It's a curiosity that California, with the most restrictive gun laws in the country, also has some of the most deadly, abusive police departments in the country. Have you noticed that we keep reading about another incident where California cops have killed an unarmed citizen.
More than 600 people in the past six years.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/police-in-californi...
Still waiting to hear what new laws that would have a measurable effect. All I've heard so far are proposals to strip away the rights of those that aren't the problem.
3
All these incidents that is mentioned in this article the person with the gun got that gun illegally. The problem with gun laws they are no good unless they ar enforced. So add new gun laws why would they be enforced when the ones we have now are not?
So enforce the gun laws we have now and if needed then more laws can be needed where the law fails but not if the enforcement of the law fails.
3
I hope that people don't feel so discouraged by our current state of affairs that they don't vote. That is where our power lies, not in taking on the NRA directly but electing officials who are willing to take a stand at home. Many of us are hoping that the disillusioned will engage and that change can truly come.
For my part locally, aside from voting, I very much like to engage the other "side" in face to face discussions. I've had two, yes I know that's not much but it is a start, excellent discussions with Trump voters. I define myself as a liberal but try to recognize the good that all of us posses, even NRA members and Trump voters. These in person chats always end well with a better understanding of the other "side". We talk about guns, about the state of our republic, the good and bad.
I don't like Trump or his appointees, I am saddened by the current political environment but I try to focus on the things that we have in common. Showing people that a liberal lesbian is not something to be afraid of, we don't want to corrupt your children or take away your guns and if Trump were to do something I agree with I would support him in that. These in person interaction give us both better understanding and a better foundation to grow from.
If we each had an opportunity to have a respectful and thoughtful discussions, even if it's two at a time, what a difference we might be able to make. Don't lose hope and VOTE.
1
"Guns for me, but not for thee ". Wayne LaPew, blaming the Secret Service for not allowing Guns at the NRA convention. Irony, much ????
2
Someone needs to dig into the financing of the NRA and how much comes from Russia!
1
Better the Democrats weighed in on 30% of Americans, 100 million, with a zero or negative net worth. This growing underclass, afflicted by disinvestment (declining neighborhoods, substandard schools) and sealed off when the working poor have endured a 0% increase in real income for 60 years could use some attention. Using Parkland with an eye toward the midterms after passing on the carnage at a country music festival and the slaughter of innocents in a small Texas church is worth pondering. "Resonating with the base" is an ugly and discriminatory reason for stirring.
Fatalities as the result of interpersonal violence have been stable or declining for years while taking a back seat to epidemic growth in suicides and drug overdose deaths. They all spring from alienation, hopelessness, and despair while leftist propaganda would have us believe that Democrats aren't the partner and mirror image of Republicans in managing the status quo to the liking of their financial patrons.
Can't repeal the natural right of self-defense, the birthright of all living things and you can't unwind the 13th century Chinese invention of firearms. They have a place in society no less than the rental van used to reap carnage on the streets of Toronto. Tools.
How obvious the mindset that intractable problems come dressed in overalls and look like work. Offering no sound bites, "Let's scapegoat the NRA" is an easy lethargic way out.
1
Hey Clyde, How about you gun haters focus your efforts on the number of opioid OD deaths vs. gun deaths? I appreciate both are tragic, but I think I recall 60,000 OD deaths last year vs. how many gun/school deaths? There are millions of people who own guns that committed no crime every day. How many times do we read about a felon in possession of a gun that kills someone? Maybe we should try enforcing the current laws instead of all the rhetoric. Maybe explain statistics to Americans....Chicago gun deaths? LA? Milwaukee?
just my $.02
https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-deat...
1
Bill -- really simple thing: I don't do opioids.
Opioids are something people do to themselves.
Gun murders are something people do to others.
Why do you find this hard to understand?
A worthy $.02. I agree that it is appalling that we continue to watch the opioid epidemic and can't muster the will and the funds to save those many thousands of worthy lives.
That said, I would submit that it is a false choice, posing the issues as either/or--either save lives of addicts or reduce the number of victims of gun violence. It is really aiming low to presume that solving one problem precludes addressing others.
Thnx for your comment abh. but me and 93 million others didn't do anything illegal today with our guns.....punish all for the crimes of a few? Do you think Russia/China to name 2 will stop sending guns/ammo to the US if the laws are changed to confiscate the legally owned guns?
Gun violence, and the support of the N.R.A. so the most powerful weapons to kill are available for the asking, is not going away unless and until if affects the republican leaders in their 'own flesh'. It is an emotional issue for the gun owners, and a matter of survival for the prostituted republican politicians doing their bidding...to keep their miserable seat. Do we realize that we keep re-electing these non-representatives because wee remain ignorant of our rights to demand they serve our needs, and follow the rule of law in protecting us from a runaway abuse in the provision, and use, of weapons of mass destruction? All republicans, including corrupt Trump, remain in the pocket of the N.R.A., to our chagrin and the unperturbed carnage of our youth. What's tragically 'funny' is that there are no excuses. none.
Well done!
" The District of Columbia v. Heller ruling still looms large today ... [SCOTUS Justice Scalia] offered the belief that, 'like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.' It is 'not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.' ... there aren’t four conservative justices ready to make owning a AR-15 a constitutional right ... Two of the most respected appeals court judges in the country— Frank Easterbrook, a conservative Reagan appointee, and José Cabranes, a Clinton pick—upheld the [Connecticut and Illinois] bans, saying Heller gave legislators room to ban some kinds of weapons ... " So, we as a society can make a decision, and do not have to accept ownership of any particular weapon as Constitutionally sacrosanct, as the NRA would have us believe.
I give up.
I surrender.
The NRA wins; they're right.
The only way to sensible gun policy in America is to pry the guns out of their cold dead hands.
Better every NRA member dies than that one more kindergarten gets shot up, or one more family sends their kid off in a schoolbus and gets them back in a body bag.
Repeal the Second.
1
No gun control legislation that would make a significant difference would withstand Second Amendment scrutiny. For example, banning assault rifles would have little effect because they are used in less than two percent of murders.
No proposed amendment that would repeal the Second Amendment and empower the federal government to impose effective gun control has a chance of ratification. An amendment that prohibited the federal government from regulating guns but empowered states to regulate guns might stand a chance. (Why should Texans care if Californians want to disarm themselves?)
However, there is another options. Several states has flaunted federal laws by legalizing marijuana or by declaring themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants. States could also flaunt federal authority by passing and enforcing restrictive guns laws or outright gun bans that violate the Second Amendment.
1
While a lot of anti-gunners talk about the NRA as though it small group of people in some building somewhere, it is actually 5 million every day citizens. We also know the number of gun owned by every day citizens is about 310 million in the United States. If you take Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, hunting license were given to over 2,250,000. That leaves another 46 states to count. . The anti-gunners attack is a scorched earth goal. It takes guns away. But there are options. Law enforcement has to do their Job. In Colorado authorities were warned about Holmes. Nothing was done, people died. In Boston, the FBI was warned about the danger of the soon to be pressure cooker killers more than once. Nothing was done. People were killed. FBI and local law enforcement were warned about Nikolas Cruz. Nothing was done and people died. The FBI said they, “determined that these protocols were not followed for the information”. They should not get away with just that comment. We need to address mental Illness and coordinate reporting. The Va. Tech killer was able to buy a gun even though had a court order for psychological evaluation. Thirty-two people died. Virginia has closed that gap. They also respond when there are reports of a dangerous person. Recently they went to a person’s house they were warned about and took all the guns away. Things can be done that both side could support but not with car top shouting.
2
FOR more than 80 years, the United States has enforced a tough and effective gun control law that most Americans have never heard of. It’s a 1934 measure called the National Firearms Act.
Leaders of the National Rifle Association rarely talk about the firearms act, and that’s probably because it imposes precisely the kinds of practical — and constitutional — limits on gun ownership, such as registration and background checks, that the N.R.A. regularly insists will lead to the demise of the Second Amendment.
In speeches, publications and a steady stream of fund-raising literature, the N.R.A. rails against gun registration and gun owner databases. In 2008, the organization’s chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, claimed that photographing and fingerprinting gun owners was “the key gun control scheme.”
But the longstanding National Firearms Act not only already mandated the registration of all owners of machine guns and other weapons deemed highly dangerous at the time, it created a national database of those gun owners with their mug shots and fingerprints, and a detailed description of each weapon purchased, including its serial number. Purchasers of “N.F.A. weapons,” as they are known, must pass an F.B.I. background check
Pence at the Dallas NRA meeting says it all.... no guns allowed
1
In the United States of America, the government is foreclosed from materially infringing any fundamental, natural right. That is a core First Principle of this nation.
And that is the real reason that statist efforts to hamstring law-abiding people's natural right to self-defense and the means to animate that right will continue to fail.
1
The "March for our Lives" was pure astroturf and it showed. High school kids didn't organize anything, do a little checking and you'll see it was all set up by publicists based in Los Angeles funded by Bloomberg and his friends.
For a while there, the Parkland kids they were using as props were everywhere. Now we find that since the "march" (according to the WaPo, only 10% were teenaged) the NRA has increased its membership by 500,000 and set records for fundraising. And suddenly we don't see anything about those kids at all.
1
The NRA is soon holding a convention, in Dallas. NO GUNS Allowed.
Irony, MUCH ?????
2
Guns are prohibited only in the forum with VP Pence - decision made by the Secret Service (which by the way, will be carrying firearms). The rest of the NRA convention is gun friendly. Seriously Phyliss, my guess is you already knew that, you just wanted to ignore reality to try and make a point (which you didn't anyways).
1
Only in America......
The problem is that those who do not arm themselves are, when in the public square, at the mercy of the armed, who with no evidence assert that they are rational and in control of their emotions. The unarmed have no rights, perhaps except to flee those who would act as if they were judge, jury and executioner. Decades ago a bill was introduced which would permit a trace radio-active substance added to gun powder. Then, with the appropriate equipment, one would be able to detect the presence of a fire arm, say in a barroom. A similar law should be introduced in the Congress and encourage private enterprise to manufacture detection devices. Such a law does not confiscate any weapon or limit any constitutional right. It simply offers a protection to non-gun owners.
All I can say is that the Montana Governor is dead wrong in his statements. The NRA has signed up over 500,000 new members since Parkland and their fund raising for the first quarter of 2018 is at record levels.
So his statement that the NRA is somehow denigrating responsible gun owners, and that they are leaving the NRA, fly in the face of reality.
All I can say is that the harder Democrats try to take them, the harder we will try to keep them. And the difference is that the people who want to take them will donate $0 to the effort. All they will do is march around and give interviews to try and have 15 minutes of fame.
The people who want to keep them will open the check book and pour out the money. And then dedicate the time too.
Stop and ask yourself, why does the Brady group get less than $10 million per year in contributions, while the NRA gets $150 million from non-industry (manufacturers, etc) members, plus about another $200 million in industry donations?
I can understand why they get industry donations, and the Brady Campaign doesn't, but why are US citizens giving $150 million to the NRA vs $10 million to Brady.
If it is just really 5 million people who support the NRA ($30 per person on average), then how many people financially support the Brady Campaign? At $30 per person, it would only be 333,333 people.
For Dems, this is just a talking point, not something they really care about one way or another.
4
Thank you for finally admitting that gun control is still, deeply at it's core, about keeping black men from having guns.
John, it is about keeping felons from having guns, black, white, yellow, red
Chicago much?
It seems the movement has lost its momentum. The Parkland students and others were very impressive and struck a resounding chord in the fight for sensible gun control, yet their voices have waned in recent weeks, which is what anti gun control advocates want, to wait to the protests to die down and business to resume as usual, without any real incremental change. That is what they're counting on and that is what has always worked for them in the past.
March was the NRA's strongest fundraising month in many years. Gun control groups got an insignificant trickle by comparison.
Along with massacres, we put up with an high rate of "ordinary" shootings, mostly with pistols, which Florida residents are encouraged to carry.
2
While a lot of anti-gunners talk about the NRA as though it small group of people in some building somewhere, it is actually 5 million every day citizens. We also know the number of gun owned by every day citizens is about 310 million in the United States. If you take Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, hunting license were given to over 2,250,000. That leaves another 46 states to count. . The anti-gunners attack is a scorched earth goal. It takes guns away. But there are options. Law enforcement has to do their Job. In Colorado authorities were warned about Holmes. Nothing was done, people died. In Boston, the FBI was warned about the danger of the soon to be pressure cooker killers more than once. Nothing was done. People were killed. FBI and local law enforcement were warned about Nikolas Cruz. Nothing was done and people died. The FBI said they, “determined that these protocols were not followed for the information”. They should not get away with just that comment. We need to address mental Illness and coordinate reporting. The Va. Tech killer was able to buy a gun even though had a court order for psychological evaluation. Thirty-two people died. Virginia has closed that gap. They also respond when there are reports of a dangerous person. Recently they went to a person’s house they were warned about and took all the guns away. Things can be done that both side could support but not with car top shouting.
2
“The anti-gunners attack is a scorched earth goal. It takes guns away.”
This is the core conspiracy theory of the NRA. Like all conspiracy theories no amount of contrary evidence will convince believers. To the NRA indoctrinated, if anyone proposes any form of regulation that impacts gun ownership they are an “anti-gunner” and their goal is to “take guns away.”
Interestingly, the solution proposed here is greater government control over individuals about whom the government is “warned.” So the anti-Big Brother NRA is suggesting that the government take measures against those whom others have targeted even if the targets have as yet done nothing wrong. And apparently it is OK for the government to go to “a person’s house they were warned about and [take] all the guns away.”
Be careful what you wish for Mr. NRA.
"Interestingly, the solution proposed here is greater government control over individuals about whom the government is “warned.”
Look how well that worked for the Parkland shooter ..35-40 visits from local and federal agencies and nothing was done. And now you think more government control is the answer. Sounds like the definition of insanity.....doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
1
With guns one of the big problems is many gun owners believe that the 2nd amendment is the other thing between 'freedom' and "tyranny" and as a result as others have pointed out they believe any gun regulation is tantamount to taking them away (and yes, the NRA promotes that view). These aren't hunters and sportsmen, they are people who really believe they are going to need to 'fight for their freedom' against 'the tyranny of the government', and think not only semi automatic but automatic weapons are the key to this (I think personally they think they are going to fight to bring back the 1950's, that golden age of the far right).
The other big problem is the left, to be honest, where instead of talking about rational gun control they tar all guns the same way, as if guns are the 'demon rum' of this generation. Instead of the rhetoric they should be pushing for things like closing the private sale loophole,penalties for those like the jerkwad in Tennessee who gave guns back to the son who had them taken away (death toll:10), perhaps even regulating the refire and reload capabilities of semi automatics. More importantly, they should be pushing for serious studies of gun violence, the causes and come up with solutions based on facts. The GOP cites "mental health care problems", but if that is true why do they ban studies of gun violence paid for by the federal government? The answer to the extreme right is not the extreme left, it is pragmatic, real world answers.
False equivalency again
1
There's a problem with saying "just go VOTE" as a solution for gun control. In your wildest imagination, can you see a candidate for Congress replying anything but evasively to the question "How will you vote on reasonable gun control legislation?" . . . I don't believe I've even seen this question asked
And while I have enormous respect for the teen-agers who are demonstrating, I don't think they have the financial experience to turn up data on which candidates receive donations from the NRA.
"Do stronger gun laws stand a chance?" In a word, NO.
If the almost daily attacks on innocent civilians, including harmless school children, with military-grade assault weapons doesn't wake this country from its stupor of ignoring the dangers unfettered access to these kinds of weapons brings along with it-- nothing will.
All that, coupled with a narcoleptic Republican Congress, the NRA and other powerful gun lobbys, and folks who believe their 2nd Amendment rights include the ability to gun down people at will, means that it's going to be a tough sell...
Because no one is buying it.
4
The only reason NRA wins is that their members vote. Clinton passed assault weapons ban and he lost house and the senate in the next election. If these young people vote in high numbers not only in this election but in the at least next 10 years of election, then there will be a very good gun control laws. If the young people don't vote, nothing will happen.
@mike
No offense, But I disagree. There is more than one reason why the NRA wins -- and it has more to do with them having deep pockets than anything else.
Another thing. It's not only young people who don't vote, a lot of Americans who sit back waiting for the "perfect" candidate to come along are also to blame.
Between that, them, and the G.O.P.'s all out assault on gerrymandering districts, it's been a rough road for democratic elections .... And then, there's the Russian trolls...
Gun laws can be enacted and the NRA can be defeated if those of us who are against guns GET OUT AND VOTE!! Gerrymandering makes this an uphill battle, but if those of us who want to get rid of or amend the 2nd amendment (which is a majority of Americans) actually get out and vote we can change things.
2
There is no need to get rid of the second. All you need to do is to interpret it as it was originally intended. A "well regulated militia" was intended to take the place of a standing army. It was to be composed of civilians; equipped, trained, and "well regulated" by the various States. Essentially the National Guard. Any thought that it was supposed to be an ad hoc group of civilians acting against tyranny based on their own volition is completely false. Read the "Federalist Papers" # 29 by Hamilton.
Any thought that it was supposed to be an ad hoc group of civilians acting against tyranny based on their own volition is completely false. Read the "Federalist Papers" # 29 by Hamilton.
===================
You couldn't be more wrong. Use of civilian militia to resist an overweaning federal government is a remedy explicitly called out in Federalist Papers #46. That was written by James Madison - you know, the guy who actually wrote the Second Amendment.
Wrong. That is a subsidiary justification for the 2A.
The primary justification is that all people have an inherent right to meaningful self defense; just like freedom of conscience and speech, it is a right that preceded governments, and that any non-tyrannical government must recognize and protect.
But as a gun-grabber, you don't care about the natural law philosophy underlying the Constitution.
Nor do you care about grammar -- the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause.
Nor do you care about word meaning -- everywhere else in the Constitution, "the people" describes an individual, not a collective right.
Nor do you care about logic. If "a well regulated militia" has the impact you think it does, then there would have been absolutely no reason for the 2A in the first place.
If you want some sensible gun control, you've got to have a Congress willing to make changes. Change will only come by voting out of office those politicians on the NRA payroll. If voters aren't willing to do that, then there won't be any change. Seems simple enough.
2
My new rule: every time I spend money on a frivolous pursuit (I keep a list), I donate the same amount to the Everytown PAC.
2
The NRA has five million members according to this article. The US population in 2017 was estimated at about 325 million people. That means the NRA officially (by membership rolls) represents about one and one-half percent of the population.
Why are the other 98.5 percent of us allowing this group to run our country?
In large part, Congress is owned and operated by the NRA. The White House with Trump in office is completely owned and operated by the NRA. Why is Congress and the administration so scared of the NRA that they would ignore their responsibility to listen to, and consider, the opinions of all citizens?
It grieves me greatly to know that my late father gave money to the NRA, but it was at the end of his life and in his then advancing dementia, he gave money to almost every organisation that sent him a begging letter because he thought they were bills he had to pay. That stopped when he handed me his check book. It grieves me to this day that I still receive begging letters from the NRA in my father’s name at my address.
The silent majority of the 1970s has returned. We won’t speak up when an organization officially representing one and one half percent of the population takes over our country by dominating two of the three branches of government.
We always say our children are the future. Let’s hope the young people who have said enough is enough are successful. Let’s send the status-quo politicians home. They have proven they are just NRA puppets.
2
It is unfortunate the last multiple murders in Canada, were accomplished with a rented van. It over complicates the discussion. A larger question, not addressed here, how many lives have guns saved? Three police officers in the last 6 mos were saved by armed citizens. When a firearm is brandished in self defense, it is only discharged one out of 14 incidents. Just the show of force is usually enough. Germany had an elaborate plan to invade Switzerland, Japan wanted to invade the US homeland. Both plans were abandoned because of the large number of guns in the hands of citizens. The cost would have been too great. Should the Second Amendment be changed? Maybe, but the first Amendment needs to be addressed as well. Responsibility was always assumed when the First Amendment was written. It was never anticipated that a high school student could someday have a bully pulpit reaching millions of people and accuse citizens, NRA members, of being terrorists. I didn't own a gun until midway through Obamas second term, and I didn't think about the Second Amendment. Now, I have been background checked 4 times, once for each of my weapons, severely background checked for my concealed carry permit, have joined the NRA, and soon will have to submit to background checks to buy ammo. That is harassment, period, not to mention expensive. What I would ask in return. From this day forward, you must pay for a background check each time you rent a car, and again when you buy fuel. It's only fair.
2
Since your right to keep & bear arms overlaps with my right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, we'll always have to draw the line on what weapons are OK for the well-regulated militia. An assault rifle is well beyond what is needed for self defense and unjustly intrudes on the right to life.
Further, those not owning guns are paying higher taxes for security in more schools and police, meaning those not owning guns are paying a subsidy to those who do. This isn't widely understood and supports the concept of gun owners insurance, with the premium rising based on the risk to society of the type of gun owned.
The SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal to the Maryland assault rifle ban in November 2017. Even Justice Scalia argued the government has the right to regulate guns, citing the ban on sawed-off shotguns in prior litigation, in the DC v. Heller decision.
Once the radicalized Republicans are gone from Congress, this will get a lot easier, as the vast majority of NRA contributions go to Republicans. The overwhelming majority of people support stronger background checks and bans on bump stocks. Over time, we can move the dial back towards a national AR ban and buyback.
1
Why don't you ban hands and feet. They kill more people each year than rifles of any kind. (FBI UCR reports).
1
Hillary Clinton lost the last election on this issue, in that she was completely out of touch with American values. And, as far as liberal media believed she would win, they were equally out of touch.
3
You completely forget the fact that Clinton won by 3 million votes and you ignore the ability of Russian propaganda to influence uninformed voters.
2
She won a game no one was playing.
Wow! I must have missed the part where the popular vote means anything....And as to you comment about uninformed voters all I can say is good grief.
2
"The idea of requiring insurance for guns surfaced 25 years ago, in an Alabama Law Review article about the Second Amendment by Nelson Lund, a law professor at George ..." I had to go and google on the internet to find this source. Gun ownership could be included for any risk factors that are used for insurance.
If you have speeding tickets your car insurance goes up. If you have a serious health problem it impacts health and life insurance costs. If you live in a flood plain your house insurance costs could be higher. We could increase insurance costs of gun ownership for car, health, life and home insurance. Also fines just like if you don't keep your car insurance current.
The USA insurance business could easily handle the change making gun ownership impacting high insurance costs. These costs would make it hard for most average people to impulsively buy guns. Many mentally ill people who buy guns often don't have significant records that stop their gun purchase. Mandatory insurance might be a bigger deterrent that a background check. Eventually regulating guns like we do cars overall for both registration and insurance.
In answer to your question in the article, no, I don't think stronger gun laws stand a chance now. What I do think might work are mandatory insurance laws for guns like we have for cars. That gun owners would have higher insurance premiums for their car, house, health or home which would make it prohibitively expensive for most people.
10
Liability insurance doesn't cover intentional crimes like homicide, it's for accidents. Try intentionally killing someone by running them over in your car and you will find your auto insurance canceled and no payout to victims. Ask your agent or read your policy. Requirements of insurance for gun owners is a canard
3
Absolutely zero chance the SCOTUS would deem an insurance requirement to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights as Constitutional.
1
It's amusing and sad to see the incredible knee-jerk responses of Campesino and R E Thornton: there's NOTHING that hits the nerve of a gun-rights advocate so fast as an insurance requirement!
Insurance under strict liability is common. Often it is called "being bonded." All sorts of people are insured this way; I was insured to carry a gun as a bank courier.
Also, another fact -- drunk driving is a felony itself; yet every state insurance system requires insurance to pay in drunk driving injury cases, ditto reckless driving. And in many states the insurance will still pay even if you are committing an intentional crime. The only part of this where Campesino is clearly correct is that yes, your insurance will be cancelled and you will not find further insurance at anything other than astronomical cost.
I don't know what the Supreme Court would rule, but why is RE Thornton so scared of finding out?
1
Gun control is a slippery slope. First they made it very difficult to buy Fully Automatic Weapons effectively taking them away from the American People.... years later they made it more difficult for Americans to buy Fully Automatic Weapons by stopping importation & production for Civilian usage. This limited the amount of "Machine Guns" that were left which caused the price to skyrocket allowing only the wealthy to own them.
"Handgun Control inc" well they also tried BANNING ALL HANDGUNS. The American People Said No!!!
It's never enough. Now they want all Semi-Automatic Weapons. Slippery Slope A Yeah it Exists
.
4
You hallucinate. You cannot present any factual evidence that a slippery slope exists. In fact you cannot present any evidence that a slope exists at all. You might as well argue that a 15 mph speed limit in a school zone is a slippery slope attempt to seize your car.
6
And who cares but gun fetishists? This isn't the Wild West anymore. No one "needs" more than a hand gun for self defense. And Machine guns?! Who needs a machine gun unless you're playing mobster in the movies? Being so unwilling to pass any controls on these weapons of war even after children are mowed down is obscene, unchristian, and just plain creepy. And it's always men who freak out the most about gun control which is highly revealing.
Read the news. Liberals want confiscation. They said so many times.
1
While in DC the day before March for Our Lives, I met a conservative woman from Iowa. She seemed of reasonable intelligence at the beginning of our conversation. She was college educated and probably in her early 50’s.
Then she proceeded to explain what she feared about the breaking of the Second Amendment, her understanding of the push for new gun laws, that ALL guns would be taken away from gun owners.
She was serious.
We live in Wisconsin, Iowa’s neighbor. My husband, a teacher, is an avid hunter. I grew up with a family full of hunters. My brother hunts every chance he gets. He is a police officer.
Does the NRA really preach that all guns are to be taken away? Is this what Wayne LaPierre gets paid his $5 million per year for? Trying to convince his followers and others that somehow a militia in this country is going to break into homes and conviscate every single gun?
I was appalled at this ignorance, but speechless and did not even comment back to this Iowa woman.
If this is the case, the Parkland kids have their hands full more than ever. They don’t want all guns taken away. They want common sense laws - no more, no less. That’s all Brady wanted, Newtown parents wanted.
The power of the NRA is indeed incredible, manipulative of minds.
And the bottom line is, Wayne LaPierre lives a very nice wealthy life while innocent kids and many others are needlessly murdered because of money and brainwashing.
35
It is not the NRA's fault that government agencies do not enforce the laws we have. In nearly every case a dangerous person telegraphed their mental disorders through actions that should have been acted upon.
1
"It is not the NRA's fault that government agencies do not enforce the laws we have."....Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason government agencies don't enforce the laws we have is because the laws we have cannot be effectively enforced? In fact isn't that a fact by definition?
I would like to see all guns taken away. I recognize that this can't happen soon, certainly not while the second amendment stands. So in the meantime,
I favor the same restrictions on gun owners that are favored by an overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens. If the NRA can be absolutist and otherwise extreme, so can I. But I can be reasonable. Can they?
1
Let's face it--the NRA, with their millions to dole out for and against the appropriate candidates, and this Administration want to keep us fearful and at each other's throats. They have no interest in preventing average citizens from shooting each other--each report of gun violence ratchets up the fear factor. We are made to be afraid of waves of anonymous criminals crossing our borders and of foreign-born terrorists and of each other. It's all good for business, for the gun manufacturers and for the military-industrial machine.
6
The NRA says the problem is mental illness. Isn't an obsession with guns as power, as toys, as a symbol of destruction a form of mental illness? It is an overpowering obsession that dismisses the slaughter of hundreds, including children.
14
Of course it's mental illness--people aren't called 'gun nuts' because they like pecans! Seriously, though, we need to be careful not to stigmatize the mentally ill further by pretending that obsession with guns in our society can somehow be cured merely by keeping guns away from people who have previously been identified as 'mentally ill'.
As you astutely point out, obsession with guns can be overpowering. It is this fetishism that defines mental illness promoted by guns: gun lunacy.
Yes, JD, claiming the opposition has "mental illness" is used to disenfranchise the political opposition in third world dictatorships worldwide.
1
Nothing new in this article. Seems like it could be written after every mass killing with guns. Change will only come when money is taken out of politics and current politicians are voted out of office.
15
When the gun-control movement succeeds in having more restrictive laws passed, banns certain types of weapons, creates universal registration, mandates licensing, testing and insurance for gun owners and then discovers that criminals will still use guns to kill people, what then? Most legal gun owners know where the movement wants this to lead, regardless of their lies.
When all firearms are then confiscated from the American subjects, and criminals still use guns to commit crimes and kill, what then?
8
"Most legal gun owners know where the movement wants this to lead, regardless of their lies."....The real question is who is the liar?
2
Then the US will be a normal country with a normal crime rate instead of an asylum run by the inmates. Check out the homicide rates in any country with strict gun laws: a fraction of the US rate (I was going to post a link but why should I bother? Do your own research). Incidentally, I was recently teaching a college class in Israel which has very strict gun laws despite being a country in perpetual warfare - and subsequently, with low crime rate. One of the students mentioned the Second Amendment and had to explain to the rest what it was. The entire classroom dissolved in laughter.
1
I am tired of hearing that statement, that if you restrict guns only criminals will have them, that it will come down to banning all guns, and so forth. You can't ban all guns, you can restrict what types people can own, you can require registration and background checks on those allowed, but you cannot ban them, the 2nd amendment is clear on that, and to amend that requires both houses of congress by I believe 2/3rds then 3/5 of the states have to ratify it, it isn't happening.
The problem with the idea that only criminals will have guns leaves out how criminals get guns and where they come from. The guns criminals used are not being smuggled into the US from overseas, the vast majority of guns criminals use have been bought legally (usually in states with lax guns laws like Virginia and Alabama and the like), and they end up in the black market because there are few controls in those states and no penalties for the legal buyer to sell them into the black market. If we had laws requiring stolen or lost guns be reported to the police, if we got rid of the private sale loophole for gun sales, the black market would lose a significant source of its guns, and the price to buy one would soar (supply/demand).
not to mention, of course,that the guns used in mass shootings are usually bought legally, they weren't bought by criminals, virginia tech, las vegas, parkhurst, tennessee , columbine, aurora, all bought legally and used by the person who bought them.
7
Over the weekend, my brother and I had a short conversation about guns. It started with the fact that a lot of people own illegal guns, but quickly turned to law abiding citizens who do own guns. My brother and I both have friends who own guns and have them in locked boxes. These people are responsible gun owners. But, the problem is we are not talking about responsible gun owners. We are talking about how people with questionable backgrounds can obtain an AR-15. They can plan assaults, even vocalize their intent as in the case of Nikolas Cruz, and still retain their guns. Something is desperately wrong with this picture. In addition to tragic mass shootings, politicians have been shot and assassinated. Additionally, the video states that there is a one in five chance that I or one of my family members will be shot and the article states more people in the US have died by guns than all the casualties of war. We are in a place of desperation. The NRA is too strong, too powerful and holding onto principles from a different era. They have enough money to buy politicians and lobbyists which is disgraceful. I question their conscience every time there is a mass shooting. I was a NYC Public School Assistant Principal of a K-8 school, I was in charge of school safety and doing lock down drills with kindergartners. Sad! The stranger danger game! And, on a final note, my Godson's Manhattan HS has a cafeteria made of bullet proof glass! Imagine eating lunch in a such a bubble.
5
A few facts worth noting.
First, the major source of gun deaths in the US is suicide (about 2/3 of all gun deaths.) But the suicide rate in the US is right in the middle of all developed countries and well below the rate in some countries with very low gun ownership rates. At least in comparison with other countries there is no support for the argument that more guns = more suicides.
Second, while mass murders and assault rifles get all the attention, they account for a tiny fraction of all gun deaths. Eliminating all mass gun murders would barely make a dent in our homicide rate - and may not change it all if mass murderers switch to vehicles as the Toronto killer did. If you want to be cynical you could note that Sandy Hook, Parkland, et al involved white middle class victims, while we pretty much ignore the bigger problem - the day-to-day homicides in the black community.
And finally, an opinion. We will only make progress on this issue if both sides compromise. I would suggest that such a compromise would involve acknowledging the right of law abiding citizens to own guns, while putting in place systems to make it difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain guns.
7
"Second, while mass murders and assault rifles get all the attention, they account for a tiny fraction of all gun deaths.".....Are you trying to suggest that the people killed in recent mass slaughters are not really dead? Or do you simply mean that the few hundred people killed every year by assault rifles do not really matter?.....Really dumb argument.
1
There are systems in place to discern the dangerous among us. The problem is they are ignored.
The grabbers ask us to compromise but have nothing to offer but what we already have.
3
I agree compromise needs to be made but I don't think what you are suggesting represents an even one. I believe military weapons need to be removed from purchasing. They have been used over and over again in mass killings. If people want to play with them allow them to rent the guns at a shooting range that is licensed/insured and where guns are guaranteed to be locked up. Make someone responsible. Please.
I’ve done some musket target shooting with a former NRA member. Let’s just say, if a would be assasin was using a musket (weapon of choice when the 2nd Amendment was written) in a business, mall or school attack he would get one shot off before being stopped. The writer’s of the 2nd Amendment could no more conceive of our weapons of mass destruction(semi - automatic weapons) than a cell phone. Nor could they conceive of an army that could literally destroy the planet with nuclear bombs.
Gov. Bullock is right. My musket shooting former NRA member discontinued his membership because the organization he had supported is now “denigrating a whole lot of responsible gun owners.”
16
The Continental Congress was aware of the Girandola; an early model semi automatic rifle. It was considering purchasing one but decided that it was too expensive and decided against it. So yes, they were aware that there were firearms more technologically advanced than the musket and pistol.
2
Rev Wayne fake comment. Not truthful.
Our founding fathers also included grenades, howitzers, motors, and cannons among the "arms" that were protected by the 2A, and allowed to be owned by citizens. It wasn't just "muskets".
All these were legal to own until the passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act (which was put in place by Democrats, with a Democrat Supreme Court, who upheld the Constitutionality of it).
So for 158 years, weapons of mass destruction were completely legal to own by our citizenry. These were weapons that could level a building, and kill everyone in it.
You didn't see workers in 1918 blowing up factories with 42 pound exploding cannonballs because they were disgruntled. You didn't have citizens throwing grenades into a Times Square crowd in New York in 1930.
This is because we threw crazy people in an institution. When you empty the institutions and turn the crazy people loose on society, this is what you get. And this is exactly what the Democrats started doing in the late 1950's.
What people like you are saying is that is more important for crazy people to be turned loose on society, than it is for law-abiding citizens to be able to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights.
You are just as offensive as the politicians who place the rights of non-US citizens in higher regard than the rights of US citizens.
1
While I share your disdain for the NRA, restricting the 2nd amendment to what was available in the 18th century makes no sense. Under your logic, First Amendment protections for the press would be limited to items printed without using electricity. No computers, and certainly no freedom of the press for radio, TV, or the internet.
1
You are using the wrong word in your headline. It should not be stronger but more common sense gun laws.
Trying to outlaw all guns in the Washington DC or on the other side letting minors under the age of 21 buy assault weapons are examples of common sense lessening of restrictions or adding restrictions not stronger laws.
Common sense regulation along with legality, responsibility and non promotion of the gun is the cure just like it was with other vices/dangerous objects like cig. smoking, drunk driving etc. etc.
3
to Paul, we teach 18 yr. olds to shoot and kill every day in the armed forces.....are they not to be trusted either? Maybe teach gun safety in schools, they obviously don't get it at home from all.....only hate filled rants from that population
2
Thank you for your reply Bill. Good people (not the extreme left or right) ie moderate gun owners and non gun owners can agree on something re this. I personally think promoting gun safety in schools is promoting guns, ie a violation of the non promotion clause in the cure but a compromise could be reached on it.
The issue is we have 100k+ Americans killing themselves and each other and/or ending up in hospitals with serious wounds year after year, an aberration re our peer countries and a perversion of the second amendment, exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers envisioned.
1
Thnx Paul. Rational exchange we had., but we are small voices
2
It is probably true that, "Not all gun owners oppose every form of regulation." However, most will continue to oppose any form of regulation that is not clearly defined.
For one example, Parkland students wail for an "assault weapons ban," but no one can or will clearly define "assault weapon," or provide specifics of what happens to current owners of weapons that might fit that definition. Do they intend one be a law-abiding gun owner one day and a criminal the next? Do they intend for the government to seize non-confirming weapons? Pay for them? How much? Cost determined by whom?
Specifically, repeat specifically what actions are required to implement "universal background checks?" How will such a system work for the mom who wants to give her 16-year old son a rifle, the dad who wants to give his 18-year old college-bound daughter a handgun or the near impoverished widow seeking to sell her late husband's guns to pay the rent?
Control advocates will, hopefully, have zero success unless and until they are able to present SPECIFIC detailed proposals and define the logic behind them.
3
You want 18 year olds to take handguns to college? Well there's one activity that should be banned.
6
"the dad who wants to give his 18-year old college-bound daughter a handgun"....Talk about insanity. More than 50% of college students admit to binge drinking. Just what we need; a bunch of armed college binge drinkers.
5
Margaret, but its OK to teach them to kill people to protect your freedom? same 18 yr olds. I trust them so long as they have the proper training in their use.
1
NRA convention in Dallas Friday will be gun free when when VP Mike Pence goes to speak... Texas had open carry laws...Hypocrisy? Ok to arm teachers and other school personnel? What about my rights as a 2nd amendment advocate here Texas, NRA?
22
Disingenuous much? The Secret Service blocked the ability to carry firearms around the VP, not the NRA. The rest of the NRA convention is completely legal to carry a firearm in.
4
The NRA has no choice over that - it's a Secret Service requirement.
2
It may be called hypocrisy except from what so many Trump/Pence haters out there it makes sense to not allow guns. But then, the haters are also gun haters but that would stop them from using a gun to eliminate one or both if they they could get close to either. Therefore no guns.
Arming teachers and other school personnel would be only those who chooses to be armed and can qualify.
As far as your 2nd amendment being violated it is violated every day. There are so many places that one cannot carry a gun open or concealed. Try a bank for instance.
1
Get to the polls and #VoteThemOut. Stop the killing.
32
se comment on gun bans where criminals will still have theirs.
vote for folks who will enforce CURRENT gun laws.
Title of this "article" shoud read "Can Democrats Steal your 2nd Fundamental Right of being an American?" We know liberal media outlets have already been SOLD to the Marxist that runs the Democratic party (DNC). Cant even make this up folks. So should we be surprised that the party of JFK is run by the same commies that he challenged publicly and that these commies want to steal your
Actual Rights. Not the Rights they say you should have (socialized medicine,
Welfare, right to unionize, cross borders, vote after felonies, etc). But the one's that make America different, free, and capitalist.
1
Thank you for shedding some light on the problem - propaganda by the gun lobby (and who knows where else? Russia?)) that has no basis in reality, but is readily believed by people who are angered and emotionally stirred up because "they" are coming to take their guns away.
11
Yes, Russia, it turns out, is propping up the NRA and roiling its members, to help Trumpistos win elections. Meanwhile our children are getting slaughtered in their schools. I do not understand people who think it's okay to shoot little children at all, much less with the kind of weapon that makes exit wounds so big that little children get dismembered from them.
8
The NRA disgusts me. I'll watch the video and this article is a good overview. But the NRA is also a massive marketing arm of bullet manufacturers: they have consumables to sell and they need to ensure there's a market for them!
The NRA membership represents a mere 2% of the voting age population in the United States! Please, PLEASE vote their representation OUT this November!
34
The essential element for clear thinking is the ability to describe your opponents argument in a way they would find both accurate and fair.
I'm waiting for NYT to do honest reporting on the NRA and the arguments underlying the Second Amendment.
Given the NYT's record so far, I'm betting I will wait a very long time indeed.
10
When your opponent is completely irrational, your criterion is impossible to meet. And please tell me how rational it is to want to shower the country in more and more guns, as more and more of our citizens get murdered with them.
10
If you want to know what a "well regulated militia" really means read the Federalist Papers # 29 by Hamilton. Of course maybe you prefer to continue with your own opinion.
1
Per FBI statistics deaths by firearm have been dropping while the number guns owned has risen.
The real barrier to gun control is basically the same as the barrier to affordable medication, universal healthcare, climate change action, a living wage, economic fairness, and a host of other essentials kept out of reach of the general population -- the power of the rich over government.
Admittedly, the NRA' profile of corruption is somewhat different from the others; in that it adds large-scale indoctrination of voting blocs to the money factor. But the basics are still the same.
Any solution requires deeper political and economic reforms -- that loose the tranglehold of the rich on government. Otherwise we're just banging our heads against a brick wall.
28
Social media (right OR wrong) will be the engine that will turn this ship.
StudentsMarch.org will conduct Rally4Reform at Dallas City Hall on 5/5/18.
The NRA's annual convention (5/3-5/6) will be at the Dallas Convention Center, steps from City Hall. Thousands of people in favor of common sense gun reform will attend.
The students will be the face and voice for StudentsMarch.org. And there are already many $$$ supporters.
There will also be a Student Organizing Summit, held at Gilley's, also steps from the NRA convention. The summit will include nationally known speakers to educate and inform this next generation of civic minded young people.
They understand that the only way to get rid of the obscene NRA influence is to vote people into office who won't take a dime from them.
This is only the beginning.
No more dead children.
21
and no guns allowed at the convention.... hypocrisy knows no bounds with these people
When overwhelming majorities of American (80-90%) support waiting periods and universal background checks, there is NO excuse for not enacting these NOW. Till then we are not a democracy.
22
"Confiscation, she said, was never on the agenda."
A flat-out lie.
Before we were robbed several time in the late 1970s, and before she bought her first gun, my mother was a member of HCI, and I clearly recall their literature, which we kept around out house, advocating the goal of complete elimination of handguns.
As late as August of 1993, Sarah Brady is quoted in the NYT as stating that the proposed Brady Bill was a "first step" toward much more drastic measures.
And Mr. LaPierre's "jackbooted thugs" comment was not related to the "assault weapons" ban, but to the unprovoked and murderous assaults of Federal agents on families at Ruby Ridge and at Waco, in which innocent people were murdered.
This sort of misrepresentation is why the NRA and its members, and millions of others in the US, do not, can not, and will not trust the advocates of gun control, regardless of what their personal beliefs may be about the benefits of specific legislation.
11
Eric, the NRA and the Second Amendment is about money and not your safety. Instead of following the preaching of draft dodging Wayne LePierre, you should follow a more wise person who said "He who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword."
1
Mr. Pisces,
I do not like Mr. LaPierre, and his military record is as relevant as those of Bill Clinton, GW Bush, or Donald Trump.
The Second Amendment is most certainly not about money. Of all the arguments advanced regarding its passage, pro and con, by the Founders, none related to money.
Are you suggesting that I live by the sword?
If so, how do you believe that I wield it to earn my living?
2
The NRA owns the Republican party and a good majority of the Dems so I see zero chance of any meaningful, common sense gun policies.
Hypocrisy of the day award goes to the NRA. For their upcomming national convention which Trump will be speaking at they have BANNED all guns from the premise. Seems their credo that more guns keep you safer only applies elsewhere and not in their house.
16
Americans took their Second Amendment and long ago transformed it from legal boilerplate to a deeply cherished creed. Just as they tend to do with Christianity and its teachings that the Second Amendment has supplanted, they completely miss the true and simple intentions of the Second Amendment and deliberately misinterpret them to mean an entitlement to own arsenals and to use them offensively against other humans.
20
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Ok.
Now. Just how steep have all those steps to the top of Capitol Hill and the passage of said ban gotten now?
Gulp.
Ok.
How about offering free tickets to the World Series to all fathers and/or mothers and their children so all can bond with their kids while watching our national past time OR a free pass to all sons and daughters and their mothers to the four year college of their choice?
Ok. Throw in the same for the moms and dads.
Ok.
Now, since each parent will be missing work [if they're lucky in Trump World] give each her/his regular weekly salary plus a pass to get out of work free for one years [provided they earn straight A grades in their child's school and their children at least match the high school grades of their parents.
NB Parents can help their children IN THE CLASSROOM ONLY [under teacher supervision]
Reward for parents: Free bullhorns.
For Kids: a happier life with higher performing children not needing a free college pass as they will qualify for any university they wish to enter.
There will ALWAYS be a battle about gun control. One would think, even before Parkland, that the Vegas shootings that injured 500+ people might have spurred the argument...it lasted about a week. Even Sandy Hook didn't shake the political hacks to do anything, despite the majority of Americans opting for National Registries, interagency tracking, etc. The police in any state can obtain ownership information and addresses on every car owner. We have to pay insurance by law and be licensed to drive. Cars, driven by people, kill a lot of Americans...but guns, carried by people, kill even more. Why can't we regulate weapons? They do not contribute to our daily lives, we don't need them to get to work to make money to survive or protect us from the environment as we travel from one place to another. Guns are an OPTION, not a necessity, yet we are told repeatedly by a lobby group representing a small fraction of weapon manufacturers that we cannot in any way restrict their profits, even at the expense of human life. My one hope is that the Parkland kids don't lose their momentum or energy, and carry their energy on this issue into adulthood. I also want to echo the only other comment here at this time: VOTE! And don't ignore the primaries that are already open in many states. Those who aspire to local and state offices often follow a path into our national scene.
14
Not until liberals stop espousing ignorance or outright lying. Her are the facts. There is no such thing as an "assault weapon." If you call for a ban on "assault weapons," you are calling for a ban on all semi-automatics, which is a de facto ban on all guns, as the remainder are not particularly useful for defense. Not a single non-draconian solution has EVER been put forth by the left that would could even have a chance of working.
4
The claim that "a ban on all semi-automatics, which is a de facto ban on all guns, as the remainder are not particularly useful for defense" ... is prima-face ridiculous.
Yes, as long as the laws to do "infringe" upon our rights to keep and bear arms. The second amendment is sacred. Without it, we have no country, we have no freedom of speech, we have nothing.
4
Really, Steve? You need to own a gun to have free speech and freedom of religion? PLEASE read the entire constitution and amendments thereto, and ruminate on them. We have subverted the Second Amendment through SCOTUS to mean something other than what it was intended. Some would say it needed that to apply to a modern era. One might say now that we also need to revisit the meaning considering the number of OUR people who are being killed. We don't need to fear terrorists killing us. We are doing a pretty good job of it ourselves.
6
Steve, the second amendment is not sacred. It was conceived by man to deal with man made problems. The second amendment did not come from any holy entity.
Your freedom isn't controlled or safeguarded by the second amendment. Your freedom is controlled by money in this country.
6
The United States has the world’s most powerful military, and you think you’re defending it (or yourself from it) with your gun?
For all the fear of "Others," we've been killing ourselves at an alarming rate. 1.6 million killed by guns since 1968--more than all our war casualties (and this doesn't count the injuries and trauma). States with stricter gun laws have a much lower rates of firearm violence than states without.
Now is the time to break the NRA's hammerlock on our legislative bodies. Sensible gun owners must be brave enough to follow the example of high school students and work for legislation that saves lives.
Gun owners' (stoked by the NRA) fear of someone coming in through their window at night must cede to the reality of shootings in schools, movie theaters, churches, concerts, homes and on the streets.
5
What are the actual monetary costs of having guns in our society? Costs for first responders, loss of life, injury, property damage, psychological issues, administration of regulations, and illegal possession of guns are some of the costs. These costs should be the responsibility of the people who own and the companies that produce the guns.
At a minimum, if you own a gun you should have liability insurance to cover the potential harm that can come from the gun. You should also be responsible to pay a share of the societal costs for gun ownership. You have the right to own a gun, but not the right to have the non-gun owners pay the costs.
8
Good luck getting those Chicago gang bangers to insurance, lol.
There is a deep issue in the gun control controversy. Some people of color feel empowered with guns and the white feel threatened without guns. NRA makes money on racial tensions while advertising constitutional rights.
1
I have never opened a NYT comment section with only one comment in it. It could be a technology glitch but it also could be we are exhausted by the feeling of powerlessness over sensible (or any) kind of gun control. Perhaps this is the same feeling of powerlessness that lead to Trump's election. Many voters in that election stayed home. Many came out to vote for a man who promised to shake our political system by the roots (which he does but only to serve himself). So here we are powerless again. The Republican establishment, the Democratic establishment, the newly appointed donor class, and the new Trump establishment have all failed to address America's fundamental problems. Vote people. It is a far more important right then carrying a gun.
4
There are roughly 36,000 gun deaths annually.
22,000 are suicides, which only takes 1 round so a semi-automatic ban and an AWB will have no effect on that.
The other 14,000 are homicides & accidental deaths. These include robberies, gang wars, DV, & other crimes of rage.
Roughly 300 are "mass shootings", once defined as 4 deaths or more, now defined as 4 shot with at least one death. Deaths by rifles (incl AR-15s) are roughly the same number. So, while mass shootings seem mostly to hit White Middle Class people minding their business, they are less than 1% of all gun deaths.
Reducing gun deaths is often conflated with reducing car deaths, but both are a study in statistics & effectiveness. Car deaths have been reduced drastically over the last 50 years by focusing on root causes, rather than the extreme edges. True, the Parkland murders have energized the Gun Control movement enough to finally crack the NRA's inane "slippery slope" analogy (they used to be FOR background checks, ironically). But are AR-15 type weapons being banned going to do more good than ensuring that men like Nikolas Cruz & Travis Reinking can't get their hands on them?
NYC has reduced its annual homicides from about 2450 in 1990 to under 300 in 2017, roughly the same number as annual mass shooting deaths. 8x as many lives are saved each year than die in mass shootings. NYC is quietly THE success story in reducing gun violence. WHO can have guns has proven more effective than WHAT they have.
5
what is this article - news or opinion? actually this is an article with a premise of an opinion being established fact. the premise of this article is that 'gun control' is a good thing for the country. There is no specifics on what 'stronger gun laws' mean. further there is no evidence that it will lead to better lives for Americans. Granted that we have more 'mass shootings' than many other countries due to prevalence of guns in our country. But they always happen in disarmed schools, bars and parks. Has your government stopped disarming people? Further why do we want to reduce mass 'shootings' and make mass 'murder' more common? Something to think about before you read this article.
2
The US will enact some approximation of Australian gun control ... eventually. The question is just how long, and how many more murders, that will be.
Sadly, my guess is 20 to 30 years: the time it will take for today's twenty-something and under to dominate the electorate.
7
Sure they do get congress to quickly pass the president's proposal without any changes. He would sign it immediately, but of course Dems won't ever do that. They can easily vote as a block to stop improvements, but not for this.
Are you actually blaming the Democrats? Trump has a AAA rating from the NRA. Look up which politicians received donations from the NRA.
11
Gun Control OR Dead Children. CHOOSE. And VOTE.
49
Also imperative is to encourage others who share your views to make sure that they are registered (and know their polling place, if voting in person), and VOTE — with extra effort shown to young Americans who will be eligible to vote for the first time. The coming elections may prove to be THE most consequential since the formation of the Republic.
For as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well Doctor what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic," replied the Doctor, "If you can keep it.”
(From the notes of Dr. James McHenry, a Maryland delegate to the Convention, first published in "The American Historical Review," vol. 11, 1906, p. 618.)
5
Japan puts gun offenders in jail for 7 years no parole. They have almost no gun murders.
Chicago has 4000 kids shot per year. Headline:Ill. House’s Black Caucus stalls bill targeting repeat gun offenders.
Note the word REPEAT
That is the difference between us.
1
No Phyliss that is not the choice. Legality, common sense regulation, responsibility and non promotion of the gun is the answer if we want to drastically lower our gun death total just like we did with cig. smoking and drunk driving.
Gun control or arming all people are the knee jerk reactions from the left and right that do not get us anyplace.
1