war-fighters, who had found sawed-off shotguns to be very effective for clearing trenches. But none had testified in the District Court.
Our Courts rule based on evidence. The Miller Court had no evidence that sawed-off shotguns had recently been a common combat weapon.
Semi-auto firearms, about which many fulminate, derive from military-issue rifles. Ownership of semi-auto weapons plainly is protected by the Second Amendment.
2
Yes. It was ridiculous
Thank you for helping me make my point
1
Ha! That's all the corporate support for this effort? I was hoping for more additions to my "do not buy" list. Levis and Dick's have been banned for a while. Most of the rest a 3rd tier nobodys with the exception of the investment houses that I don't employ anyway. Such a disapointment, but not unexpected.
2
Yes, better than nothing. But Levi Strauss et al hardly have sufficient sway on Main or Wall Street let alone in Washington. Where are the Business Roundtable ringleaders now? Silent. Apple, GE, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, General Motors, Google, Amazon etc all AWOL here.
3
Come on FB Google Chase etc. get with the program or expect a boycott
3
Where was this outcry after Sandy Hook?
6
I can just see Mitch McConnell turning the empty envelope upside down looking for a check.
After all, for good ol' Mitch and the GOP, the daily massacres of innocent Americans just can't compete against the monthly checks from the NRA.
9
The Founding Fathers wanted us
to gain our wounds with bloody pus
as we shoot each other oft,
cuz on guns we're always soft.
It's our right to blaze away,
with equal rights to be the prey.
1
Ownership of firearms manufacturers is over-concentrated. A few mega-billionaires control private equity/hedge funds that actually own the companies. High profit margins.
They don’t care about the catastrophic damage that their products cause because they will never experience it themselves. They effectively control the N.R.A. and congressional Republicans on this issue.
It’s us against them.
1
Criteria for mass shootings varies. Some use 4 injured people during a single shooting. That’s how we got the statistic more mass shootings than days in the year. 95% of those shootings were gang violence & drive byes in Chicago, Baltimore, etc and committed by POC. On the high profile shootings the majority were commuted by Caucasian males, except Virginia Beach, and those white males were all socialist. We have an ideology problem not a gun problem.
1
We have both. Gun worship and proliferation is both an ideology problem and a gun problem.
2
@JOSEPH . . . and those white males were all socialist." Whatever gave you that idea? We know they were all armed, but socialist? I fail to see the connection even if they were socialists, but I don't believe any of them posted manifestos espousing socialism, or belonged to socialist groups or even knew what socialism really is. An argument that makes no sense at all, considering that socialists don't have a stance on owning guns, to the best of my knowledge. I think if anything, they were Republicans.
2
Very commendable. NYT - there are more stories to be told here! What is clear is that the vast majority of individuals support ACTION as envisioned in this of letter, but have no voice due to politicians (how about just ONE) who use fear and legislative gaming to stymie open and transparent discussion and action.
How about investigating and detailing the process by which this letter was circulated and to which companies. It forces us to assume too much if we assume that EVERY company that didn't sign was actually involved in considering it. How about publishing the list of companies that had the opportunity to consider, but did not join? While you're at it, what about charities, churches, foundations, philanthropists; where do they stand? The operative word is STAND. If individuals do not have the power to demand change because of corrupt intransigence on the part of certain elected officials, they certainly have the power to demand to know where entities STAND on this important issue. The First Amendment grants to ALL the right to take a stand or not. But, that same amendment and the free market grants everyone the right to associate and trade with whomever they choose. Because those entities obviously manifest great power in their "private" interactions (lobbying) with the political establishment, it seems they might give these corrupt and cowardly politicians something real to fear, rather than manufactured paranoia regarding the Second Amendment.
1
I'm surprised there are not more retailers of brick and mortar stores on this list. I've sadly become more afraid of gun violence in just my everyday life. It seems there is a small chance it can impact you no matter where you live, shop, or work.
4
now if only they'd come out in support of government led healthcare to save them (and their employees) money, I'd say they'd found their souls.
4
Zuckerberg would like to bring the internet to Africa but could not be bothered to make an exemplary stand against assault gun insanity in the US, even while the horrific body count of murdered school children and teenagers, churchgoers, concert attendees, shoppers, and working adults, soars.
Meanwhile Google's motto of "do no harm" is here exposed to be the farce that it is.
Rather than do the right thing, the architects of monopolies instead choose to reveal their greed.
7
Since corporations are people, and get to donate unlimited amounts to campaigns, I think this letter is perfectly in line with at perspective, and very welcome. Imagine having lockdown drills with your high school age sales help at the mall. Enough! Ban assault weapons now.
2
While I'm happy for support for gun control, I'm somewhat ambivalent about business involvement in politics. What if 145 businesses sent a letter I disagreed with? However, there is a practical problem most businesses face: ensuring safety of their employees and their families. Over the last few years I saw my workplace safety evolve from sweet elderly men who guarded our employee entrances, replaced with armed guards and mandatory "active shooter" training. Businesses have a stake in this problem, and need our government to act.
5
@Janet Indeed. I work for a very large global company with HQ in NYC, and where there is obviously not a 'gun culture'. So imagine the dismay, to see that all employees recently received a carefully-worded email with tips on what to do at the office, should we find ourselves in an, er.... 'active situation'.
It is terrifying to think that, no matter where you are located....no matter the city or state...that we workers are all more or less 'fearful' of the employee who gets 'written up'....the employee who was passed over for promotion...or god forbid, the employee who was let go. It must be a terrifying time to work in H.R. or to 'manage employees'. They must be walking on eggshells every time they have to have a difficult conversation with someone.
3
The issue is guns. It has always been about guns. It will always be about guns. No matter how hard folks try to obfuscate the issue (mass murderers won't worry about laws) that is not the issue. The issue is guns.
6
The second amendment arguably protects the right of militia
to bear arms, not private citizens. But assuming it extends to
individuals- presumably adults- the relevant gun at the time
was a musket!
Extending that right to military weapons- machine guns, AR-15 et al- is a HUGE stretch.
As a life time hunter, I have spent countless years at gun ranges and in the hunting fields and woods.
NEVER saw a military gun there, going back in time.
NO excuse for them in civilian hands, now.
Australia had this problem and banned sale, purchase or retention of military weapons by civilians.
Worked for them. Could for us, if we had their courage.
Time for us ordinaries to stand up to the NRA and the
gun manufacturers and lobbyists. Our kids deserve it.
So do we!
14
@IndeyPea You are in error. Read the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) decisions.
The US Supreme Court usually upholds its precedents. In U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects ownership of military-type firearms.
Miller, a career criminal and a fugitive, was not represented. No one told the Court that the weapon at issue - a sawed-off shotgun - was widely used by front-line US troops in World War I. The Germans - outraged by combat use of a "hunting" weapon - protested via the Swiss (neutrals). The US rejected the German protest, see: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d912 .
In 1939, there were many front-line war-fighters, who had found sawed-off shotguns to be very effective for clearing trenches. Our Courts rule based on evidence. The Miller Court had no evidence that sawed-off shotguns had recently been a common combat weapon.
Semi-auto firearms, about which many fulminate, derive from military-issue rifles. Ownership of semi-auto weapons plainly is protected by the Second Amendment.
My understanding is that there were more gun homicides Per capita in the sixties and seventies than now, but these mass shootings really never happened. There were also just as many guns back then. Do you really think that someone intent on mass murder is going to be thinking about breaking the law?
4
@Mark Browning Right, Mark.
So with that in mind, why have any laws at all, since lawbreakers will do what they will. Do I have that right??
#SoLuckyIDontLiveInAStateLikeTexas
1
@Lisa The only "gun control" laws needed are those that provide for punishing criminals' abuse of firearms.
Background checks are a consumer fraud, that dwarfs the crimes by Bernie Madoff, the financial swindler.
Only 62 Federal prosecutions followed 76,142 denials (in 2010) of purchase applicants. For the data see, Regional Justice Information Service, "Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010", 2012, p. 7 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf .
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report (No. 18-440, Sept., 2018) shows that of 112,090 denials by FBI screeners, only 12,710 were sent for "investigation". Of that number only 12 resulted in prosecutions!!
Plainly, far more than 12 denials were fully justified. It is a Federal felony for a "prohibited person" to possess or to try to acquire any firearm. So few prosecutions show the Feds do little to curb firearms abuse.
As at end-2017, there were some 411,000,000 firearms in the U.S., excluding military items. A denied person - determined to get a firearm - will do so. For the data see: U.S. Dept. of Justice, "Firearms Commerce in the United States, 2000 and 2019". The U.S. at end-2017 had about 325,000,000 residents.
If US Attorneys prosecuted even half of those denied, few other Federal crimes would be prosecuted. See: U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys' Annual Statistical Report - F.Y. 2017, p. 4. See: https://www.justice.gov/usao/page/file/1081801/download .
Background checks are a fraud.
Big fan of market forces. Not so much a fan of the wet noodles in congress.
2
Even if you were trying to repeal the 2nd amendment, what would be wrong with that?
The constitution can be amended.
14
"The movement has gained momentum since last month, when a shooting at a Walmart store in El Paso killed 22 people. A day later, nine people were shot and killed in Dayton, Ohio."
And a week before that, many people were killed at a garlic festival in Gilroy, CA. And just 10 days ago, a man went on a rampage in Odessa, TX. And on and on. Too many to even keep track of. This letter is a positive step but so long overdue.
15
If we can't even be confident that we can go shopping or to a restaurant or movie without getting shot up, we will stay home and it will hurt business. There needs to be cultural full court press to get rid of or severely limit these weapons.
16
You would never think of doing business in a state that does not take reasonable precautions to protect the basic safety of your employees.
Common-sense regulation of firearms is such a reasonable precaution.
These CEOs, if they mean what they say, will warn red states they will pull out all operations unless they undertake basic measures, like restricting military-style weapons to the National Guard, as the US Constitution intended.
11
@Bob T You are in error. In the U.S. police have no duty to protect the average person.
The U.S. Supreme Court so held in 1855 (South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 296 (1855)).
In the modern words of a U.S. Appeals Court decision: "But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution.”(Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982)).
This is “good law”, i.e., this decision has not been over-turned. This decision binds only Federal Courts in the Seventh Circuit. But other Courts may cite to Bowers. The bottom line: if we have no right to protection from the government, it follows that we are responsible for our own protection.
@Jay E. Simkin
No mention of the police. Just private enterprise, acting with responsibility by not putting their employees in harm's way.
2
@Bob T You are further in error, when you state, ""... restricting military-style weapons to the National Guard, as the US Constitution intended."
The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. The U.S. Supreme Court usually upholds its precedents. In U.S. v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects ownership of military-type firearms.
Miller, a career criminal and a fugitive, was not represented. No one told the Court that the weapon at issue - a sawed-off shotgun - was widely used by front-line US troops in World War I.
The Germans - outraged by combat use of a "hunting" weapon - protested via the Swiss (neutrals). The US rejected the German protest, see: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d912 .
In 1939, there were many front-line war-fighters, who had found sawed-off shotguns to be very effective for clearing trenches. Our Courts rule based on evidence.
As no one testified in the District Court as to the combat use of sawed-off shotguns, the Miller Court had no evidence that sawed-off shotguns had recently been a common combat weapon. So, the Court ruled that a sawed-off shotgun was not a military weapon.
Semi-auto firearms, about which many fulminate, derive from military-issue rifles. Ownership of semi-auto weapons plainly is protected by the Second Amendment.
Well, I hate to brag, and I hate especially to brag about my son. But he's the CEO of a handful of kids in a tech startup, and he's one of the 145 signers of the letter. And I get to say something good about Jake Perlman-Garr that Mark Zuckerberg's father can't say about his son.
39
I work for a non-profit religiously affiliated agency. We have regular live-shooter drills and lock-downs. This is no way to work; this is no way to live. I cannot imagine how traumatizing these drills are for students and teachers. It's traumatizing to me!
11
"Several executives said one of the biggest practical worries was whether taking such a stance would lead to in-store confrontations with angry customers carrying guns." This is one of the problems, both in the short- and long-term - that if we interfere with people's gun "rights," those people can threaten us with same guns.
10
@Jerie Green Few, if any, will do so. Those, who carry concealed, try to avoid confrontations. The reason: cost. It will cost tens of thousands of dollars - and possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars - in an attorney's fees and costs, for a law-abiding person to be exonerated of wrongful use of force charges, "disturbing the peace", etc., even when the need to use lethal force is obvious.
It's really great that these CEOs have done this. The sad thing is something Chip Bergh said "C.E.O.s are wired to take action on things that are going to impact their business and gun violence is impacting everybody's business now." What's sad about it? That they had to wait until there was a financial impact on their businesses to take a stand. This would have been more meaningful if they had done it long ago for plain ordinary moral reasons.
10
These executives should mind their own business. I couldn't care less what CEOs think about gun control, an issue far removed from their sphere of knowledge.
5
This is such nonsense. If people really cared about gun violence, they'd vote for politicians who would address the issue. In the NC09 election, Dan McCready had a 33% rating from the NRA. Dan Bishop had a 93% rating. Gun freedom is more important than saving people lives.
3
Wasn't that a Robert Palmer song in the 80s?
So the waves of mass killings in schools, churches, mosques, synagogues, concerts, and outdoor gatherings weren't sufficient enough horror for these "CEOs" to lobby for action on gun control? No, not until people were being mowed down with assault weapons while they SHOPPED, did we hear anything from these "giants of the consumer industry". Hypocrisy.
4
Apple cares about making money no social peace. Their silence is revealing.
1
What about the religious right that considers fetus to be a person? Does that evangelizing end once the fetus is born only to run the risk of being gunned? Where’s their self righteous indignation in the face of this man made abomination?
9
@Eastbackbay I believe they are against both the provision of maternity healthcare and maternity and paternity leave.
1
Wonder how many of these top CEO’s have armed protection all or most of the time? We certainly know that no fewer than 4 fully armed guards accompany Bloomberg - even in NYC! Fairly hypocritical when these folks push for more restrictions on legal gun owners in the US -especially those of us who can’t afford armed security.
Also, why the new term “gun violence”? As if guns are animate objects capable of sentient thought and behavior? Really, rather stupid. Such use of a term such as this insults the legacy of those who worked hard to craft legislation that gave rise to ATF 4473’s - the background check document required by FFL’s in the US. The object of our scorn, derision and anger need to be on criminals and their accessories who perpetrate evil shootings as well as those agencies who are supposed to update NICS with convictions, mental defects, domestic assaults, etc. but FAIL to due to laziness, incompetence or both.
3
@William Stewart
Geez... I'm so sick of these sophomoric arguments that the NRA hands out with their membership cards.
Some of these CEOs have armed protection because they are lucrative targets in the way that most of us are not. And I suspect that their Board of Directors requires it in some cases.
If you can't distinguish when and where and under what circumstances the carrying of a weapon is legitimate and necessary as opposed to, say, "anyplace I want because of the 2nd Amendment" then you have no business calling other folks lazy and incompetent.
The term "gun violence" is used because it requires a gun to commit armed violence; armed violence is different that ordinary violence because guns can inflict a level of targeted, lethal violence rapidly in a way that a knife or car or baseball bat cannot. And, No, guns are not "capable of sentient thought" but then neither are a lot of 2nd Amendment gun-rights advocates.
10
@BillAZ You would make a nice subject in a feudal kingdom. As for me - the lives of my family members are far more important than lives of some CEOs.
If a CEO can have armed security, so can I. If you think otherwise, go back to the middle ages and be an unarmed peasant, just like your lords want you to be.
@Shadow
I don't have lords - I live in a representative democracy. Where do you live?
In a representative democracy we have laws and the easiest part of being a citizen is not breaking those laws. On the other hand if you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist who thinks someone is always out to get you that may seem like the hardest part.
As for me, I'm a gun-owner and I'll protect my family and my country. What I won't do is protect a make-believe right manufactured by the gun industry to own any AR.
2
What gives with Apple. Shame on you Tim Cook, shame on you.
9
... And yet yet when 2020 elections happen, 75% of these executives and their companies will support the Republican Party.
This is just PR. Being for gun control is like being for gay rights -- the HR department wants it because it helps these companies recruit young talent.
But is it more than talk? Will gun control actually drive their PAC contributions and dark-money contributions? Not a chance.
9
I know I am an anomaly expressing my opinion on this website. I just want to point out that the 2nd amendment does also say the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." This was back in the days when states rights were foremost and the people were the militia. States rights are now secondary and that is one of the concerns people like me have with this movement for one big overriding government. As is also pointed out, mass killings account for a very small proportion of gun murders. Interesting about the recent court rulings striking down gun laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C. Those two gun laws were considered among the toughest and most restrictive in the country; they were also in two areas with the highest gun murder rates in the country. How is that working?
1
@JJ Valento
The reason we need federal laws banning most guns is because of the failures in the cities you cite. The extenuating circumstances that explain those failures are well-known, even infamous, and call for nationwide laws that even out the anomalies.
8
Not too well considering most of the guns were simply transported from states with lax firearm laws, at least in Chicago’s case.
A nationwide reform, on the other hand...
13
@JJ Valentine Thank you for posting here. Please continue, because your voice is essential to democracy.
The key part of the 2nd amendment has been excluded by the NRA and also in your comment. The full text is
“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”
It’s not about states rights (which is another important issue) but about the fact that the US now has a standing army, which was not the case when the constitution was written.
There is no blanket constitutional right to own a gun for any reason at all - only for the purpose of being part of the now-obsolete well regulated state militia.
4
I am sure I’m not the only one has given up on gun reform since the Newton massacre. Sadly, I thought for sure that was going to be the common sense wake up moment for the legislature to act. I am not anti-gun but I am for much stricter background checks and there’s absolutely no reason why the average citizen needs an AR 15. We’re at another turning point folks. I’m glad to see these corporate Titans getting involved because sadly this is the tipping point we need for any real change to occur.
9
This is encouraging news. However, as with others, I'm disappointed by those companies that did NOT sign this missive. Perhaps some kind of boycott would be in order.
On another note, knowing that Moscow Mitch (and, in light of his obstruction of gun-control legislation, we might add 'Murderous' to his moniker), will the signatories of this letter refuse to support his re-election by supporting his 2020 Democratic opponent? Let's hope so.
4
Finally, some action. Well, sort of. Rather, it is words not action.We really need to "take action", as in kinetically. Dpospmething. For example, Walmart made what I consider a token gesture. That noted, it is something of significance. They actually took action. All by simply refusing to sell certain guns and ammunition. If they truly want to do something which impresses me, they will ban all (and I do mean all) gun and ammunition sales. The NRA has a stranglehold on Congress, so this is necessary. Quit waiting for politicians to do something, because they won't. Why? It is simple. Fear. Either they fear being "Blacklisted" by the NRA, or they fear their constituents and how they will vote. It is truly that simple. They need to do the next right thing, but they are afraid to do so. People in The House and The Senate are too scared. When I wrote fear, I really meant it. I have come to realize this: Almost without exception, fear is quantified and clarified by the "fear of losing something". A job, family, "things" we obtain or own, a relationship, money, and most of all, death.
2
Grew up in a firearm owning family of hunters here in the west and ALL of my family and friends who own firearms have NO problem with across the board consistent background checks that also make sure that if someone has been arrested/convicted of spousal abuse, stalking etc. in one state that their name shows up in another state should they seek to buy a firearm.
They also support laws that BAN the selling of firearms at gun shows where someone can buy a firearm and leave with it. Or a private sale where someone can buy a firearm and leave with it.
Fact is the Constitution allows for changing the Constitution. When written the 2nd Amendment wasn't faced with semi automatic mass killing weapons.
And according to the NRA, it has nearly 5 million members, yet there are 329,446,037 American citizens. So when we subtract the 5 million we have 328,946.037 Americans who are being ignored.
26
@Beth Grant DeRoos Well said.
4
God bless the 145 Business Elites if the Senate listens to them on Gun Control and really changes direction.
God help US if it turns out the Senate ONLY listens to wealthy business elites and ignores more than 145 million (six orders of magnitude) citizens clamoring for gun control!
This becomes a test of democracy that cannot go well, one way or the other.
4
What some people consider to be common sense, others see as utter nonsense. When sound logic and data analysis show that proposed gun control legislation would not have stopped previous mass shootings, the proponents of gun control laws often argue, "It's just common sense."
The common sense argument is insufficient for legislation that can deny citizens their constitutional rights. The legislature must carefully consider the calculated benefit to society versus the burden on the rights of individuals. Otherwise the legislation will be unconstitutional.
1
Until one of your own beloved is gunned then...
5
@Fred Dorbsky
If it's unconstitutional, then we change the Constitution. Clearly, your right to be raving paranoid gun loon does not trump my right to a safe and unthreatened existence,
7
@Fred Dorbsky Common sense gun control laws do NOT deny anyone their 2nd Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has ruled in Heller vs DC that the 2nd Amendment right, like most rights is subject to reasonable limits. Background checks and other reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of unfit people make sense to most people.
3
Essentially people don't have a voice. Corporations do.
3
Regardless of one's position on matters related to guns, I find this action by corporate chiefs to be very troubling. It would be similar if union or university chiefs acted similarly.
Gun control measures always present issues that potentially could violate the most important portion of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the portion that is the foundation of our individual freedom. Imagine if corporate chiefs would demand action to limit the First Amendment freedom of speech because of foreign attempts to "influence" our elections (whatever "influence" means). Or, if because of terrorism, they demanded action to limit the 4th Amendment protection against illegal search of our homes and persons Regardless of the wisdom of the legislation demanded, I am troubled by people in positions of influence and power colluding to pressure for limitations of the Bill of Rights. Each corporate, union, or university big shot has every right to voice their opinion individually, regardless how appealing or reprehensible their opinion may be. But collusive effort by such powerful people to limit the Bill of Rights is very threatening.
Today, they may collude to pressure for limits on our freedom that you like, but tomorrow? It is bad enough that we have elected politicians who have no respect for many of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights. At least we still have ability to vote them out of office. But these non-government powers are beyond our reach.
2
Yes, the "market" is demanding action.
I am SICK of hearing about gun-owner rights. What about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as declared by the U.S. Declaration of Independence?
What about the rights of 7-year-olds to go to school and not be slaughtered?
What about the rights of 17-year-olds to go to school and not be killed or maimed as they run from a shooter?
What about the rights of people to go to a music concert and not be afraid that they will be killed at the venue?
What about the rights of people to shop at their local mall and not have to fear being shot?
What about the rights of people to attend religious services and not have to fear that they might not leave alive?
What about the rights of people driving their cars on public streets and highways, living in fear that someone with a gun might pull alongside them and end their "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Enough about gun-owner rights! It's time to stand up to the NRA and its thirst for gun sale$, gun sale$, and more gun sale$. Our "representatives" need to truly represent the majority of their constituents; people want to see background checks for all transactions and to ban assault-style weapons that have no place is a civilized society beyond law-enforcement and military use.
17
Thinking about this gun issue, mass shootings...
We can chip our pets and identify them. I can be tracked anywhere anytime by my phone. And Google, Facebook, Visa? They know everything I'm doing and they track me constantly.
We can use this tech to chip every semi-auto "assault style" weapon in the country. Auto tracking them by ATF, and using local ordinance to disallow them being moved into cities, event spaces, etc. Local cops can stop and secure these weapons before the shooter even gets to a target. Penalties... Monetary, jail time and suspension of your weapons.
And the NRA can't speak of 2nd amendment rights since this would not be a ban. You can have your high capacity assault style rifles, but I want to know where they are at all times. Americans are too reckless with their guns.
5
The problem with the "universal" background check system is that it will amount to a registry of the guns. The LAST entity one would want to have that information is the government which someday may need to be opposed by the citizenry. It defeats the ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment if our adversary has a list of where to locate the firearms
As far as the "red flag" alerts are concerned . . . The problem with these is that it suspends a vital Constitutional right before a citizen has committed any sort of wrongdoing or is actually determined to represent a danger to anyone. People will be subject to cranks and other malevolent people who want to spitefully harm those who they don't like. The second problem , if enacted, is that this law will be easily amended to include all SORTS of additional exclusions. Some of these will undoubtedly be political in nature. This is a slippery slope at the least!
2
Just stop...
Why is it that conservatives have some idealistic notion that their pea shooter is going to “protect them” against a hostile domestic government?
Do you really think having an AR-15 will save you against the advanced weaponry of our military?
11
@Jon
I agree, this is the wildest, craziest stuff. A paranoid gun owner lives in an established 250-year-old democratic republic and is on tenterhooks for the day when crazed anarchy reigns. It's nutty stuff and really pitiful.
7
@gjdagis
Well, you can keep thinking up one excuse after another, real or imagined, for not doing anything every time this subject comes up but don't be surprised if everything you are afraid of comes true.
Not because anyone wants to take away your guns but because the body count will get so high and the inaction so bloody frustrating that in the future it will reach a critical mass of voters willing to amend or repeal the 2nd Amendment.
And it will be because you, the NRA and all those hysterical gun groups that soil themselves every time this topic comes up didn't have the intelligence to see that you are destroying the very right you wish to protect.
6
Well done and thank you to the leaders who sent this strong message!
You know what else is simply unacceptable,... Jack Dorsey continuing to allow the Provocateur in Chief to lie and incite hatred and violence every day on a global platform. His semi-literate tweets sow misinformation and spread divisiveness that will only get worse if Twitter does not enforce its own policies ie, "We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes...."
3
An unregulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the mentally ill to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
3
Trump and the GOP (Greedy Old Parasites) serve private sector power elites, not the average family of hard working citizens. They've lost their way.
They are not about to give up 200 million in NRA 2020 election bribes to bend a knee to anyone. They would have to be physically removed from D.C., kicking, screaming, grasping for campaign bribes on their way to ignominy.
1
DO SOMETHING! Don't send the kids to school, don't show up for work, stop going to the movies, don't walk the streets (except in protest). It's no longer safe. Companies and corporations better weigh in or they will loose their client base out of fear. Walk out of restaurants where the waitress is packing, don't let your children have play-dates in households that have firearms. Ask questions, make better decisions. Value our country, stop killing each other, and stop supporting the violence in our tunnel vision, our complacency.
2
I am no more interested in the opinions of these rich folks than I am in the opinions of rich entertainers. Just more virtue signalling by the "elite".
@Bill
So you oppose Citizens United? Why do I think otherwise...
4
@zumaman Those CEO's speaking out are emphatically not speaking for the corporations which they head. Citizens United was a decision which eliminated a law restricting the rights of not for profits to represent their members close to elections on politically conteste issues. No commercial corporation would take election positions without facing the wrath of stockholders.
Congratulations to these brave corporations for their decisions. Too bad all do not follow suit. (If only the government led!) The majority of Americans feel background checks should be expanded--and 'Red Flag' notations noted. We voted for these Senators and Representatives to 'represent' us! DO IT!!!!
4
Several years ago a (Trump fan) coworker (in IT) stated that he believed that Obama would actually change the constitution in order to try to get a 3rd term just so he could come and 'take our guns away'. He was totally serious. Really. That's the way these people think. I'm an owner, but it's something I never even worry about....because it's a farce and a conspiracy theory along with a lack-of-knowledge and a topping of paranoia all rolled into one. And no, I'm not an NRA member and never will be. But, this is just one example of the mentality we are dealing with...
7
@ElectAClown-ExpectACircus
Same here. They don't represent me.
I really do hope the NRA and these 2nd Amendment conspiracy theorists who are all prepping for a second civil war do a name check before giving the go signal. I can see it now; Bueller... Bueller?
1
The argument that good guys (excepting police here) with guys stop bad guys with guns is hollow. The only instance that I recall where a good guy was going to stop a bad guy, the good guy was killed by police. How many lives have good guys with guns saved in a mass shooting? None that I know of. CEOs will have a impact when they hurt the pocketbook of Republican campaigns. Too bad the list is so lacking in big corporate America names.
3
The story says some of the nation’s “best-known companies” signed the letter to Congress. But how many of the 145 signers were Fortune 500 firms? Levi-Strauss was one of them, but it ranks dead last on the latest Fortune 500 list. How many more “best-known” firms signed the letter? Thought this would be worth knowing.
2
It is so out of control in the US that I predict now that we have become numb to open shootings in malls, music and dancing venues , concerts at Vegas, that next a group will form to block off a road start digging a ditch and simply stop traffic and kill a thousand or two thousand and then leave. This is what has occurred throughout Latin America and Mexico. Ever wonder why so many want to leave . Psychotic group killings are next if we don’t change fast Don’t worry the killers will go right back to work as though nothing ever happened.
3
@Ralph Petrillo Maybe those kinds of things happened in those countries. But they never has the right to defend themselves, as is the right in America.
@Helmfrid
It’s just a matter of time. You should read more about history on who trained the killers in Guatemala, Chile, and Mexico . Looks like many were sent to the US for training.
Unless guns are brought under more restricted control mass killings will occur or be the norm in the next decade.
3
Google's purported policy to only focus on work-related topics, make their "Do no Evil" mission seem a lot more non-committal. When you stand by evil, you are "doing* evil.
4
I can just hear Mitch McConnell now, "Was there a check included in the letter?"
4
Good for the 145! I send them all my thoughts and prayers.
1
Bravo and bravo. This is a HUGE step for our country. The politicians are all in the pockets of the NRA. They are incapable of making decisions for fear of losing their voters. They won’t stand up for fear of not being re-elected. So much can, and, has been done by private companies. Let’s hope we see more of this from the leaders of these companies and their CEO’s. So much can be accomplished in the private sector.
1
Unless these "chief executives of some of the nation's best-knows companies" donate a ton of money to each Senator, their letter will not make any difference at all. Money talks in Washington, and that is the truth.
2
We must keep in mind how many $millions the NRA spent on Republican members of Congress. The NRA spent $30 million on Trump's campaign, $6,986,620 on Richard Burr's campaign and so on down the line to Mitch McConnell's $1.3 million. How can we expect these members of Congress and the President to take action on gun control when they are so indebted to the NRA?
Something must be done to limit the flow of special interest dollars going into mostly Republican pockets.
2
I find it interesting that the Trump administration is moving to ban flavored e-cigarettes and considering other restrictions after six deaths and hundreds of others experiencing respiratory issues from vaping.
Yet nothing is being done after 40 people died and 76 injured in mass shootings in August 2019 alone.
I'm a gun owner and appreciate the 2nd amendment. I'm not advocating for its repeal. However, we need to consider better gun control measures such as universal background checks and red flag laws.
377
@JMan...You'll see him flip once the vaping industry forks over $10 or @20 million to his re-election campaign...
26
@JMan
I am so glad to hear someone else say this. New vaping regulations, but you lose the right to clean water. Don’t want kids to vape, but it’s OK to let them get shot at school. It’s all such nonsense.
61
@JMan But you're perfectly fine with repealing the 4th, and limiting what people can do with their property, because it's somehow different than any other property.
3
Fantastic news! I went through the list and will shop/use services of the companies on the list!
3
Having spent years consulting on corporate community relations, I find it surprising that so few companies have signed up in support of better gun control. The Google line is particularly appalling: “Our primary responsibility is to do the work we’ve each been hired to do, not to spend working time on debates about non-work topics.” Does the company have no one in their communications, public and government relations offices to consider the "non-work topic" of the slaughter of innocents? Does Google join the government in cowardice in the face of the NRA? Are the millions of Google users not stakeholders in the way the company approaches such an important community concern?
252
@Time to leave google behind. I use duck duck go for most of my searches AND it has real privacy protections.
32
@Tim
I agree the Goodle policy is tone deaf, and wonder how many searches are conducted daily on Goodle about where to purchase semi-automatic weapons, where guns shows are this weekend, where to buy a high-capacity magazines and a kevlar vest... If they can sell my data when I search for a new jacket, clearly the work they werre hired to do, why can't they offer tha data to law enforcement?
10
@Tim...I just coined the term "corporate cowardice".
5
Don’t just sit there. DO SOMETHING!
Comprehensive legislation is unlikely to pass.
So take a step.
Universal background checks are not the whole solution but that would be a start.
Put it on the floor for an up or down vote.
NOW!
Let’s see if anybody in government is sane.
Let’s find out who is really an enemy of the people.
If a poll suggests that 93% of citizens are in favor of universal background checks, members of congress should represent their constituents and enact legislation that requires them.
137
@Steve Ell It could be 100% of citizens in favor of universal background checks and the results would be the same: ZERO. As long as Mitch McConnell controls the Senate, it will never come to the floor for a vote.
22
@Steve Ell Your faith in "background checks" is totally misplaced.
Background checks are a consumer fraud, that dwarfs the crimes by Bernie Madoff, the financial swindler.
Only 62 Federal prosecutions followed 76,142 denials (in 2010) of purchase applicants. For the data see, Regional Justice Information Service, "Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010", 2012, p. 7 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf .
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report (No. 18-440, Sept., 2018) shows that of 112,090 denials by FBI screeners, only 12,710 were sent for "investigation". Of that number only 12 resulted in prosecutions!!
Plainly, far more than 12 denials were fully justified. It is a Federal felony for a "prohibited person" to possess or to try to acquire any firearm. So few prosecutions shows that the Feds do little to stop firearm-abusers.
As at end-2017, there were some 411,000,000 firearms in the U.S., excluding military items. A denied person - determined to get a firearm - will do so. For the data see: U.S. Department of Justice, "Firearms Commerce in the United States", 2000 and 2019. The U.S. at end-2017 had about 325,000,000 residents.
If U.S. Attorneys prosecuted even half of those denied, there would be little scope to pursue other Federal crimes, e.g., espionage, tax fraud, drug trafficking, etc. See: U.S. Department of Justice, "U.S. Attorneys' Annual Statistical Report - Fiscal Year 2017", p. 4.
Trust is background checks is misplaced.
I am more concerned about the big businesses that didn't sign. Outfits like Google, Facebook and Bank of America should have signed on.
Just the same, having 145 groups step up is very encouraging, despite McConnell's reluctance and the for-sure fight back of the NRA.
So who will act or listen? Stay tuned but don't get your hopes up. Constituents' opinions hold little weight.
155
All three of those megacorps are rather thoroughly creepy and evil anyway. With them, I'll let go and let God deal with them.
By "God" of course I mean Bernie or Warren.
6
@SR
Ah.let's not forget Apple who is a part of those who have chose not to join. Appalling!
2
@Steve
Let us not forget Apple, who has chosen not to engage! Appalling!
1
I don’t need the second amendment; I don’t want the second amendment. I want to live in a peaceful, safe country.
I don’t go to malls anymore; I don’t go to large public events. I feel sorry for families with school age children.
If you want a militia in case the U.S. government turns on its citizens, then lock up all your guns and give the keys to a few militia leaders.
If shooting a gun is your favorite sport, maybe you need to be introduced to a new sport like fishing or tennis or sailing.
I don’t want to live in a country full of guns.
224
@Patricia Brown you may trust your safety to others but not me nor others
3
@Patricia Brown Hugs to you Patricia. Get me far away as possible from guns... do I have to move?
13
@Patricia Brown
Unless you are incarcerated, America is not holding you here against your will.
Gun rights have been here since before 1776.
2
“C.E.O.s are wired to take action on things that are going to impact their business and gun violence is impacting everybody’s business now.”
Now I suppose the CEOs are going say ALL their potential customers are being shot?
If we do not stop gun and non-gun violence, foreign tourists and foreign students will NOT come to America to visit, invest, spend, or play. That means the hospitality and higher education sectors of the economy will tank. Several industries have a vested interest in pushing Congress to work through this problem and push back against the NRA and gun/ammo makers.
5
I rue the day when companies made products and services, and people consumed them. It was a simple time. Now, as a gun owner I must constantly thread the needle over what company says what and does what so I know who I can and cannot support.
TED CRUZ said
he “thinks the CEOs are more motivated by a desire to win approval from their “country club” friends than a full understanding of gun violence and public. “
Ted and his political cronies are basically doing the same thing. Their clubbiness insures that more and more Americans are being slaughtered.
I applaud corporate voices speaking up. We all know
that corporate America has too much power. It is high time they at least use it to support better gun laws than more corporate income.
4
The Economist had an article two weeks ago about this dangerous turn against democracy where unelected leaders of companies get between the people and the politicians to influence policy.
I don’t care what these ceos want. I want our elected leaders to act as leaders.
5
@Chicago Paul I find it interesting that you still think that "our" government listens to anyone BUT these corporations and those that own them. Read a little and you'll find that 70% of America has NO vote. They are completely ignored. The other 30% get one vote. People like the Kochs that fund organizations like the Federalist Society get 97 votes to our one.
You need to wake up. That is the very definition of Fascism.
1
@Chicago Paul unelected leaders of companies have been doing this privately, with dark money, for years. St least this is public.
1
"'Business leaders are not afraid to get engaged now,' he added. 'C.E.O.s are wired to take action on things that are going to impact their business and gun violence is impacting everybody’s business now.'"
This, right here, is the scariest part. Corporations cannot become our voice because they will only take action when the bottom line is threatened. The wishes of the American people must not be forced to pass through the filter of corporate intent to be taken seriously.
5
The Bill of Rights was written to protect individual freedoms. Companies have different rights than citizens. They have a right to complain, 1st Amendment. If they lobby for laws, fine. If I am ever on a jury where any of these companies are being sued, you better believe I will use all my will to extract as much money as I can from them. Not to be vindictive, but to let people know I think companies should be fined and prosecuted to the legal limits. Being politically correct has consequences.
3
@Jay Not one eexecutive will ever see a day in prison. No matter how heinous the crimes. They can steal, lie, kill or destroy. They are completely protected by men like McConnell and Trump
@Jay being politically incorrect, via dark money, hidden in the shadows, also ought to have consequences.
As reported by The Hill, Ted Cruz has weighed in: Cruz said that corporate executives who dive into political debates often don’t know what they’re talking about. Cruz said he thinks the CEOs are more motivated by a desire to win approval from their “country club” friends than a full understanding of gun violence and public policy.
Translation: if you're not an elected member of the Congress, your opinion has no value. Senator Cruz logic could be applied to a parent that lost a child to gun violence.
This arrogance is why people hate Congress. We are all entitled to have an opinion on gun laws - on either side. Ted Cruz received $77,450 from the NRA in 2018, and voted accordingly, receiving an A+ rating from the NRA. His opinion was bought and paid for.
16
Publish a list of companies whose CEOs think so little of human life that they still oppose gun safety.
The NRA will encourage its members to boycott businesses that don't love guns, and Americans have every right to do so. But the reverse is also true.
9
@JR So I will wait for you to list the CEO's that you claim are openly against gun safety laws. I have yet to hear one CEO come out and say "My company opposes any further gun laws, and furthermore, we will openly campaign against further laws that improve gun safety" To be 100% honest, I have been an NRA member for years and have never once received one single piece of literature or any other mass media advertisement encouraging me to boycott any business for any reason.
2
Thank you to all 145 who signed. I vote with my wallet, too.
17
I suggest that if a mass shooter does it a Walmart and Walmart has required THAT THEIR CUSTOMERS DO NOT CARRY A GUN ON THEIR HIP OR PERSON ...... THEN WALMART IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY MASS KILLING BEFORE THE POLICE CAN KILL THE SUBJECT.
Back ground checks should be made when you purchase a gun, there is no reason not to do so. Everyone has to have their driving checked before they are given a license to drive.
But when you understand, what is motivating most if not all mass slayers ..... and IT IS NOT THE KILLING PER SE, I suggest that HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. Why is it so obvious ...... because it appears that ultimately in most cases the shooter KNOWS THAT IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT THEY WILL BE KILLED.
And therefore, it does not follow necessarily, that the kind of information available in a background check would reveal the mentality that motivates most mass killers. And there are millions of ordinary people WHO ARE NO THREAT TO ENGAGE IN MASS SHOOTING THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON ARE ALSO INTERESTED IN SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ..... and it appears the current fad is for the military "SHAPED WEAPONS" but a rifle can "look" like most rifles yet still do about the same damage in the same way.
And to place it in perspective:
We kill 10,000's of fellow humans each month with our driving on the highway and particularly when drunk. Shall we check all drivers and ban those who use alcohol????
1
I agree with you to a certain point. If people are carrying how can the police tell who the shooter is? It reminds me of the Simpsons show when everyone with a gun gets caught in the crossfire.
7
Comparing firearms to cars is inherently absurd.
What is a car’s primary function? To be a mode of transportation.
What is a gun’s primary function? To be a weapon.
Vehicular injury is almost always accidental, even if it is due to criminal negligence. But it’s not like you first need to be in an accident to receive a DUI or a ticket. It doesn’t take much probable cause for a cop to pull over someone.
Literal weapons should be treated with at least the same level of oversight.
4
I hate to break it to you, but your argument isn't exactly reflective of the modern consensus.
2
It's spineless that the large majority of the financial services industry is absent here. All their chanting of ESG, impact investing and financial literacy.
Larry Fink is notably absent here. The industry remains spineless.
8
Forget that we the people have been crying out for changes on gun laws for more than two decades, as you just offered thoughts and prayers in response. But now that your masters are demanding change what will be your response?
4
great. i'll believe real change when i see it ................
2
How many of the 145 companies have made $ contributions to Republican Senators in the past couple years or more? How many of those companies are prepared to stop all future contributions to those Senators’ campaigns till those Senators and enough others do what these 145 CEOs are asking them to do? The answer to the first Q should be something the NYT writers could just look up, with a little effort. Might be informative to know.
10
"Mr. Zuckerberg has decided that activism on this issue would only intensify the spotlight on the company." Success has turned this "innovator" into a complicit coward.
13
If you want action pull your money from the Senate Republicans.
14
This is just useless virtue signalling. Nothing that the House has proposed would have prevented the recent mass shootings. In fact, as we have seen in Parkland and El Paso, even when authorities are notified about dangerous people (Parkland 42 times!!), they don't do their jobs.
Yes, Congress needs to act. It needs to end gun free zones and permit those legally armed to defend themselves.
2
While I agree that if corporate execs were serious, they would change their lobbying and political donations rather than writing a letter, this does ask an interesting question:
"How much impact does gun violence have on the American economy?"
Some of the companies that signed depend on retail traffic for their business, such as Levi's and The Gap. Others, such as Royal Caribbean and Airbnb, depend on tourism. Uber and Lyft depend on people being willing to get in a car with a stranger. Any of those businesses will be impacted if people become fearful enough of random gun violence to avoid public spaces. Tourism has already been impacted by foreigners perceiving the US as even more violent than it actually is. If we see gun violence as the form of terrorism it is, we can see how it can put a damper on economic activity by making people less willing to shop, go to a nightclub, go to a movie or a concert, or travel.
Since our Congress doesn't seem to care about the cost of gun violence in blood, maybe they will care about the cost in dollars.
6
Apple, Facebook, Google: cowards!
11
Signing a letter addressed to the senate asking them to do something about gun violence is the corporate equivalent of “thoughts and prayers”-~~ nothing but optics.
Threatening to withhold financial contributions to the GOP unless they pass specific gun control legislation is real action.
Corporations own Congress. If they were really serious, the senate could pass the legislation tomorrow, Enough with the PR stunts.
19
Can we the public know more about the guns manufacturers? Where are their factories? Who do they employ? Who do they sell to? Do they export? How much do they pay the NRA? What do they make? Why are they such bad citizens?
4
@NotKidding the data is there - you should actively look for it instead of acting like congress and expecting somebody else to do it for you. here. i did your work:
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/data-statistics
2
@NotKidding What makes them "bad citizens"? They sell legal products to distributors who in turn sell them to Federally licensed firearms dealers. The manufacturers are not the problem. Those who use firearms to murder ARE the problem.
@RS
Just like the opioid manufacturers and distributors did nothing illegal.
They just shipped millions of pills to licensed pharmacies in small towns whose population couldn't possibly use them all. And prescriptions were written by licensed doctors in numbers that couldn't possibly be legitimate.
We know that 90% of guns used in crimes are sold by 5% of the dealers nationwide. To claim that those involved aren't aware of what's going on with trafficking is ridiculous.
That's what makes them bad citizens.
3
A national "ABC" agenda on guns: In the wake of the latest mass shootings in El Paso and elsewhere, and now the urgent message from corporate America to act, it occurs to me that a central 2020 Democratic presidential and congressional election platform should be a straight-forward and easy to deliver 3-point agenda and promise to the American voters. I suggest naming it the “ABC” policy on guns.
1. Mandatory background checks and waiting periods to buy any guns.
2. A ban on possession or sale of automatic assault weapons, with a grace period to "sell back" current weapons of this type for destruction, after which it will be a felony to possess such weapons punishable by steep fines.
3. A clear, pro-Second Amendment right to bear and sell non-automatic guns, combined with mandatory licensing of all such guns in circulation.
And please don't fall into the NRA trap of saying "but this is just the start of the slippery slope to take away all guns." See point #3. Nor say something like "people use guns to kill; it's not the guns." No, it's both.
12
@C.L.S. I think it's a great idea, and it's all I want. I don't understand why people think they need to own assault weapons. We aren't stopping anyone from owning other handguns, rifles, etc. It's win-win, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks!
2
@ScaredyCat. What's an "assault weapon"? AR-15's are merely standard semi-automatic rifles dressed up to look like military weapons. But they function completely differently.
2
@RS Seems to me any gun is an assault weapon, whether you're assaulting clay pigeons or kindergarden students or their teachers...
NYT readers should click the link "... in the letter, …" in the second paragraph of this article, download and save this well written petition, and pay heed to who the 145 companies are that are signees to this request.
Americans who want good first world gun controls, like Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia have, should then patronize these 154 companies, who are on our side against the GOP politicians owned by the NRA extremists led by Wayne LaPierre, Vladimir Putin and their worldwide coalition of firearm manufacturers.
7
If the corporations put money where their mouth is, perhaps they can create the necessary pressure to get the right laws passed to ameliorate the random massacres of citizens by the fringe. They could also withhold political donations to the Congress based on voting record on this issue. We must threaten the appeasers if necessary.
2
Unfortunately, most of the Fortune 1000 is MIA here.
1
Sorry, but what are even ONE THOUSAND well--healed executives going to do, that the deaths of 26 innocent kids—at Newtown—could not: move the hearts of the heartless.
This is on you, Mitch.
5
@Paul McGlasson Nonsense. Nothing that the House has proposed would have prevented Newtown. The shooter STOLE his weapons from his mother after he murdered her.
This is just useless virtue signalling.
The NRA can only lie.
They LIE that people want to "repeal the 2nd Amendment."
They LIE that people want to "confiscate all guns."
They LIE that people want to "disarm us but arm criminals."
SUE THE NRA for LYING to America. They want a "gun owner's rights" to supersede our right "to not be shot"!
6
@IN Why are the statements you attribute to the NRA lies? I think that those reading the majority of overall comments to this article would think that the statements in quotes are true.
the president of the reprehensible, bloodthirsty NRA was dishonored marine colonel and convicted federal felon ollie north.
what kind of organization elects felons who have served hard time in federal prison to leadership positions? in del mar, california, the owner of the crossroads west gun show is also a convicted felon. the NRA looks like a criminal outfit.
2
There is speculation that some of these companies are planning to move their operations from the USA to get away from the gun violence threat. That would be a disaster.
4
Reasonable measures like universal background checks and well designed and implemented red flag laws are excellent proposals. I hope that they can be applied. They may greatly reduce suicides and a lot of homicides by guns.
But to pass and remain in effect, they need s consensus which most gun control interest groups oppose because it means leaving the same amount of guns in private hands as now. So good luck.
1
@Casual Observer Actually many of us support red flag laws as long as there is due process. One should not be denied legally owned property or the means to self defense on the word of a disgruntled neighbor or ex-spouse.
1
@RS
The fourth amendment still applies.
More powerful than a letter would be if each of these companies declined to make political contributions to any Member of the House or Senate who stands against stricter gun laws.
18
I've often wondered if gun regulation would originate with the business community. If I were a business owner and my insurance company threatened to cancel my liability coverage because of risk of shooting casualties and deaths, I would certainly pressure state and national legislators to fix the problem.
7
Why do 145 companies get the Senates ear. Why don't millions of citizens get the senates ear.
14
@sues - not sure if the Senate is listening but your point is valid. I would add, why do 145 CEOs get extended media coverage when millions of citizens do not?
3
I appreciate NYT providing the link to the letter. I already used it to contact several companies on the list to let them know I will not be using their services any more.
3
@Regina I'm sure you will be missed. You are taking the same action all of us should. Vote for, spend our money on, and live as you believe.
Maybe they are tired of watching their customers get slaughtered. Like they said, it’s not about overturning the rights to play with guns. You can still have them.
2
@Regina
Could be they don't want you for a customer.
Not to worry, Mitch will block it.
1
"Corporate Leaders Join Democrats in Calling for More Gun Control Legislation" would be a more accurate headline instead of the misleading "politically sensitive" which implies Democrats are wavering on this issue. They are not. The GOP refuses to support common sense gun reform legislation. The House has already passed legislation that Mitch McConnell refuses to bring to the floor. If brought to the floor, members of the Senate could pressure the reluctant president to sign these bills or have the opportunity for an override. Don't be afraid to call a spade a spade @NYT for fear of angering McConnell, Trump and their remaining supporters in the GOP.
8
CEOs whose companies have "brick-and-mortar" stores should rush to sign this letter, along with the people who operate shopping centers, malls, and venues where large numbers of people can gather - amusement parks, stadiums, arenas, concert halls, movie theaters, etc. Many people are now fearful of going to such places, even if the odds against a mass shooting are very low. (Fear is not rational, and there are a lot of people out there with assault weapons.)
The CEOs and their well-paid lobbyists should also make it clear to their elected representatives that their ongoing bribes, i.e., campaign contributions, are going to stop until some significant actions are taken to help prevent additional gun violence and massacres. Red flag laws are wimpy, background checks have a "feelgood" aspect, but the short-term goal should be to restore the ban on the sale of assault weapons and go from there.
11
Really interesting. My guess is these companies decided to back gun control laws when they saw the cost of having armed guards at every store and office building they operate and the potential lawsuits against companies for failing to have adequate security.
It all boils down to money. Call me cynical, but their own interests are at stake, not the citizens lives. I would love to believe otherwise, but sadly I cannot.
2
@CJ Working in the corporate world has taught me that CEO's and executives aren't necessarily motivated only by money. Sometimes it's by conscience. Look at Chick Filet and Hobby Lobby. They lost business over their stands on social issues and stood their ground. Maybe this group of CEOs really believe that it's time to do something to stem the carnage, but arguing in terms of business costs is just adding weight to their moral stance.
@CJ If they were concerned about security they would not allow themselves to be gun free zones. That is tantamount to announcing to prospective murderers that they will not face any resistance.
Expanding background checks is a fine idea. But my question is why should 145 CEOs have any more influence on the Senate than 145 random citizens. I know Mr Sorkin has championed the idea businesses should proactively implement policies designed to deter gun sales independently without new legislation. I personally do not feel this way as it could lead to discriminatory practices couched in Good Samaritan reasons. Red flag laws should be viewed in a similar vein, they could be used by zealots to unfairly limit legitimate actions by qualified gun owners and purchasers. I realize the implicit message being delivered to targeted senators in this message is go along or face the possibility of campaign donations drying up. The opinions of CEOS should not outweigh those of the electorate.
2
I was considering going to Walmart yesterday. Guess what, WalMart? I changed my mind. Consumers can boycott places where they fear other shootings, make their concern vocal to these businesses, and perhaps this will sway some heads--with our pocketbooks. How about groups of consumers get together and boycott malls? How would all these mall shops like that? But no, we're too entrenched in consumerism ourselves. Me, I avoid malls anyway, and if I have to go, I'm in and out as quickly as possible.
10
The NRA is a trade association. They exist to sell guns and make themselves rich. How they exploit fear and ignore dead children to do it is despicable but those tactics sell more guns. So hearing that many companies no longer want their business on those terms may indeed get the NRA's attention. I welcome every voice raised to confront this issue. We need them all.
24
FINALLY... FINALLY...FINALLY. Some executives are showing some courage and leadership!!!
The momentum is building. Gun reform is going to happen...
THIS is America. It should not be easier to buy an AK 47 than to get a marriage license!!
18
A modest suggestion: start emphasizing
#wellregulated
12
I find it ironic how quickly and easily the Administration jumped to control flavored e-cigarettes while continuing to be resistant to any manner of gun control. the irony is even greater when one considers that those dying from e-cigarettes are choosing to use something that can easily be risky. Those who die of guns never chose that fate.
18
I carry my gun in my purse and I will not stop carrying it. I will stop shopping at these stores before I give up my gun.
1
@Billie Lewis:
Great idea. The stores AMERICANS shop in will be safer without your gun there.
28
I too carry my gun in my purse and am glad to see these companies take a stand. I will continue to shop at these stores. I would, however, suggest that a letter be just the beginning. Republicans react to their pocketbooks. When companies stop donating to Republicans in Congress, that’s when Republicans will act. A letter will likely not make a difference but glad to see any effort.
85
@Billie Lewis
If I leave my house with, oh... let's say a camera. I'm probably thinking that I might take a picture or two. When you leave your house with a gun in your purse, are you thinking that you might shoot someone today? You should, because apparently you might.
7
I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
Mitch McConnell is so against doing his job - which is to legislate - that the private sector has to embarrass him into it ?
21
@r mackinnon I would cry. People are being killed due to McConnell's inaction.
2
Let's be honest, getting handguns out of the hands of urban criminals and handguns out of the hands of suicidal/mentally disabled individuals is what needs to be done if you really want to reduce the number of people injured and killed every year in the USA by firearms. Handguns should be the focus if you view "control" as a solution. I guess unlike climate change commandments, statistics can be ignored by the left when it serves their ideological purpose. Semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are not the main problem. I guess the drama and fear that a picture of an AR15 conjures is simply too lucrative for the media to give up.
1
@viktor64:
Statistics show: At least one gun death EVERY DAY THIS YEAR from U.S. mass shootings (they ALL used assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines).
Statistics show we need to ban such "weapons".
The real question is, why are people like you paranoid that our government will "take over", and that your only defense against a "bad government" is to horde such assault weapons?
Such paranoid thinking is highly "disturbed".
5
@viktor64
Just curious. Why keep them out of the hands of 'urban' criminals. Surely ALL criminals? Or all violent criminals. Why urban?
@viktor64..."Semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are not the main problem.".....You are right that they are not the main problem, but they do represent a significant threat and especially in the hands of a crazy. Moreover, you can make an argument for needing a handgun. You can't make an argument for needing an assault rifle with an extended magazine.
1
For a change, I agree that ‘Corporations are people too!’
1
Great Marketing! As if anyone really believes these corporations care!! Certainly a victory for publicists. But it's just a puff piece. Not fake news, just useless news.
4
Including the CEO of Smith & Wesson?
2
Notably absent:
Amazon
Apple
CVS Health Care
Facebook
Google
Microsoft
United Health Care
Walmart
11
Yea keep giving billionds to the GOP and voting for the Republicans
Anything that alleviates the stranglehold that the NRA has over GOP legislators and helps them do their jobs and pass sensible regulations (that both gun owners and non armed are in favor of) is a step in the right direction. Whatever their individual motivations were, these CEOs should be applauded for their not so bold step. When we get to the point that a NRA endorsement is seen as the badge of shame for any elected official and that their campaign contributions (and of affiliated donors) are returned, then we will be able to start reducing the tragic carnage of gun deaths that is unique to the USA among modern societies.
8
"Some of the letter signers plan to lobby lawmakers in Washington, but it is unclear how much money, if any, the companies may devote to this issue."
And that is the crux of it all.
When the business community starts matching the NRA's money contributions to Republicans, then they'll have clout.
Although some of the companies might get some good PR, it's meaningless in terms of real results.
4
Thank you, Levi Strauss. I will happily buy more of your products now. This should not be considered a controversial decision that hurts businesses. Rather, it is a wise decision that will help them. The polling numbers bear this out - people want gun control.
15
Dealing with this at the state level seems to be the way to go, since it's more than clear that nothing will ever be done at the federal level. Make the sale of weapons or of ammunition illegal, period. Allow ownership of weapons, to comply with the the 2nd Amendment, but ban all sales. And if a weapon does cause anyone harm, hold the maker of the gun as well as the maker of the ammunition responsible. Deem them complicit in the damage caused, and incarcerate their principals.
6
This is America, where everything is about money. At very least, this letter, however ineffective by itself, at least raises the notion that gun violence is bad for business. And we all know that in this country, the needs of business come before everything else. Those that have the gold make the rules, right? So how much gold will it take for ordinary businesses to overcome the gold spread by the gun lobby?
6
It would be interesting to see how the calls for gun control are affected if the MSM only reported mass shootings as local news since that is what the really are.
If you live in Idaho, a shooting in Georgia has no impact on your life...
It is very fascinating how the corporate-controlled press can set the political agenda for the nation and influence people voting patterns. It really makes you wonder whether democracy can exist in a corporate media environment or whether individuals lose too much agency for democracy to properly function.
The studies coming from Ivy League schools that show the US to be more of an oligarchy seem to highlight this incompatibility.
@Silly
It's simply not true that non-local shootings have no effect nationwide. Non-local news coverage is a vital part of Americans staying informed about what is going on in our country. And the epidemic of shootings nationally has certainly led to debates across the country, and oftentimes local ordinances regarding the regulation of dangerous weapons in local communities.
4
Companies should focus on providing good stuff to their customers. I think most Americans see through this political posturing. Leave the politics to the people.
3
@Joshua I agree, but remember corporations are now people too, and they have political voices that are often louder than the peoples'.
1
I find this worrisome. This is a society-wide issue so I think that the impetus to deal with it should come from the public sector. The fact that the private sector is stepping up shows just how far our governmental institutions have fallen. And the more the private sector takes up the slack, the more "we the people" are let off the hook.
2
I want to congratulate these 145 Executives for standing up and speaking out. They might actually have some sway over the GOP controlled senate that the rest of us do not.
But I'm wondering what about the Executives of Apple, Facebook, Google, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo?
Are they more concerned about NRA backlash than they are about human lives?
9
@jhine
Yes.
1
This is great. Now report the list of corporate executives who refused to sign the letter.
16
The NRA exists because there is money to be made selling guns. They have purchased an entire political party with the proceeds. They are both supported by corporations that refuse to take a stand because profit is their sole goal. So it's time for the overwhelming majority of U$ citizens that want gun control to vote with their wallets. Cut off the cash and they will wither.
But he NRA has foreign entities - Russia, in particular - that slip them million$ because keeping the US in disarray is in there best interest. Campaign records show that the NRA was Trump’s biggest supporter, spending about $30 million on him during the campaign. Whatever happened to the inve$tigation into this matter?
7
Now that the "....! Strong letter ...." has finally followed, we need the prefatory exhortation delivered to the US Senate using the power given to big corporations / big business by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United V. FEC 2010. Unions should do the same.
Remember that decision? As Mitt Romney so elegantly put it in a campaign speech, "Corporations are people too."
Letters are cheap. These executives and their companies need to put their money where their mouths are. That's what the NRA does.
6
Nice letter. Now stop giving the GOP money and demand any money you've given in the past be repaid.
11
The NRA gives about $30 million a year to candidates to ensure that guns are left on the street. These 145 executives could easily match—indeed, double or triple—that amount. Form a super-PAC that vows to double or triple the contributions to every opponent of a politician who receives NRA money. Only then will politicians begin to develop a backbone against this terrorist organization.
14
The notion of Facebook acknowledging a “moral responsibility” to anything is utterly laughable.
15
Dear Senators,
We know you don’t care what the majority of Americans think, but we who finance your campaign for re-election think you should finally do something.
Signed,
Your benefactors
9
As long as paranoid white Americans continue to buy into the myth of viewing non-white, non Republican Americans as the biggest threat to their safety, religion and culture, the arms race inside our country will continue unabated. Despite the odds that white, Republican Americans are more likely to be shot by one of “their own”, the instinctive fear of “the other” must be “unlearned”. The other myth that needs to be unlearned is that if something is in our Constitution then it MUST be a great idea! The 2nd Amendment is so far away from it’s intended implementation that it should be rewritten to coincide with the dark side of today’s technology. The next time your 2nd Amendment loving friend, relative or neighbor uses the Constitution as their “written approval” to build an arsenal for their “Army Of One”, ask them if they love the 16th Amendment. The framers of the Constitution never would have included the 2nd Amendment had they been able to foresee how Americans in the 20th and 21st Centuries took it to mean “any” type of arms they want. Possession of “any” type of firearms is NOT what the Founding Fathers wanted. They weren’t IDIOTS. One last 2-part question for the “Constitution lovers”- was Prohibition a great idea? How about it’s having been repealed?
7
"A number of polls have put backing for such policies above 90 percent.
The market is demanding action — and businesses are listening."
Many politicians are not listening to voters on this and other issues because they're corrupted by huge sums from the NRA and other sources because the US doesn't have sensible campaign laws and therefore is not really a democracy.
This is not rocket science. There should be a limit of about 3000 dollars per donor and a ban on donations from companies.
https://www.wired.com/story/cdc-gun-violence-research-money/
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4818a1.htm
7
Trump cares about the 500 people injured or killed from e-cigarettes but doesn't give a fig about 30,000 Americans murdered by guns. 30,000 slaughtered by guns 2ed amendment, 500 sicken by cigarettes a national emergency.
Good thing the 2ed amendment did't talk about tobacco.
When will decent Americans start to care. When will our so called preacher boys begin to care.
8
@GUANNA 95 percent of all statistics are made up. I suspect yours fall in that category.
I do think it is a shame that these guns are allowed to roam the streets and murder people. I would like to see how they load themselves, or do they team up to do it. How are these guns getting the proper IDs to purchase ammo, or do they just beat people to death with their butt ends?
In summary, your comment makes no sense.
Money talks.
1
145 CEOs?
Boy, that sounds like a lot...until you realize there are more than 6,000 corporations traded on just our two largest stock exchanges.
And, by the way, isn't the NYT telling us on a regular basis that CEOs are evil Machiavellians?
So now we take our social cues from Twitter and Levi Strauss?
Duly noted.
Last I checked corporations weren’t not granted protection by our constitution. Nobody is gonna red shirt them. This is none of their business. If they worry about getting shot themselves then perhaps they aught to arm themselves!
@Dd
Not by the Constitution. But by the Supreme Court, which long ago declared (without reasoning or precedent) that corporations have constitutional rights.
3
We basically have corporations lobbying against the Bill of Rights and using their status as a platform to bully and extort the people of the U.S.A. Given that the leftist led be people like Pelosi, Shchumer, Feinstein, AOC, Omar, etc., it would form a Benito Mussolini type fascism.
Apple & Amazon...... Very disappointing to see you “debated” signing...why are you holding back on something so obviously needed?
4
If they cared they would have cared before. They're afraid guns will help Warren or Sanders get elected. They're calling on the GOP to protect them over the "2A people"
I mean I'll take it.
But they're trying to head off taxes, not exert moral courage.
6
I remain unfazed by this hysterical language of a "crisis" of gun violence and it ludicrous focus on rifles. The vast majority of murders committed with firearms are done with handguns. This has been true for virtually the last 100 years, for as long as this has been tracked. Moreover the overall rate of violent gun crimes has gone down since the 1970s, even as the total number increases, because our population growth has in fact outstripped our proclivity for shooting one another. The result is that from 1990 until 2013, the rate of fatal shootings actually went down.
That changed in 2014, since then we've had a severe uptick in violent gun crime and in suicides, yet the rates are still far short of the 1990s or 1970s, two of the most violent periods for gun crime.
So where is the crisis? Mass shootings seem to be more common now than the past, but they still account for a tiny fraction of the deaths from guns every year, which are still dominated by handguns used in more ordinary crimes and inter-gang warfare. If you believe misleading statistics that redefine mass shooting in the most inclusive terms possible and count incidents where nobody died or only one person was killed (often the shooter, by law enforcement), then perhaps you could claim there's some kind of epidemic of violence or a crisis.
To any reasonable person this is pure fear mongering. Data does not support a "crisis".
3
@Joel
Multiple massacres in peacetime is crisis. Harm minimization is the rational and logical. Less powerful guns means less gun deaths. American gun culture and the second amendment has become perverted by lobbying interests. A neat, dispassionate statistical breakdown by a clearly intelligent fellow countryman is an admission in itself.
23
@Joel Thanks this makes me feel a lot better about drunks shooting an assault rifle in my direction while camping a couple of weeks ago. Knowing that most people die by handguns makes me feel much better about attending a movie, concert, church, school, festival, restaurant, riding my bike. Well those are the only places I can think of where there's been victims of mass shootings--in my state--in the past decade.
18
@Joel Doubt that you’d be so sanguine about gun violence if someone you loved was the one person killed or didn’t die - but was maimed by a tumbling assault weapon round. To any reasonable person even one death or wounding just do you can play with your rifle is pure stupidity.
16
The more we as a society concentrate on inanimate objects, the less we will come closer to mitigating the problem of violence using guns.
The UK banned guns for the most part, and now they have a huge problem with knives being used to murder. And they are calling for the ban of certain knives.
Just a few days ago, a vehicle was used to kill over 10 people in Toronto. No one will ever call for banning vehicles.
Guns have been prevalent in America for 200 years. Mass shootings are rather recent in comparison. So it isn't the guns, obviously.
Placing your focus on inanimate objects is a huge waste of time and resources, because it will not mitigate the problem.
Maybe agree to dwell on this without rejecting it outright:
Attempting to maintain a system where people CAN'T commit crime never has and never will work. They will always find a way if they want to badly enough.
Instead, create a system where people WON'T commit crime by utilizing the concept of the punishment fitting the crime. i.e., flogging and restitution for lesser crimes, and swift, painful, public execution for capital crimes.
In the meantime, the following suggestions would go a long way in mitigating the problem as well:
*Stop murdering babies in the womb. It has created a culture of death in this country
*Homeschool your children. Government school has taught them they are nothing more than evolved animals, then everyone wonders why they act like animals.
1
@Scott Evans, the UK has 10% of our murder rate. It would be a miracle if we were as safe as the UK. And not sure why you're bringing up homeschooling and family planning as if they have anything to do with mass weapons proliferation.
10
@Sco "Guns have been prevalent in America for 200 years. Mass shootings are rather recent in comparison. So it isn't the guns, obviously."
No, it isn't the guns obviously, it's the guns that can shoot automatically with magazines that carry multiple rounds of ammunition. Said ammunition having been designed to maximize the lethality of the gun. 200 years ago, the best shooters in the world could fire 3 rounds in a minute. We have guns that can do that within a second and you don't need to be a practised shooter, unlike 200 years ago. So, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that "it isn't the guns, obviously."
9
@Scott Evans First of all, it was a year ago for the van attack. Secondly, automobiles have a productive use in our society. Assault Rifles have no secondary purpose, there is no need to own one.
5
Maybe, maybe if corporate America keeps this up we will finally have some logical gun laws, maybe.
8
@BTO Like what? Allow criminals to have guns while taking away law abiding citizens guns? Yeah, right.
why do gun rights trounce private property and business rights? Indeed, Walmart, as a victim of gun violence should have the right to ban all people from entering their stores, workplace and property with any death-tool - even concealed.
As a shopper, I reserve the right to shout "GUN!" alerting other civilians if I see anyone with a gun, abandon my cart of goods and leave the store ASAP - hopefully others abandoning their carts too.
Not surprised many signing the letter are retailers. Financial institutions enjoy the high profits from the death industry. Hobby Lobby didn't sign because, as it turns out, they're pro-gun-deaths.
Will others packing death-tools pull out their guns too after I yell "GUN!"? Who's the bad guy? For a cop, anyone not law enforcement with a gun must be a bad guy or risks getting shot.
What are the intentions of anyone with a gun? What will he do if I stop him from cutting in line at the checkout. Maybe he is just there to slaughter as many of us as he can.
Why should anyone risk their life going to a movie theater if you can be shot to death for texting the babysitter during the previews?
Here's to online shopping and movies on TV. Fire arms of any type are forbidden in MY HOME - the 2nd amendment does not apply in MY castle!
When will America stand up to the pro-death Gun hobby lobby and stop them from TREADING on everyone else's rights? Finally a few leaders realize that those packing death-tools are bad for business but good for Amazon.
9
Now is not the time to address gun law reforms. But we send thoughts and prayers.
- The GOP and NRA, every single day.
15
" ... the [gun control] measures would impinge on Second Amendment rights." An amendment from a time of flintlock weapons and which refers to an "organized militia" in no way authorizes today's civilian ownership of military grade weapons capable of killing dozens in a minute or less. "It is way past time that elected officials take immediate action to address the public health epidemic afflicting our nation and leading to the death and wounding of our fellow Americans as a result of gun crime ... In less than 30 days, there have been five tragic shooting incidents ... The common denominators among the incidents ... are assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines ... There is no legitimate reason to have weaponry designed for combat on our streets ... " (Art Acevedo, Chief of the Houston Police Department, 19Aug2019)
16
Too bad Walmart, CVS, and some more mainstream companies did not sign the letter. My Aunt Alice in Tulsa, if she ever read the NYTimes and saw this news, would dismiss the company reps who endorsed the letter as a bunch of Left Coast hippies.
Breaking news. These 145 executives don't speak for the American people. Corporations don't tell Congress what to do, the American voters will.
2
@Jon Galt Dear John Galt - money is speech. So sayeth the Supreme Court in Citizens United. Ever since then, money has spoken louder than all of us combined.
5
@Jon Galt,
That’s the way it should be but I’m sure you are familiar with the “Citizens United” decision.
1
Where are the big bank CEOs on this list? Jamie Dimon? David Solomon? Or are there too many profits to be made from aligning with gun interests?
4
Any corporation unwilling to sign that letter is selfish, only self-serving, and morally and ethically corrupt.
If these corporate CEOs really cared about anything beyond their
paychecks and stock options, they could do something very simple to affect change. Stop advertising on Fox News and other Republican propaganda channels
6
I applaud any efforts by these corporate executives to move the needle on gun control, but do you really expect the cowards of congress to do anything other than thoughts or prayers?
4
Imagine if the title was "145 people call on congress to act on gun violence"...
This made the news? :/
How does it feel to know that these people are more important than you and the rest of the 365 million citizens of the United States. Can it, at least, be the Justice League or The Avengers?
4
no matter how you slice it - shootings are IMPOSSIBLE w/o guns.
3
@bob lesch And, car wrecks will stop if there are no cars. Drownings will stop if we ban swimming. Stabbings will stop if we ban knives. And, on and on. IT’S NOT THE GUN. It’s people’s hearts.
@Billie Lewis hahahaha. Funny! Equating guns and swimming. Times they are a changin' and specious arguments like yours are just not persuasive anymore.
2
@Billie Lewis
If it's not the gun, why do mass murderers almost always choose the same gun? They deliberately seek to acquire an AR-15 or similar high powered, large capicity gun.
2
“Gun Safety” is the issue for 2020 but you would never know it by the near total silence form the democrats running for POTUS! Why? What are they so fearful of? Hurting the feelings of a crumbling, corrupt NRA perhaps? Vote for any politician who forcefully supports Gun Safety! Your life may depend upon it....
Thank God the people whose parents named them “corporations” are stepping up. Because the Grim Reaper is coming for our children.
3
Wow, the cowardice of those who were afraid to offend their gun-loving customers is amazing. You mention some of them. Apple should be there, Amazon, so many others. Why would there be any hesitation about condemning a morally repugnant and dangerous public policy?
6
Illegal handguns kill far more people every year than assault rifles.
@M You're right! We'll do them next. Good idea.
1
When will they do this for the Planet?
@Calleendeoliveira The 12th of Never.
1
Wait. Many if notall of the corporate chiefs have complained for decades about how government regulation is bad. The American has been feed a diet of propaganda about the evils of government. Entire generations have been raised to think that government is their enemy. Now, people want government to "do something". I have worked in local government for about 30 years. People, make up your minds. You can't hate, misrepresent, villainize, use government as your political whipping boy, when the rules don't suit you and then wonder why government isnt functioning as it should when you do. You, voters, have chopped the legs out from under your governments. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are super proud of you.
3
CEO's:
Put your money where your mouth is.
Did your company pledge to support Democrats or at least refuse to support Republicans if nothing is done?
As long as right wing politicians know the money train will continue uninterrupted these "demands" remain paper tigers.
http://joethevoter.org
1
Make America Great Again...
...Restore the Assault Weapons Ban!
5
Thank you, every one of you, for speaking up clearly and loudly Thank you.
3
Unless we ban all assault weapons and ban gun shows, we will continue to have mass murders. The US has shown it will tolerate mass murders after the populace did nothing after Sandy Hook. We allow the NRA to promote some crazy embrace of a “right to bear arms.” This is not 1789. We have a National Guard.
Most citizens simply don’t think about issues. Not thinking allows young men to use assault rifles to kill children and innocent people.
All this so Bubba can tramp around the woods in November to shoot a deer so his wife can make venison chili which end up in the garbage disposal.
1
It's great corporations are now stepping up to fight for gun control but where have they been for the last decade? Are they worrying about their bottom line if shooters ruin their stores and people boycott their businesses? Why now?
1
"Apple, Facebook, Google, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo"
Those of us who have business with either bank or who use any of these high tech products or services ought to write their CEOs and demand they sign on to this letter demanding action.
That's what I'm going to do.
3
That's good far as it goes but it doesn't go very far. How many of these companies are in the Dow 30? Listed on the NY Stock Exchange or the NASDQ? Together they represent real corporate America, what more than 1,000 publicly traded companies perhaps that remain silent.
2
It will be very chilling to me if this has any effect. The Senate is deaf to the WILL OF PEOPLE. But maybe they will make a move because our American Corporate Nobility are displeased? Should they not have already responded to the will of the electorate, a long time ago? This is not a good place for us to be as a nation.
3
Why is it politically charged to do something about a problem that kills thousands upon thousands every year?
They are planning to ban flavored e-cigarettes because six people died. People who probably used the things way, way too much (but I don't know). Six people.
You'd think gun control would be the NUMBER ONE issue with no political tinge.
This country is toast.
10
Why is it politically charged to do something about a problem that kills thousands upon thousands every year?
They are planning to ban flavored e-cigarettes because six people died. People who probably used the things way, way too much (but I don't know). Six people.
You'd think gun control would be the NUMBER ONE issue with no political tinge.
This country is toast.
1
To the corporations who signed the letter, thank you for finally stepping up to support sensible gun control legislation. For those corporations who did not, your hesitancy to do so reflects your cowardice and inability to put saving human lives before monetary gains. Unfortunately, it appears that you are moved to responsible action on social issues only when the stock market dictates a significant loss in shares or earnings. Perhaps a mass boycott of your products and services by customers who demand passage of the bill will help you see the light.
3
Why is it politically charged to do something about a problem that kills thousands upon thousands every year?
They are planning to ban flavored e-cigarettes because six people died. People who probably used the things way, way too much (but I don't know). Six people.
You'd think gun control would be the NUMBER ONE issue with no political tinge.
This country is toast.
3
A good start, but will these companies call for a ban on assault weapons and high-power ammunition? Background checks are important but are easy for these companies to call for; will they speak out to support banning these weapons that are killing children and adults?
5
I’ve always lived in states without open carry laws, which makes me happy when I imagine the alternative. Seeing guns displayed everywhere is a reminder of the potential for violence and death, everywhere. I’m happy to leave guns to the police, who are trained to use them. And if others have concealed carry permits, I’m happy not to see their guns, too. I think many people feel the way I do, and prefer to go about their days in the absence of visible guns. And I understand why Walmart, and other stores, prefer not to be known as places where you go to be a target in a shooting gallery. That has to be bad for business.
8
@FreeDem I had an offer from a theatre company in an open carry state, to produce something I wrote. I turned them down. All I could envision was my work being put up on the stage and some nut in the audience with an open carry gun, deciding he disagreed with what I was saying. Before my husband and I make travel plans, we now check to see what the gun control laws are in the state we are planning to visit, and we don't go if the laws are too lax.
2
Zuckerberg did not sign? That’s unacceptable. Facebook needs to be boycotted.
10
The Senate has not listened to the American people, who overwhelmingly want gun safety laws like universal background checks. But perhaps they will listen to businesses, given their inclination toward capitalism. Maybe.
6
Now we know which companies to support, and which to boycott.
3
" Mr. Zuckerberg has decided that activism on this issue would only intensify the spotlight on the company."
Well, that's a nice quiet and oh-so-careful way of putting it.
3
Health Care (in all that encompasses) is absent. Maybe the American Hospital Association doesn't want to risk losing gunshot patients and all the medical bills that generates.
4
How about US corporation demand a Public Option for healthcare? I would think with the high cost of commercial insurance, they would welcome the change; except for the tax deductions.
1
This is the issue for President of the USA and the GOP-controlled Senate to consider:
1) 80% of the USA's population live in urban areas.
2) The vast majority of "shootings" occur in urban areas.
3) 90% of USA's citizens (voting population) support background checks to be required for gun purchases.
4) Despite the 90% support for background checks, the GOP leadership refuses to "consider and debate" the issue.
May the "will of the people" prevail in the 2020 elections, where the GOP loses control of both the Senate and White House.
9
This is a good news. Now influential business people also feel something needs to be done regarding gun violence though very late. Something is better than nothing. Hope Senators won’t sleep over the matter.
3
John Schroder, is a perfect example of the stupidity of some gun advocates and politicians in the pocket of the NRA. The 2nd Amendment is a right conferred upon the people by the Constitution, NOT an obligation. Nobody is obligated to support the sale, manufacture, distribution or availability of guns and ammunition. If private parties and entities decide not to lend to manufacturers, sell guns, sell ammo, etc., IT DOES NOT in any way infringe on the rights of gun owners.
I'm not surprised this man stated “No one can convince me that keeping these two banks in this competitive process is worth giving up our rights.” Given his limited ability think, convincing him of anything would be futile.
Gun owners and those in the gun industry need to accept that some people don't want guns around them (at work or in places of commerce) or near their children and young adults (in schools and colleges), etc.
This issue is much like the First Amendment, which prohibits government limits on the exercise of religious beliefs. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Nobody has ever suggested that the First Amendment requires religious beliefs or prohibits atheism.
27
The signatures mean nothing. No doubt one could get 145 CEOs to sign on to abolishing the 1st, 4th, 5th, or 7th Amendment.
1
@Mtee Zee
That is a nihilistic comment, with no evidence behind it.
1
“Doing nothing about America’s gun violence crisis is simply unacceptable and it is time to stand with the American public on gun safety,” the heads of 145 companies, including Levi Strauss, Twitter and Uber, say".
If the chief executives had said they and their companies would withhold campaign contributions from legislators who do not support gun control (and their PACs), that might have been helpful.
Otherwise, it's about as helpful as "Thoughts and Prayers."
14
It is about time. Finally, some in the business community are waking up. How about the rest of you?
Yes, CEO’s, it IS a moral issue to put the public safety of your customers (who by the way have enriched you and your shareholders) ahead of doing the NRA’s bidding.
Someday, your customers may just boycott the companies who refuse to demand gun control.
9
The debate should be over as Americans clearly want action on background checks and red flag laws. Yet, the SELFISH folks who comprise the NRA and are its supporters refuse to recognize that to live in a civil society we need to consider the needs of others. Why their SELFISH wants take more precedence over the hopes of the rest of us to live in a safer society confounds me.
12
If slaughtered innocent first graders can't sway Congress why does anyone think 145 business leaders can?
16
@JM
Been saying that for years, two of their own were gunned down and injured and yet they do nothing. Since when does one select group's interest usurp the rights of the majority?
2
This is inspiring!
"Simply unacceptable" is exactly right.
The Nobel Peace prize should go to the leaders of this group, not to Trump for trying to bring the Taliban to Camp David.
6
Don't forget that we do have a leading candidate, Bernie Sanders, who went out of the way to defend gun companies from any liabilities for their role in this daily carnage.
6
Notwithstanding the incorrect ramblings of Scalia, the Second Amendment does not establish a personal right to have a gun, or use a gun. The Amendment only provides for a standing militia and the wherewithal to have the Militia.
12
Having come from the Fortune 500 arena I don't know why anyone would listen to CEO's. What do a bunch of paper shufflers with accounting degrees know about building a better society?
3
If there was any doubt remaining, that Corporate America actually is the only governing body with any efficacy (and power), in our country....this should solve that riddle.
4
Simple answer: ban guns. Guns for cops and soldiers, not for me or you or anybody else. To repeat--ban guns.
5
Sad to see that only two retail CEOs have signed this letter.
Bravo to the companies who signed this letter!
1
Why doesn't Joshua Kushner simply speak to his brother and tell him to have his father in law do something?
As witnessed by the resignation of Boris Johnson's brother, some people do put their countries before family loyalty.
And if the Jared and Ivanka believe anybody should be able to carry a gun anywhere and at anytime, let them be willing to go to restaurants where servers are packing heat as The Times pictured in an article this week.
4
@Steve
Better yet, take the government security guards away from them and see how safe they feel. Plus it will save citizens a lot of tax money
5
The people have spoken! Oops, the people, formerly known as corporations, have spoken and they're the one's with the voices heard by Washington, aren't they?
What a shame it is that it might take the corporate voice to be finally heard over the destructive messaging of the NRA.
6
How the strictest gun laws weren’t enacted after the massacre of innocent children at Newtown boggles the mind and is a moral stain on this country.
11
Expecting the corporates to make law great again in America!
1
What exactly does Apple, Google, and JP Morgan have to fear from the NRA? Is the NRA going to stop using Google and iPhones, or quit using banks....? Even if they do, who cares?
Delta Airlines proved that the NRA can be defeated when they canceled NRA discounts, and NRA couldn't do much about it. At this critical moment global behemoths like Apple and Google have failed to show courage and stand up for what is right.
13
The bigger film re-running in America, is the tragic human condition of fear, greed, hate, despair, frustration, poverty, ignorance. We have become a nation of fools in one context, and lost souls in another. It is the faulty clip inserted in our brains, which is damaging ourselves, and our society. Just think, if Trump were to open carry...
1
Where are the financial leaders?
Good that Uber signed on. The Parkland shooter, Nicolas Cruz, arrived by an Uber, fully armed locked and loaded. Uber took no responsibility for that delivery of death to all those kids, 17 of them! Cruz had just gotten adopted by foster parents, that let him keep his gun, in their house? Have his foster parents taken any responsibility, for allowing such a crazy thing, “Let’s adopt an 18 year old high school drop out who owns an AR-15/assault style rifle, and let him live with us and his rifle”.
5
@Milque Toast
How is an unarmed Uber driver going to say to a gun carrying passenger to get out of his car.
1
The NRA argues that guns don't kill people, people kill people, i.e the problem is people. The CEO's are concerned about the alarming number of people killing people and argue that it is unacceptable to do nothing. A reasonable argument as each party says the problem is people killing people and so it seems we have something in common to talk about. Regardless of the arguments for addressing this as well as other worthwhile matters important to the US, they will all unfortunately be drowned out by the endless distraction of Trump's mythomaniac self promotion as he is driven by his real fear and selfish concern - reelection in 2020.
1
It's obvious that the Congressional House Representatives and the Senators, particularly those of the Republican Party, will not legislate stiffer gun control measures due to fear of the NRA. Thankfully, big business is now voicing their views and possibly along with their political contributions to stand up for gun control. Since our elected representatives have ignored the will of the majority of the electorate, maybe they will listen to the corporate leaders.
I agree with Ms. Ely, we need other corporations to follow suit, especially the Banks and Silicon Valley.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope.
Now remember people in England were allowed to have guns but the problem was they were becoming to unruly. Now they have none. This is why the second amendment was put in place. Don't believe me look it up.
1
Issues like this, as with providing health care to all financed by taxes, should not even be controversial. That they are in the USA is a sad commentary on the brutal, primitive nature of Republicans and their supporters.
4
While the letter campaign is a step in the right direction, nothing will change until the individuals who run and work in these companies stop voting for the NRA-controlled Republican party.
2
As a Seattle resident, I’d love to know why the “progressive” company CEOs in our city haven’t signed on to this important letter. Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks are noticeably missing from the signers. How about putting some of your market muscle to work for a cause that’s truly important.
10
@What’s Next:
"market muscle" as long as it benefits them.
otherwise STARbuck makers such as the ones you list
couldn't CARE LESS!
... while customers keep patronizing them
bc they make life oh so cozy & convenient.
Corporations are people. Yeah, right. Their decisions of conscience are determined by market considerations. "Will this sell?" It's strictly a business decision.
1
Here's a thought, instead of a letter writing campaign every CEO who purchases their candidate should w/h all funds until they do something on this. Don't give any more money to any of these so called politicians who year after year promise something but never actually act on their promises.
Enough is enough, better yet remove all corporate money completely.
16
Levi Strauss has been a long time antigun organization. Nothing new here. How do guns impact its business? Last I knew LS sells jeans, expensive ones at that. I guess these @ 150 businesses don't believe in the individual's right to defend themselves and family. If they did they wouldn't advocate for disarming millions of citizens, which is what they effectively are doing. As for Bloomberg, he has his billions and security detail to protect him. He uses his money to pressure businesses to support his policies and attempt to lobby the Senate to chip away at our Second Amendment rights and due process and the right to be presumed innocent of any crime before it happens. Just like motor vehicle laws don't prevent accidents or deaths on the highway, antigun laws have a negligible effect on overall suicides or shootings between gangs in the four major urban areas of the U.S. where of course Bloomberg isn't spending his money. No visibility for him or stake in the drug infested urban areas. Hopefully, the Senate consults with Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center before they decide to do anything foolish.
@John Smith
I have a book on computer programming that contains a cartoon with the caption, "Think outside the box". The first panel of the cartoon depicts a man safely sitting in a cage while a tiger prowls outside. The second panel depicts the tiger in a cage with the man safely outside. You remind me of the man in the first panel: sure, you may feel you're safer with a gun in the house but the statistics suggest you're far more likely to be a victim of gun violence, either from a relative, accident or your own hand. You're actually sitting in a cage in constant fear.
Me? I live in Canada which is more like the second panel. Here, guns are strictly regulated. Rifles are common but handguns are rare and require a professional justification; automatic weapons are banned. I suppose handgun violence is a growing problem here too but we certainly don't cower in our homes or fear going to the local supermarket.
You need to think outside the box.
10
The opposite is true of what you claim. Legislation has reduced motor vehicle deaths drastically and exactly the same could be done for firearms. But politicians corrupted by NRA money have prevented the Center for Disease Control from producing the same kind of research on and suggestions for firearms and relevant regulations and legislation.
https://www.wired.com/story/cdc-gun-violence-research-money/ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4818a1.htm
2
@John Smith Typical reaction John. Referring to cities as "drug infested areas". The top ten safest cities in the U.S. are in New Jersey and New York.
2
More proof senate is useless and must be flipped. But also a dangerous precedent: what if big business pushes unhealthy legislation, in the largest sense of the word?
2
@SNA
They already support unhealthy legislation, Look at all the EPA regulations being thrown out. Who do you think is backing this? It is large chemical corporations, oil industry and a host of other large polluiting corporations that contribute to Trump and Republicans. It certainly is not the people and wildlife that will be effected by the lack of these protections that keep our environment healthy for our citizens.
4
This is a start. Now the large healthcare systems, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies need to follow suit. This is a health crisis.
11
It’s up to the voters in 2020 to let their voice be heard by voting for the representatives that align with their value system. Letters are nice, but will fall on deaf ears.
When Republicans are voted out of office, they’ll hear the chorus loud and clear.
10
@NYLAkid Loved your sarcasm.
I'll give credit where it's due.
It was Mitt Romney who in 2011 said, "Corporations are people..." So if 90 plus percent of the people are demanding action on gun violence, at least Romney's Bain Capital is representing the will of the people by signing the letter to the Senate, at least on this important issue.
7
This action by these corporations seems to indicate a real commitment to end gun violence unlike Walmart's "request" to gun owners not to come into the store packing especially since a recent article indicated that the request is being ignored by gun owners.
4
@Stefanie I carry at Walmart. Just waiting to see what they do. In NH I do still have the right. You might want to get your facts correct.
NO OPEN CARRY but in NH we can conceal carry.
@stefanie
Like the Uber driver, how is a clerk going to tell a gun packing customer to leave. I certainly would not because I value my life, he just may be another nut case and looking for an issue to shot up the store or individual.
1
I know some people living outside the US who refuse to even change planes in the US on their way to Canada because they are so terrified of being shot, either by accident or on purpose. There are now around 1 million gunshot survivors in the US. America is getting a reputation abroad now as a dystopia, equivalent to a nutty neighbor who you try to avoid visiting at all costs.
And the weird politicians supporting gun rights instead of caring about human beings reflect badly on the US too: we wonder how could those people think this way, care only about an old law badly written over 200 years ago by some mortals and place this above the lives and safety of millions? It seems like a gun cult. Only it is based on money, which only makes it worse.
The stores and companies that signed this letter must be realizing how unfashionable the US image is now: violent, ceaseless low-intensity warfare 24/7, cold heartless politicians robotically and dementedly protecting a law instead of human beings, children forced to endure lockdown drills unless they can move to another country (expat American parents are relieved to be living in a country with no lockdown drills and zero gun violence)......
An unfashionable and nutty image will be corrosive and spread to the brands. Whereas American companies were admired decades ago, now they will be tainted by the US image of craziness and slavish devotion to guns. ...So no wonder they signed the letter....
43
@Gemma I studied in Boston and I used to go almost once a month to the USA, but it has slowed and in over a decade we have even avoided having to transfer in the USA. The last time I was over 5 years ago. But it is not only the gun violence, it is also insane regulations that does not serv3e any purpose. I prefer Schiphol near Amsterdam where if you change planes you only go through a transit hall and never see immigration as the luggage is transferred automatically.
8
@Gemma So well said. I am one of those people who will no longer visit America – not only because of the unceasing gun violence, but because I cannot – in good conscience – financially support with tourist dollars a political system so morally and spiritually bankrupt that it constantly chooses the right to a gun, any gun, over the right to live in peace and safety. When a country allows 17-month olds to live with shrapnel in their bodies … there is just no going back.
17
Exceptionalism at its best.
Since it’s corporations that Congress actually serves and pays attention to, not their actual constituents, maybe this is the way to go. Lord knows they don’t care what we think about the issue.
23
@Nancy G. How did Moscow Mitch increase his net worth from $2million to >$20million on a salary <200k?
When politicians get bigger kickbacks from lobbyists than they make as senator their decisions are influenced by the corporations that support their expensive campaign to get the votes to keep their jobs.
2
Thanks to the business leaders for speaking out! The public will reward companies who care enough about them to make sure they are safe.People have a choice where to spend their money - the safety of their family is paramount and these companies are smart to realize that.
6
@JANET MICHAEL I too am grateful that business leaders speak out, but it could well have to do that they too have children. The voice of the people is more directed to politicians who oppose gun control.
This is one way to make the message clear that “The Gun Crowd” is on the wrong side of this issue. These CEOs realize the wave of domestic terrorism - and let’s face it - that is a side effect of liberal guns laws and gross misinterpretation of constitutional rights, will over time affect the bottom lines of many of these companies as more and more people simply stay home and not spend their money in a public setting. My wife and I have made a decision that, at least for the time being, we are not going to go to any crowded public venue, box store or grocery store with our entire family. Only one of the parents will take care of the shopping and we will keep the kids busy and active at home. Ultimately we will spend less money in stores, restaurants and on activities outside of the home. It’s gotten to the point where it feels it’s no longer a matter of “if”, but a matter of “when”. We are certainly going to try to filter out doing business with any organization that openly chooses a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment over our fundamental right to safety. Choosing to ignore the obvious fact there needs to be reasonable and tangible gun reform in this country, or opposing such based on a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, are endorsements of the position that we all must live in a society that features a culture of domestic terrorism. It’s unacceptable.
29
I welcome these executives to the coalition of independents, democrats, republicans, gun owners, and gun violence survivors who have been involved for years now.
While my welcome is genuine, and their voices can be influential, it is painfully clear that the decisions to get involved or not were, and are, based on profits. More to the point, when does supporting background checks and other legislation become a move that has a positive, or at least a neutral impact on bottom lines.
The U.S. Senate and the NRA (more its leadership than its members) are the primary obstructions in the way of more sensible gun purchase laws.
How many more mass shootings will it take before the Senate and the companies beyond the 145 who signed this letter are willing to step up?
And to the 145, who did sign, welcome, and what took you so long?
8
We need to quit complaining there’re too few majors on the list.
Vote with your wallets. That’s the only way to get their attention.
15
Large campaign donations to Moscow Mitch and other selected Republicans from these companies might "grease the skids" a bit.
Why should the NRA be the only group to buy a few Senator?
1
@Fred Good Lord, No! Don't do anything to encourage more money for McConnell.
@Fred
I wonder what Moscow Mitch would think of eliminating security in the Capitol Dome? Or even the Senate chamber. Let all visitors enter without going through metal detectors, maybe then he'll change his tune when he realizes that would be a colossal mistake. And dangerous.
The second amendment is ultimately there to protect us, from invaders and the government. So we all have to ask the question whether we feel safe in our country because of the second amendment? (What would your answer be if Pence somehow becomes president and tries to turn us into Gilead?)
Nice to see some people take a stand- noticeably Mr. Zuckerberg seems to be spineless when it comes to this- I guess he is no different than most of our politicians.
9
I don’t feel safe in my country because of the twisted interpretation of the second amendment pushed by the NRA - which really supports gun and ammunition manufacturers to sell more guns. I feel safe with well trained and equipped armed military forces and a well trained National Guard. Period. I do NOT feel safe when some camo clad, bullet proof vest wearing yahoo walks into a store or around town toting a semi-automatic rifle just because he can and wants to support his interpretation of the second amendment ( really, I’ve seen this in the rural area I live in). I don’t know whether they are crazy or full of trump’s hateful rhetoric and are going to start shooting and I’m afraid. What about my inalienable rights?
1
What a farce. I place little credence in what big business says or does as a barometer of where America is going or wants to go.
Those who signed and those who didn't both weighed the effect on business first and humanity second.
There is no rational reason for anyone not to see that more gun control is needed and greed is the reason many businesses do not.
Money is the corrupter in what would be a reasonable and rational course of action.
People as voters and participants in civic affairs are who will stop this carnage.
8
So are the banks OK with bringing in weapons?
What could go wrong?
11
GREAT! The corporate chiefs are helping to set a public agenda that is long overdue. But the pressure on Republicans is from the NRA which will score their votes and fund primary opponents for those who drift away from its ever harder position. Where will the corporate chiefs be then? Well, no where, I think. So while the letter and similar efforts are nice, it will have no effect on the hardball political tactics of the NRA and its CORPORATE funders, nor on the response of legislators in their grip.
5
“The market is demanding action” explains why companies are responding. I will not purchase from companies that contribute to a serious problem. As more of us make our voices heard, companies will have to respond if they want to keep the money flowing.
14
The easiest way for all of these corporations to make their case is to reduce or withhold their contributions to all GOP organizations and candidates. Money talks much louder than letters.
40
all because massacre mitch is blocking gun legislation that 90% of americans want. why has he blocked e-verifying gun purchases, bullet purchases, seller and buyer background checks? with advances software systems we have now, a thorough background check can be done very quickly.
27
@L'historien
Oh i can tell you have never bought a gun. In calif, they make these laws and rules and then they can't even set up the computer system to register everything it's the government not a private company
The so-called "bi-partisan" universal background check bill is co-sponsored by 227 Democrats and 1 Republican. That is not bi-partisan. Democrats shot down all GOP offered amendments on a party-line basis.
So let's be honest. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer don't really want a solution. They simply want an issue to bludgeon their opponents.
2
227 to 1 actually shows partisanship on the GOP side, not the Dem side.
19
@Liberty hound It's either that or the historically obstructionist GOP is just refusing to do accept anything as usual. Remember when they ran against their own healthcare plan because Obama suggested it....
13
@Liberty hound When politicians use a wedge issue "to bludgeon their opponents" and it's one that seeks to resolve a crisis whereby an American citizen dies about every 15 minutes, and another two are injured, then those other politicians, in total denial and refusal to act, fully well deserve to be bludgeoned.
That's not being *political,* that's being *human.*
1
“Others mulled it, often creating a raucous debate inside their offices and among their boards of directors, only to decide that the political risk was too high.”
“Others mulled it.”
I won’t mull whether to give them my business.
With the vast majority of Americans looking for sensible gun reform, I hope these businesses shrivel up while their true Patriot counterparts take their market share.
Good riddance.
15
Sure they are concerned now, it might affect their bottom line. As long as Moscow Mitch and his posse are in charge of the senate, nothing will happen.
17
Will corporations publish internal memos-- or take public positions posted in the newspapers and online-- to ask staff to contact elected officials in support of say, universal background checks and ban of assault weapons?
7
@M That is a very good question because they can basically extort people on how the vote etc.
So, the ones who didn't sign, like Facebook and Google, relied solely on their calculation of the political repurcussions, not whether or not signing was the right thing to do.
37
@Public Takeover I expect that one factor for highly visible companies like FB and Goog is the recent "anti-trust" activity by the feds against the automakers who wanted to work around Trump on the auto emissions standards. Intimidation is a powerful motivator.
2
@Public Takeover
There is a sickness in the way these people think.
@Public Takeover THAT should cause some political repercussions...
Every country that has their citizens or diaspora in the US should write a similar note to lawmakers as well as Supreme Court and the White House that gun violence will not be tolerated anymore. The entire world representatives live work or visit the US and it has become one of the most unsafe places in the world. Sadly and shamefully. Most of it is because of some weird notion that owning a gun ought be a birth right. But assault weapons? Even police officers have to sign off on carrying weapons, everyday when they step into workplace, each weapon is accountable for. But citizens carry and use, Willy nilly. Ugh
20
Corporations and their highest paid executives need to stop giving money to politicians that do not support reasonable gun control efforts such as banning high-capacity magazines, expanded background checks and red-flag laws.
Money is the only thing that causes politicians to support or oppose an issue. Stop giving the GOP leadership money.
46
Publicity stunt? Passing the buck? If corporations keep feeding the GOP with big contributions we know the answers.
34
These business leaders deserve some serious credit for putting some support for what the public wants done with gun control, and politicians have ignored for decades. Unfortunately politicians are going to take this as nothing but PR unless the threat of campaign contributions completely drying up from both them and many of their friends is the next step after a reasonable deadline. At that point self preservation might set in and force some action out of them that they would otherwise prefer to avoid.
19
It is way past time for our business "leaders" to lead. Businesses owe customers, employees, the community and shareholders, in that order. Quit hiding behind fresh water economics and do your job.
3
@libdemtex I would prefer to not have the leaders of our country be businesses but we are too far down the capitalist road to change that.
2
"...one of the biggest practical worries was whether taking such a stance would lead to in-store confrontations with angry customers carrying guns". That is one of the saddest of truths we have to face as a nation. We are held hostage - effectively at gunpoint - to keep from acting to remove the threat of guns in our daily lives. I wish it were otherwise, and this is what America has become. The right to keep and bear arms has become the obligation to face armed zealots intent on forcing their will on us.
105
@Plumberb I think the fear of in-store confrontations with angry customers is a really lame excuse. Maybe managements at those stores and the corporation's annual meeting need to be confronted by some of us customers and shareholders about our right to shop without fear of being gunned down in a mass shooting.
6
@Plumberb
I know you feel the same re antifa then....right?
The Supreme Court held only that (conceptually) individual gun ownership is protected by the 2nd Amendment - but implementation of rules defining & regulating ownership are unlimited.
We have had mass shootings at schools, churches, retail stores, shopping malls, entertainment venues, and just driving along major roads. Workplace gun violence (by & affecting either employees or visitors) is as much a concern as at any other venue.
This has to end.
Now.
43
@KEF Won't happen unless Republicans are voted out of office - up and down the ticket, to include the White House and the Senate, where Republican Senator is sitting on bipartisan gun legislation-- unread, and of course, un-voted on.
Help get out the vote-- with democrats, swingleft.org, et al. -- or we will get a small margin loss. Again. As just happened in North Carolina.
Please note, Republicans are playing to win at any cost-- with Trump: they have cancelled GOP primaries across the country, yesterday N Carolina GOP voted to override a budget veto while Democrats were at a 9/11 ceremony, and more.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/north-carolina-republicans-vote-to-override-a-budget-veto-while-democrats-were-at-a-9-11-ceremony/
Why, one wonders, would GOP want to keep Trump?
2
I applaud these 145 leaders. But among them, I didn’t see a single CEO of the top 10 in the Fortune 500. Where are you, Walmart, Exxon Mobil, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Amazon, United Health, McKesson, CVS, AT&T, AmerisourceBergen? With great wealth comes great responsibility.
323
@Ockham9 It's a nice statement, but that's all it is: a statement. Until companies start asking their employees to contact their legislators, and start endorsing Democrats (who *all* support universal background checks and ban of assault weapons) this type of 'memo' will make no difference.
10
@Ockham9 Wells Fargo is heavily invested in the murder, I mean gun, industry. Don't expect that morally repugnant bank to do the right thing..
18
... an American abroad...I agree with you wholeheartedly— & where is Zuckerberg❓ how can he possibly justify NOT signing. SHAMEFUL how so many look to the bottom $$$ line and their boards rather than into their hearts and minds 😥
16
Hummm... Google has a grip on public school classrooms throughout America with their suite of software products and Chromebooks. Could they be tone deaf to the importance of keeping their clients safe from gun violence?
50
@Quiet Riot Their clients are advertisers, not users. Users are what they sell, now what they sell to.
2
@Quiet Riot Silicon Valley has more libertarians and other non-mainstream republican-types than lefties. Surprise!
1
“This has been spun by the N.R.A. as we’re trying to repeal the Second Amendment,” Mr. Bergh said. “Nothing is further from the truth.”
WHY NOT? I will NEVER understand what makes the second amendment so sacred! Owning guns has zero place in today’s society...NONE!
Gun manufacturers LOVE mass shootings/slaughters as that is when red states LOOSEN gun laws and blue states do nothing. Living in Hawai’i which has the strictest gun regs of all 50 states is what makes it paradise.
Hawai’ians live in the most culturally diverse community in the USA...Caucasians make up 20% of the population and we don’t call each other by hyphenates. We have zero property lines, and keep our doors unlocked; we actually love our neighbors, and “Live Aloha.”
Across America deer hunting season is a bizarre ritual because driving to a grocery store/meat market is EASY.
We have no reason to buy handguns or weapons of war. The only people who benefit are gun manufacturers. Those of us in the military cannot own guns on bases...only the scattered few military police.
Gun owners! 1.3% own 50% of all guns. Most families don’t own guns as there is a seven times greater chance of dying by your own weapons. Instead the NRA and its congressional lackeys tell you that you NEED a gun to “protect you.” From what exactly--oh I know--it’s to protect your family from marauding hordes of PofC.
I’ve had gun owners tell me they will NEVER go to Hawai’i as “I can’t take my guns!” Good!
Repeal 2A NOW
239
@Nuschler
Given how the Constitution is amended a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is politically impossible unless America fragments into separate nations. Accept that and focus on reasonable gun control measures: limiting the size of magazines, universal background checks and red flag laws.
Politics in this nation is about money.
6
@Nuschler
I love Hawaii and am nauseated by the idea of killing animals. However, the availability of supermarkets is not the point when it comes to hunting. I have known responsible hunters who enjoy the sport and eat the meat of their prey. They are typically careful in their handle of weapons. They are not the problem.
11
And the ethos is to make a clean kill, never leave a wounded animal to suffer even if you have to follow it for miles, never take more than you can use. And they value open, wild spaces as much or more than anyone, as part of the reward is to simply be in unpopulated areas, far away from the target rich environments us city dwellers inhabit, experiencing nature apart from civilization where people kill each other both for personal reasons, and at random. Not many clean killing mass shooters, are there?
On the other hand, Do I wish hunters would just bring back photos of animals that stealth and knowledge allowed them close ups? Would I rather experience those same areas without the unnatural sounds of gunfire? Would it be more rewarding if wild animals in those areas had no learned fear of man? And would it be nice if there were such areas where I would not risk being mistaken for game while hunting blackberries or mushrooms?
For me, a real adventure is to walk in such areas, using my superior intellect to view creatures without revealing my presence. I don’t need venison sausage or a set of antlers over the fireplace to remind me of the experience, I’ll have photos, and I’ll leave the animals there for the next person.
That being said, I agree that if all you own is a hunting rifle, and you only take it out to hunt, I have no issues. And if the government needs to form a militia, what better members than people who are already trained to kill at a distance?
12
This list is more about which companies are not on it. Goes to show that gun manufacturers and the NRA have the big banks and businesses in their pockets -- and by extension, most of our politicians.
45
It continues to amaze me that mass shootings are the focus of whatever debates occur regarding gun law in this country. Why not focus on the daily carnage of gun-related deaths first? Deaths from massacres where guns have been used account for less than 1% of shooting deaths in the US. The other 99% of gun-related deaths typically go unreported.
We have a problem that even bandaids intended to stem mass violence will not begin to address. Simply put, there are more guns in circulation than the entire population of the country. Our elected representatives at every level fear to consider and pass legislation to rein in that outrageous number of weapons and the corresponding wave of daily, unabated violence.
The real problem is the astounding lack of backbone, heart, and intelligence of our elected officials. By failing to act decisively, even as school children are massacred in their classrooms and thousands more fall in the streets, they will never be able to wash the blood from their hands.
82
@Rick Spanier Let your elected officials know you won't vote for them if they do not immediately and publicly support complete universal background checks and a ban of assault, automatic, and semi-automatic weapons.
If everyone does this, we won't have federal laws that permit war weapons in the hands of the public.
3
@Rick Spanier This describes most of corporate America as well as our international trade partners. Now that corporate money calls political shots it's time for them to show responsibility.
4
"The real problem is the astounding lack of backbone, heart, and intelligence of our elected officials."
If even someone like you doesn't understand that the problem is completely elsewhere, namely in the complete corruption of the entire political system owned by companies, there seems to be no hope of reform.
Why don't U.S. Americans understand that donations from companies and organizations have to be banned completely and donations from individuals higher than about 3000 dollars per donor? This is not hard to understand.
9
I don't know anyone who is not concerned about the amount of gun violence in this country. That said, there is the commonsense observation that criminals (by definition) and emotionally unbalanced people do not obey laws. Some of the incidents that have occurred involved people who passed background checks and purchased the weapons legally or took them from others who bought the weapons legally. Corporate America will take whatever position will get them the most customers and revenue so these CEO letters don't impress me. The real conundrum is what to actually do about gun violence and the American public is starkly divided on this issue. Since the root of the issue lies in defining exactly what the scope and meaning of the 2nd Amendment is, since it's the baseline, SCOTUS needs to tell us. Up until now, SCOTUS has other than in specific cases, assiduously avoided this. The pressure needs to be not on Congress or the President, but on SCOTUS to finally do their jobs and tell us specifically what the 2nd Amendment entails. Once we know that, we can go forward.
4
@Mike F. We already know that banning assault weapons is constitutional. We know that restricting high capacity magazines is too. So are background checks. As for criminals not obeying laws - ridiculous. Then why have any laws at all?
5
@Mike F. There's nothing unconstitutional about a universal background check, chemical tracer system of bullets to track murder weapons, ban on weapons of war such as assault weapons.
How many mass shooting murders of 3 and 4 year old students does America need?
3
@jh2 Thanks for your learned legal interpretations Justice jh2, but I think we'd best leave that to SCOTUS.
So what?
Are any of these companies prepared to stop donating to Republican candidates and conservative think-tanks?
Are they prepared to make such a threat explicit and unmistakable?
Are any of these companies prepared to call out the problem of inaction for what it is - a problem of permanent Republican obstruction?
If not, then this is just another blip in an endless series of position papers, press releases and Strongly Worded Letters vanishing into the Abyss of Good Intentions as toothless, meaningless gestures always do.
153
@David Albrecht, the concept of a wave escapes you. Progress is not a pretty straight line going up up up with no blips. It is not easy, especially in a capitalistic profit-only culture like ours, but it gets done.
You use a lot of capitalized words, but this IS an issue that 90% of American citizens feel strongly about. It WILL happen, and is happening, even if it seems frustrating looking back.
Don't be such a cynic! Write to one of these companies congratulating them on their position; they need feedback from citizens. Write to your Congress critters and attach a link to the letter.
Believe me, money talks in America. That's why the NRA has a liplock on the republican party. When actual money businesses start to listen to the public (even though repubs/trump won't), the ship of dollars starts to correct it's course.
Meaningless gestures? Technically, so was the Battle of Lexington, to Britain.
20
@David Albrecht Yep. These are not really good intentions-- just lip service so far-- until the companies put their money where their mouth is. And include public statements in support of universal background checks and ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons?
2
The changes that would result from the House gun safety bills are simple, common sense policies. They do not not threaten “second amendment rights,” as interpreted by those who choose to ignore the amendment’s purpose as a guarantor of a “well regulated militia.”
Let’s take note of those companies who refuse to support these gun safety policies: Apple, Facebook, Google, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, among others. Do they deserve our business? Will their employees be proud of them after the next school shooting?
As the NRA continues to paint gun safety advocates as a threat to gun owners, and these companies are following their lead. By blocking (by action or silence) sensible regulation, they are making it more likely that someday we will have to enact more extensive rules to protect ourselves and our children. It is they who threaten the rights of gun owners.
24
You know there’s something terribly wrong when even Big Business is begging for a change.
203
Now that someone opened fire in a Walmart it’s time to get worried. It was one thing to shoot up churches, schools, and temples, but it’s this is serious. It’s a crises now.
10
@Paul Torcello
If big business was all that anxious for a change, they'd start withholding campaign contributions from the republican senators who refuse to allow any real debate or change to take place. (BTW--that would be ALL republican senators.)
7
@Paul Torcello-I worked at a major corporation that quietly went into lock-down when a disgruntled employee made threats after getting fired. It was not pleasant sitting in the dark wondering when we could exit the building. Moreover, the manager had to move out of his home and be under 24-hour protection. Businesses do understand the costs of gun madness. If it takes Big Business muscle to get McConnell's Senate to pass the sensible gun protection bills the House has already sent to him, so be it.
139
Weapons of mass destruction should not be made available to anyone not in combat. It’s been an absolute tragedy that these types of firearms are so easily accessible by regular civilians. This absurdity must end now!
184
@Dori. I totally agree. Join the military if you want to carry one of those guns.
1
It is foolish to think a murderer will turn in or give up their weapons. The big flaw with gun control is murderers do not obey laws?
I do not carry a gun but if a murderer is shooting at my family I want a gun nut between us shooting back and not die helpless.
I hope store hire armed security guards to shot back.
1
@Bill The faulty logic of saying why have gun control laws when criminals don't obey the laws is equivalent to saying why have laws against robbing banks when criminals won't obey those laws and rob banks anyways.
34
@Bill
Please take a look at other countries with more stringent gun laws. The stats are available for all to see - the risk of death by gun violence is far, far lower in those countries than in the US. Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate for example, and then see if you can continue to argue that more guns = more safety.
4
More like "145 Business Leaders Call on (THE GOP) to Act on Gun Violence.
57
If we can hope to solve the gun violence problem in this country we ~do~ need to solve the mental illness problem, that of the GOP of course.
54
Many strong, confident voices. Sadly, too many silent. Open carry? No background checks? Check the stats America. Me? Blessed to live in Canada.
30
The Second Amendment is archaic; it’s like the country’s founding laws that permitted slavery. Its repeal is long overdue. Of course, the enlightened courage necessary to amend the “right” to own guns out of the Bill of Rights is unfortunately beyond the intelligence and integrity of the politicians in the pay of the NRA. Consequently, many more innocent children and adults will die from gun violence needlessly.
174
@jskinner
You don't even need to repeal the 2nd amendment. You need courts to interpret it the way it was meant to be ready. ie the "well regulated militia" part which the NRA always leaves off.
3
Time for the American public to step up! It's not "the" government, it's our government.
Our communication vehicles could not make protest any easier...
...if hundreds of thousands - or millions - of Americans were to email, text or call their elected officials...the phone lines and websites would be blowing up like there's no tomorrow.
And it's our tomorrow we're trying to safeguard.
It is telling that companies like Google and Facebook did not sign on...perhaps they too need to receive messages from the American public that makes their businesses possible and profitable?
33
@Kelly Grace Smith, it’s abundantly clear to lawmakers that the majority of Americans want them to pass these gun violence prevention laws. The president and Mitch McConnell will not listen and won’t do it.
So corporations have to step in as more influential supporters of these laws. I am all for it!! I hope their incentives are pure, but even if they know they’ll gain public support, it works for me.
13
@Hit-Girl Yes, I keep hearing McConnell saying he won't put any legislation forward until he sees what the President wants...
...seems like they have forgotten that the American people...are their boss.
1
As long as Mitch McConnell is running the Senate, it won't make any difference. He seems to be the crookedest money grubber in Congress just now, & until these corporations give him more money than the NRA and the Russians do, nothing changes. I don't even believe him when he says he would bring legislation up for a vote if President Trump told him he approved and would sign it into law.
47
@Mike Czechowski
Its an easy one for him as he knows Trump will not do it. I'm not decided who does more damage him, or Trump.
14
Can I add my name to the list? As a tiny business (less than 3 employees) I have had to deal with an employee bringing a long knife and an AR15 to the work place just cuz he loved them so much. Seriously. We now have a no weapons policy.
368
When the right company withholds the right amount of campaign contributions, Senate Republicans will support common-sense gun control. Until then, it's the NRA who rules McConnell, et al.
91
Looking at the list of the 145, many of the companies have fewer than 500 employees and a lot are little known. I'd be more impressed if some more big Fortune 500 companies signed on. All of the signers, however, should be thanked and congratulated.
58
Makes sense
The Democratic party is the party of big business and the elite. Just look at Clinton's donations vs. Trump's.
Those types need to disarm you for when the eventual wealth disparity hits the fan.
Anyone can clearly see this.
1
@John Appeals to fear and paranoia say more about the appellant than their perceived audience.
21
Clinton didn’t win.
8
Thanks to Citizens United and your ‘conservative’ pals, I’d call it an ‘inevitable’ wealth disparity.
Anyone but you can clearly see that.
Reread the Grapes of Wrath. Even if you’ve got a gun, you won’t know who to shoot. The poor slob driving the tractor, the big outfit that makes tractors, the guy that owns the farm, the bank that owns that guy, the agribusiness chemical guy, the insurance man, the tariff guy?
13
Silicon Valley likes to think of itself as disruptors and at the forefront of change, so how come Silicon Valley’s “enlightened leaders” have chosen to remain silent on this?
106
@Ximena Castro
$$$
6
As always, money talks in politics. The fears of people already carrying guns causing confrontations in businesses, as a result of this letter, would not be the case if the Senate had acted years ago.
It’s like an employer saying that he’s afraid to hire a non-white person because his white employees will get upset and it will disrupt the work environment. So he uses that argument to keep a white-only workforce. If he had addressed the issue by not discriminating early on and diversifying his staff, it wouldn’t be a concern. He let it get out of hand.
Now, with guns, Republicans owned by the NRA will also have to deal with what they have created in this country. It never had to get to this.
18
I'm surprised at the naivete of believing that an open letter will have any impact on intransigent Republican leaders. Until business leaders withhold their campaign donations from the party that refuses to act on a clear American priority, nothing will change.
459
They wrote a letter. Given that that is not how businessmen normally get what they're after, particularly when dealing with politicians, I see this as mostly optics. Why don't they stop giving money to the politicians opposing their stated desires?
559
That is the consensus among us sane paupers and peasants...They can't keep getting away with this!
8
It is not as if I needed another reason to vote for whoever the Democratic presidential nominee is, but I really hope that Elizabeth Warren is elected. I feel like she’s the only person who is willing to put an end to the fact that corporations own America and the gun lobby owns everything.
121
If corporation are so concerned about our social welfare maybe they should work towards affordable healthcare and stop offering high deductible health insurance which is making Americans more poor. Or better if they want to continue to incite fear into the employee they should hire armed security guards.
5
What does it say about this issue that 145 people who put self interest above all else are willing to sign?
6
Obviously Congress won't listen to the vast majority of America. So, maybe they'll listen to their "owners".
232
not Congress, the Senate
3
Well, if Congress won’t listen to 90 percent of the public, maybe, just maybe, they’ll listen to our corporate overlords.
632
@Steve
I think it unfair to blame all of congress for inaction. The House has passed legislation that Mitch McConnell, and the Senate Republicans , refuse to take up claiming they need a go ahead from Donald Trump. This is a Senate and executive branch problem, and the House is actually trying to do their job.
52
Citizens United made businesses people. Clearly they are more human than actual humans
18
@Steve Welcome to Hong Kong
2
While I am thrilled to see this, I am angry that Congress is not listening to the majority of American citizens who have been demanding and supporting this for years. Our calls for action clearly have less weight than business leaders.
477
@SH
Yes.
While it’s welcome, it’s crazy.
Corporations are more people than the American People??
Money is speech??
I guess if corporations cut off the politicians money trough, we get to see some action?
11
@SH-The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives have sent sensible gun legislation to McConnell's Senate. As he's taken money from the NRA, apparently, his soul has a lot of reasons to let these and the other 200 bills sent over to the Senate--gather dust.
13
not Congress, the Senate
2