A well-known, conservative commentator wrote that public shootings, such as the Las Vegas massacre, are “the price of freedom,” implying that gun control—intended to reduce deaths—also subtracts from American liberties. I am not opposed to this framing, other than to append a concluding question: is that a price worth paying? The commentator, of course, explains away the fact that the assault rifles used in Las Vegas were purchased legally because, when it comes to gun regulation, a massacre is somehow tantamount to an act of freedom (while taking a knee during the national anthem is not to be tolerated). And despite the fact that our citizens are 1000x more likely to die from an American’s bullet than to be killed by a foreign-born terrorist, this ideologically rigid breed of conservatives keep plugging along with their heads in the sand. It’s about time Americans remember that we also have the right to interpret freely and demand reform, and THAT is the true price of freedom!
1
The Democrats had control of the White House, The Senate, and the House of Representatives in 2009 and 2010. They passed Obamacare without Republican support. Debate was clearly besides the point.
The Democrats didn't pass any gun control legislation while they controlled both branches of Government during those two years, even though the murder rate back then was slightly higher than it is today.
Perhaps one might ask oneself, why didn't it happen?
As a matter of fact, "bump stocks" were approved for sale to the general public by the Obama era BATFE.
One might ask oneself the same question about that.
The Democrats didn't pass any gun control legislation while they controlled both branches of Government during those two years, even though the murder rate back then was slightly higher than it is today.
Perhaps one might ask oneself, why didn't it happen?
As a matter of fact, "bump stocks" were approved for sale to the general public by the Obama era BATFE.
One might ask oneself the same question about that.
1
Continued:
Is the EB sincerely concerned with the violence against the sanctity of human life visited by a lone psychopath on innocent people?
Let's ask the 664,435 human beings cut to pieces, their body parts sold to the highest bidder, in the United States over the last year. These innocent lives were cut short by , not a gun wielded by a mental case, but the machine of an immoral, lifeless thing called the state. This genocide of humanity and the human spirit supported and championed by the noble crusaders of the NYT is a wonderful way to assess the selective moral soapbox these gentlemen stand on when they preach about 58 needless deaths and the psychopath solely responsible for them. Pious exhortations indeed.
Is the EB sincerely concerned with the violence against the sanctity of human life visited by a lone psychopath on innocent people?
Let's ask the 664,435 human beings cut to pieces, their body parts sold to the highest bidder, in the United States over the last year. These innocent lives were cut short by , not a gun wielded by a mental case, but the machine of an immoral, lifeless thing called the state. This genocide of humanity and the human spirit supported and championed by the noble crusaders of the NYT is a wonderful way to assess the selective moral soapbox these gentlemen stand on when they preach about 58 needless deaths and the psychopath solely responsible for them. Pious exhortations indeed.
Lost on us as we continue to use the word "gun" when we speak of its debate, laws and control when, in fact, our struggle is no longer about the "gun".
Per Merriam-Webster is a "gun" is:
a :a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory
b :a portable firearm (such as a rifle or handgun).
Let's be honest and start using these terms:
- "Military style weapons" debate
- 'Weapons of mass destruction" control
- "One person arsenal" laws
That's where we've come to as a nation.
And the "gun" lobby continues to defend our "right to bear Arms" under the guise that citizens need to defend themselves from our own government.
Should our fellow citizens be allowed, therefore, to buy tanks, nuclear warheads and rocket launchers? After all the US armed forces have 9600 nuclear warheads. 1600 tanks, 450 F-15 fighter jets and 3,500 Tomahawk cruise missiles. How abut allowing us to park a few of these in our driveways?
So where do we set the limit in this "debate" which has become -- now so plainly for all of us to see -- about the right of one man to amass not just a few "guns" but a veritable arsenal of "weapons of horrific human tragedies"?
Per Merriam-Webster is a "gun" is:
a :a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory
b :a portable firearm (such as a rifle or handgun).
Let's be honest and start using these terms:
- "Military style weapons" debate
- 'Weapons of mass destruction" control
- "One person arsenal" laws
That's where we've come to as a nation.
And the "gun" lobby continues to defend our "right to bear Arms" under the guise that citizens need to defend themselves from our own government.
Should our fellow citizens be allowed, therefore, to buy tanks, nuclear warheads and rocket launchers? After all the US armed forces have 9600 nuclear warheads. 1600 tanks, 450 F-15 fighter jets and 3,500 Tomahawk cruise missiles. How abut allowing us to park a few of these in our driveways?
So where do we set the limit in this "debate" which has become -- now so plainly for all of us to see -- about the right of one man to amass not just a few "guns" but a veritable arsenal of "weapons of horrific human tragedies"?
2
For some reason the right to bear arms overrides the right for us to be safe from guns. When this happens then the Constitution has ceased to function.
2
Are the gun laws ALREADY on the books being enforced?
Chicago has a lot of stiff gun laws and it's the murder capital of the US
More laws are not the answer
The 2nd Amendment is the HEART of the US Constitution
Chicago has a lot of stiff gun laws and it's the murder capital of the US
More laws are not the answer
The 2nd Amendment is the HEART of the US Constitution
1
"How Long Until We Debate Real Gun Laws?"
Wrong question. The real question is when will we begin to debate our utter lack of a real mental health system? A system that facilitates families, communities and individuals in getting help. It is almost impossible for terrorized families and communities to get help. In America our current mental health system consists of beat cops, the county jail and a politically appointed judge and a politically correct legal system.
Another good question is when will we begin a debate about the pseudo science and quackery of the psychiatric and psychological professions?
Of course the American left doesn't want to have those debates. They would rather concentrate on inanimate objects. Ideology and dogma trumps reality and responsibility as usual.
Wrong question. The real question is when will we begin to debate our utter lack of a real mental health system? A system that facilitates families, communities and individuals in getting help. It is almost impossible for terrorized families and communities to get help. In America our current mental health system consists of beat cops, the county jail and a politically appointed judge and a politically correct legal system.
Another good question is when will we begin a debate about the pseudo science and quackery of the psychiatric and psychological professions?
Of course the American left doesn't want to have those debates. They would rather concentrate on inanimate objects. Ideology and dogma trumps reality and responsibility as usual.
There is nothing to debate. There are two mutually incompatible beliefs. One side believes that the population must be disarmed, the other believes that disarming the population is a deliberate step towards tyrany.
As a matter of journalistic accuracy, nobody ever said "now is not the time."
I would also point out the same day 58 people were killed by guns in Vegas, approximately 2,738 people were killed by abortion.
There is no constitutional amendment declaring abortion is a "right". Yet the democrats never wants to talk about it.
So, if they refuse any discussion on abortion (far, far deadlier than gun violence), why should anyone listen to them when it comes to guns (which is a real constitutional right)?
I would also point out the same day 58 people were killed by guns in Vegas, approximately 2,738 people were killed by abortion.
There is no constitutional amendment declaring abortion is a "right". Yet the democrats never wants to talk about it.
So, if they refuse any discussion on abortion (far, far deadlier than gun violence), why should anyone listen to them when it comes to guns (which is a real constitutional right)?
Without prohibition of the manufacture and possession of bump stocks and any other "part" or modification of firearms to make them essentially military grade weaponry, we will have accomplished very little. There are already apparently thousands of these things in private hands. Allowing them to remain there will assure further massacres. A grace period for voluntarily surrendering these devices should be allowed, with harsh penalties for manufacture and/or possession after the grace period expires.
Paddock was merely the iceberg's tip. The NRA knows it. Republicans know it. Neither of these truly cares about Americans. Their condolences toward the dead and wounded in Las Vegas is lip service, no more, no less.
Paddock was merely the iceberg's tip. The NRA knows it. Republicans know it. Neither of these truly cares about Americans. Their condolences toward the dead and wounded in Las Vegas is lip service, no more, no less.
1
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Was this lunatic a member of a well regulated militia securing a free state?
If not, he has no rights under the 2nd Amendment - but our unalienable rights, these truths that are self evident, the people have the Right to Life, supersedes any gun nut who wants to buy his 50th rifle.
Was this lunatic a member of a well regulated militia securing a free state?
If not, he has no rights under the 2nd Amendment - but our unalienable rights, these truths that are self evident, the people have the Right to Life, supersedes any gun nut who wants to buy his 50th rifle.
1
Seems to have gotten lost the first with the online censors. Once again:
First, the Second Amendment isn't a deer-hunting license, and second, the real problem is that there are 340 million plus guns in the hands of the citizens and they're not going to give them up so easily. So solution: Police state, turn good citizens into criminals?
If the NYT Editorial Board wants to work itself into a tizzy about mass death--try worrying about plutonium getting into the city's water system.
First, the Second Amendment isn't a deer-hunting license, and second, the real problem is that there are 340 million plus guns in the hands of the citizens and they're not going to give them up so easily. So solution: Police state, turn good citizens into criminals?
If the NYT Editorial Board wants to work itself into a tizzy about mass death--try worrying about plutonium getting into the city's water system.
1
Sedition. If you believe that the motivating factor behind the pro-gun movement in America today is hunting, sport shooting, collecting or even self-defense then you have been taken in by fake news. The truth is blatantly available all over the internet and social media. Gun enthusiasts want guns in order to make war on government. Shooting war. Sedition. They phrase it conditionally as "IF the government abuses its powers." But they don't mean "if." They mean the time has already come. They seek military grade weapons because they fantasize military-style plans. They are deeply engrossed in apocalyptic fantasies. The gun loving militia patriots are America's coarse and agressive answer to escapist Cos players, reenactors who long to reenact battles that haven't happened. Yet. They don't just want bump stocks and silencers. They want military grade automatics, grenades, claymore mines and shoulder-fired missiles. They say it, outright.
I predict that the next big gun shocker will be one of those woodsy militia groups actually trying a beer-hall-putsch type action. With a dozen or more killed, cops and "patriots."
Sedition. No longer only for galaxies far, far away.
I predict that the next big gun shocker will be one of those woodsy militia groups actually trying a beer-hall-putsch type action. With a dozen or more killed, cops and "patriots."
Sedition. No longer only for galaxies far, far away.
1
What "new" gun laws would have stopped the Las Vegas slaughter? Would the total confiscation and banning of all guns in civilian hands be possible in the United States? Think of the present results of banning illegal drugs, of the past results of banning illegal alcoholic beverages, did either work? In a country where the government can't round up and deport 11 million illegal aliens how could it possibly "round up" and confiscate 300 million guns?
In every mass slaughter in the United States multiple "gun" laws were broken. Should Congress now pass another law stating that it's against the law to break the law?
In every mass slaughter in the United States multiple "gun" laws were broken. Should Congress now pass another law stating that it's against the law to break the law?
1
There are some ostensibly Liberal commenters who say that you should not be able to have more than one hand gun as per Second Amendment.
What if this or a future administration or Congress decides that you can only exercise your first amendment right of free speech JUST ONCE in your lifetime? What if Trump issues an executive fiat that newspapers cannot write editorials critical of him or his administration more than once?
If speech in which severed head of a head of state can be displayed under the protection of First amendment, why be hypocritical and put all restrictions on second amendment.
Killing is a criminal act, no matter how it is perpetrated. Owning a gun is NOT a crime.
Get real dudes.
What if this or a future administration or Congress decides that you can only exercise your first amendment right of free speech JUST ONCE in your lifetime? What if Trump issues an executive fiat that newspapers cannot write editorials critical of him or his administration more than once?
If speech in which severed head of a head of state can be displayed under the protection of First amendment, why be hypocritical and put all restrictions on second amendment.
Killing is a criminal act, no matter how it is perpetrated. Owning a gun is NOT a crime.
Get real dudes.
2
Once you start chipping away the amendments, all left after that is the Constitution itself. Is this the way The USSR began feeling with Perestroika? What goes around comes around, they say.
N.R.A.'s endorsement to regulate bump stocks made me realize that they are some people in N.R.A. who care about civilian lives. I suggest New York Times to find the people inside N.R.A. who pushed for this decision, and write about them. These are the key people gun control advocates have to work with.
Guns, the power of the gun lobby, and, most frightening, widespread gun culture are all indicators of a sick society. Massacres like Las Vegas make it difficult to ignore our illness any longer. They are not aberrations or the product solely of sick individuals. We all bear responsibility for our inaction.
I suggest the Times add a counter for gun deaths since Las Vegas to the masthead.
I suggest the Times add a counter for gun deaths since Las Vegas to the masthead.
1
When the National Firearms Act was being crafted in the early 30s, the law that regulates automatic weapons, destructive devices and silencers, the legislators were considering including handguns. In the end they declined to do so, perhaps resulting in the worst blunder in US criminal justice history. A couple of decades ago we may have been able to include magazine fed semiautomatic rifles under the law but now there are too many to attempt it.
We can do so with any device that increases rate of fire a semiautomatic weapon, and should act upon it. It won't prevent mass shootings but we have a good precedent with an effective law regulating automatic weapons so we can appeal to it and take advantage of it.
The irony of firearm homicides in the US is that although the majority of firearms are in GOP hands the majority of firearm homicides are in Democratic controlled counties. Instead of beating our collective heads against the wall on mass shootings the larger problem of firearm homicides in urban areas should be addressed. There is more lower hanging fruit for both sides to work on, and it will require work from both sides. Perhaps we will make headway on mass shootings too as most are committed with handguns.
We can do so with any device that increases rate of fire a semiautomatic weapon, and should act upon it. It won't prevent mass shootings but we have a good precedent with an effective law regulating automatic weapons so we can appeal to it and take advantage of it.
The irony of firearm homicides in the US is that although the majority of firearms are in GOP hands the majority of firearm homicides are in Democratic controlled counties. Instead of beating our collective heads against the wall on mass shootings the larger problem of firearm homicides in urban areas should be addressed. There is more lower hanging fruit for both sides to work on, and it will require work from both sides. Perhaps we will make headway on mass shootings too as most are committed with handguns.
Call me cynical, but I think Republicans are willing to sacrifice bump stocks, or at least to talk about doing it for a bit, because they see citizens demanding tougher gun control after Las Vegas. This way, they look like they're doing something about the insane gun situation in this country, and likely save themselves from more sweeping changes. In the future, they can point to this to show how reasonable they are.
1
Debate? Don't you get ever tired of just debating on these vitally important issues America, why not actually DO something? The same deal for healthcare, you have been debating healthcare for over 70 yrs. with still no real concrete solutions. The very disturbing fact remains that if the gun debate is still going on
70 yrs. from now, many tens of thousands if not millions of innocent Americans will have needlessly died in the process.
70 yrs. from now, many tens of thousands if not millions of innocent Americans will have needlessly died in the process.
Automatic weapons have been under strict control for decades.. They requie a licence issued by the feds that has significant screening and rules. Some guns are sold to private citizens as well as the military and law enforcement.There is an interchangeable part that turns the semiautomatic guns into an automatic. That part is also tightly regulated by the government. It makes sense to regulate the bump stock or anything else that turns a gun into full auto. It also makes sense to make sure if a doctor reports a patient to be dangerous, the authorities have to immediately check it out. That wasn't done in Colorado and lives were loss. What has been done to address mental illness and guns. That played a part in Colorado, Virginia Tech., and the Navy Yard to name a few. If our goal is to reduce gun violence there are steps that can be taken. But the anti gun people want a take no prisoners approach to guns and don't even talk about keeping the guns out of the hand of dangerous people. What has been talked about is returning full rights to felons coming out of prison. That would return legal gun ownership to a whole bunch of criminals. If our hopes are to reduce gun violence , there are more than one way to achieve that. In the meantime most of the editorials and Op-Eds have been about Vegas end up being about gun control and\or the politics of gun control. Rarely do you read one word of compassion for those who were wounded or killed or for those close to them.
1
I'm really interested in the answer to the following question (and there will be subsequent questions, not now). Here is the question; Do, and in what numbers, Americans fear on any level that either their state or federal militaries either under instruction or having been corrupted (internally, think military junta) cause by force of arms a mission being to seize power and install a military controlled government ?. Therein would lie the beginning of the formula to have discussions regarding disarmament of the populace and to what degree. Without determining the underlying cause for this obsession/phobia with firearms, and we are talking about an enormous and daunting not to mention long task there cannot be even a reasoned beginning. And there is this, whom in deed would be the representative(s) really..on both sides, but that is at this point digression. There are going to be umpteen follow up questions but I believe that this one question should frame the conversation. Additionally there are going to necessarily be "new approaches" particularly with our youngest and teen citizens, some might fear interference or programming (quote/unquote)..and perhaps that is where we'll end up going in order to show the dangers we face with the levels of military style weapons already in existence. Think in terms of long running information campaigns like; "Only you can prevent forest fires" or "Buckle Up for Safety" or "Don't Be A Litterbug". Hopefully this is not too simplistic.
Automatic weapons have been under strict control for decades.. They requie a licence issued by the feds that has significant screening and rules. Some guns are sold to private citizens as well as the military an law enforcement.There is an interchangeable part that turns the semiautomatic guns into an automatic. That part is also tightly regulated by the government. It makes sense to regulate the bump stock or anything else that turns a gun into full auto. It also makes sense to make sure if a doctor reports a patient to be dangerous, the authorities have to immediately check it out. That wasn't done in Colorado and lives were loss. What has been done to address mental illness and guns. That played a part in Colorado, Virginia Tech., and the Navy Yard to name a few, If our goal is to reduce gun violence there are steps that can be taken. But the anti gun people want a take no prisoners approach to guns and don't even talk about keeping the guns out of the hand of dangerous people. What has been talked about is returning full rights to felons coming out of prison. That would return legal gun ownership to a whole bunch of criminals. If our hopes are to reduce gun violence , there are more than one way to achieve that. In the meantime most of the editorials and Op-Eds have been about gun control and\or the politics of gun control. Rarely do you read one word of compassion for those who were wounded or killed or for those close to them.
1
Senator McConnell said it is too soon to talk about guns when we need to be praying for the families in Los Vegas. However, before Judge Scalia was cold he was saying we will not fill that seat on the Supreme Court. Why weren't you praying for his family Mr. McConnell?
1 of 3 (due to 1500 word limit)
"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."
Journal of Trauma (August 1998) re: Emory University Study by Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health
{"Objective: Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.
Methods: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.
Results: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."}
That's one out of twenty-two or 4.55%.
"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."
Journal of Trauma (August 1998) re: Emory University Study by Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health
{"Objective: Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.
Methods: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.
Results: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."}
That's one out of twenty-two or 4.55%.
1
The timer is a great idea!
You want the Congress to do something?
Pass a federal law that ANY crime involving a gun (even possessing a gun illegally) is a federal crime with a mandatory minimum of 20 years. Second offense, mandatory Life, no parole.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) can build more prisons to house the inmates. It may be advantageous to build “gun prisons” specifically in very remote areas to house the 20 year minimums. Certainly there needs to be a gun Lifer prison in the most desolate place we can find. This will be an expense, but the cost will be offset by a precipitous decline in gun crime with the associated cost savings from crime reduction. There should be planned and built an additional supermax, just so that there is a jail that even the hardest cases dread https://youtu.be/JVCRjdN3UTM
This is terribly harsh, I understand, and that is the whole point. A percentage of gun criminals will be deterred from the start, but over time, as criminals see associates go away, the reality of being involved with a gun will set in. If you cannot get a gun legally, you’ll stay away. It won’t stop crime, but it will stop gun crime.
Enforcement will be simple enough: Local police will work as usual and notify the feds when they have a gun criminal in custody. After the local process has ended, the gun criminal will face federal charges (this is the way the UCMJ works).
Owning legally would not make you Teflon, if you break a law with the gun, 20 & Life.
This is worth a try, no?
Pass a federal law that ANY crime involving a gun (even possessing a gun illegally) is a federal crime with a mandatory minimum of 20 years. Second offense, mandatory Life, no parole.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) can build more prisons to house the inmates. It may be advantageous to build “gun prisons” specifically in very remote areas to house the 20 year minimums. Certainly there needs to be a gun Lifer prison in the most desolate place we can find. This will be an expense, but the cost will be offset by a precipitous decline in gun crime with the associated cost savings from crime reduction. There should be planned and built an additional supermax, just so that there is a jail that even the hardest cases dread https://youtu.be/JVCRjdN3UTM
This is terribly harsh, I understand, and that is the whole point. A percentage of gun criminals will be deterred from the start, but over time, as criminals see associates go away, the reality of being involved with a gun will set in. If you cannot get a gun legally, you’ll stay away. It won’t stop crime, but it will stop gun crime.
Enforcement will be simple enough: Local police will work as usual and notify the feds when they have a gun criminal in custody. After the local process has ended, the gun criminal will face federal charges (this is the way the UCMJ works).
Owning legally would not make you Teflon, if you break a law with the gun, 20 & Life.
This is worth a try, no?
2
Deterrence is preferable to punishment. The threat of punishment does not deter suicides.
1
So many giant counters, so little substance. I'll just respond to the headline. We've been debating real gun laws for an awfully long time, NYT. And your side predictably, inevitably loses the debate every time. Run along back to your magic safe space now.
2
Once again, the Times has rolled out an emotional article in response to a problem that needs a practical solution. Where is your proposal? What law would you have Congress pass that would prevent (or even reduce the chance of) the next mass shooting? I've read this article and many of the ones you have rolled out since the senseless slaughter in Las Vegas but I have yet to see your brilliant proposal. Where is it? You see fit to lecture us all and tell us that we are unfeeling, subhuman creatures but you have no answers either. Background checks? They already exist. Close the "gunshow loophole"? There is no such thing. Dealers at a show still have to obtain background checks. Ban on "assault" weapons? That is a media created term that refers to guns that look like military weapons (AR-15, AK-47, etc) So we ban a gun because of how it looks? Sure, have at it. Won't prevent anything but OK - whatever. None of these would have prevented this attack or any other in recent memory - not one. Besides, all of these ideas already exist - they are already law in certain states and have done exactly ZERO in preventing gun crime. Don't believe me? Check out the gun crime rates in Chicago and Detroit. Think strong gun control prevents mass shootings? How about San Bernandino? Sandy Hook? Both located in states that have stronger gun control laws than you have proposed. Please let me know when you have an actual idea. Until then, please stop printing this nonsense.
4
A credible system of tracking gun-related purchases in real time would probably deter many from accumulation of large arsenals and stocks of ammunition.
2
The REAL gun law is the Constitutional guarantee of right to bear arms and it is funny how you editors have not come up with what specific gun laws you want Congress to enact that would not infringe on Constitution and would stand up to challenge in Supreme court.
A sick and demented person will get guns in the underground market and do the harm that this jerk did in LV. You can outlaw sale and use of bump stocks but they can be easily 3-D printed. As long as the killer wants to end up dead after using such 'illegal' devices, no law on earth is going to prevent carnage of the type we witnessed.
There is truth in the philosophical saying that all human laws are meant to be broken for, if they were not to be broken, there would be no requirement for such laws.
Stop pandering to your digital subscriber base of ill-informed Liberals.
A sick and demented person will get guns in the underground market and do the harm that this jerk did in LV. You can outlaw sale and use of bump stocks but they can be easily 3-D printed. As long as the killer wants to end up dead after using such 'illegal' devices, no law on earth is going to prevent carnage of the type we witnessed.
There is truth in the philosophical saying that all human laws are meant to be broken for, if they were not to be broken, there would be no requirement for such laws.
Stop pandering to your digital subscriber base of ill-informed Liberals.
2
If Nytimes is so concerned with death, perhaps they should be willing to debate abortion control ?
This week there were 58 people killed by guns, and
This week there were 19,178 people killed by abortion in the US.
Does NyTimes have the courage to discuss the real crisis? It has nothing to do with guns.
This week there were 58 people killed by guns, and
This week there were 19,178 people killed by abortion in the US.
Does NyTimes have the courage to discuss the real crisis? It has nothing to do with guns.
5
Get rid of that clock on the front page of the website. Are you egging some nut on to do the next attack before some milestone passes? I get the point of the listing of times between mass murders in our country in the article, but I find the clock on the front page a revolting display of sensationalism which may only cause the next attack to come sooner. I am shocked and appalled at this publication at this time as I can't remember ever being in 60 years of reading it.
I would honestly like to understand how liberals think;
On the one hand, when a muslim commits a mass shooting (Orlando), the media protects the muslims decrying Islamophobia, and even assuming they must have been marginalized anyways.
When a gun-owner commits a mass shooting, the opposite happens. The media blames all gun owners and gun laws, activaly stokes hatred for gun owners and gives in to vitriolic racism and sexism blaming all "white males" and using the shooting as proof that all white males need to be discriminated against.
Do liberals realize their blatant hypocrisy here?
On the one hand, when a muslim commits a mass shooting (Orlando), the media protects the muslims decrying Islamophobia, and even assuming they must have been marginalized anyways.
When a gun-owner commits a mass shooting, the opposite happens. The media blames all gun owners and gun laws, activaly stokes hatred for gun owners and gives in to vitriolic racism and sexism blaming all "white males" and using the shooting as proof that all white males need to be discriminated against.
Do liberals realize their blatant hypocrisy here?
2
The homeless panhandlers who stand on street curbs holding money cups out to drivers need to get AR-15's to go with their cardboard "Help a homeless Vet" signs. Perfectly legal, right? And I bet donations would soar!
I believe that passing more restrictive gun laws would reflect the American people's concern over the unbridled access to guns and would signal a cultural change. But I think there are others who believe that more restrictive gun laws come directly from "The Government" and are not representative of the people's will. How do we bridge that gap?
It doesn't feel like "our government" when we don't have a material and equitable input to the negotiation of its public policies. It doesn't help that guns are generally a means to have one's way by force rather than by negotiation.
2
This editorial is brilliantly effective. The clock ticking on the front page of the number of data, hours, minutes and second since the shooting in Las Vegas and linking that to how long until we debate real gun laws, itself speaks volumes.
Because so much money is involved, and so many politician's jobs are on the line, spinelessness and moral bankruptcy have become the norm on this issue. If this is how it's going to be, then naming and shaming, relentlessly if need be, is necessary.
Because so much money is involved, and so many politician's jobs are on the line, spinelessness and moral bankruptcy have become the norm on this issue. If this is how it's going to be, then naming and shaming, relentlessly if need be, is necessary.
I'd like to see a graph that shows how outspokenly pro-gun a politician is in relation to how much money that politician accepts from deathmongers like the NRA and the gun industry.
1
The Second Amendment was written to limit and possibly eliminate the need for a federal standing army by keeping up and using instead the militia of the states. A large army of regulars, standing duty in time of peace as well as war, was opposed by James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and many other political thinkers of their time. They thought that the proper defense of a free state consisted instead of militiamen, also called "the people," serving under what George Washington had called "a well regulated Militia Law."
At the time of the Founding, a regular army in time of peace was variously considered as unacceptably expensive, a threat to liberty, and a likely instrument of usurpation.
In a letter to President Washington after the Bill of Rights had been adopted, Thomas Jefferson grouped the Second Amendment with two other freedoms. He called the trio "freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from standing armies."
As times have changed, so have American views of a standing army, ours now being very strong and a source of great pride. Few of us would want to trade it in for the well regulated militia of the obsolete Second Amendment.
At the time of the Founding, a regular army in time of peace was variously considered as unacceptably expensive, a threat to liberty, and a likely instrument of usurpation.
In a letter to President Washington after the Bill of Rights had been adopted, Thomas Jefferson grouped the Second Amendment with two other freedoms. He called the trio "freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from standing armies."
As times have changed, so have American views of a standing army, ours now being very strong and a source of great pride. Few of us would want to trade it in for the well regulated militia of the obsolete Second Amendment.
3
Washington considered militias poorly disciplined and usually ineffective in battle against professional soldiers. The militias the US raised against Canada in the War of 1812 mostly died of diseases in their encampments.
1
Which renders the use of militias obsolete -- and hence the 2nd Amendment as well.
1
My Liberal Fellows always seem to miss the mark on issues like gun control & climate change, blinded by the glare of their own outrage, as though their outrage was pure reason. For instance; the article starts "After the slaughter in Las Vegas ..." a rapid resort to outrage-first persuasion, when in fact that incident is an anomaly that does not speak to the majority of gun deaths and is not controllable by gun laws under the 2cd Amendment. But to hell with facts, liberal outrage dominates all liberal thinking whether or not it harms the Liberal Project, perhaps because it's easier than reserved reason. Liberal idea people are working liberals worst enemy because they misguide & thus derail progressive action.
Here is a an article by a statistician that speaks to why this op-ed is liberal piffle: "I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise" by Leah Libresco. I saw it in the Washington Post but that requires a log in, this presentation does not:
http://www.twincities.com/2017/10/04/leah-libresco-i-used-to-think-gun-c...
Yes I am a Liberal. No I do not like or own guns. Yes I want progressive ideas to win in America. No I do not think the DNC or many Liberal Pundits help that cause, because they are petty tyrants who want to control lives by force of government, via the laughable theory that their outrage trumps whatever anyone thinks.
Here is a an article by a statistician that speaks to why this op-ed is liberal piffle: "I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise" by Leah Libresco. I saw it in the Washington Post but that requires a log in, this presentation does not:
http://www.twincities.com/2017/10/04/leah-libresco-i-used-to-think-gun-c...
Yes I am a Liberal. No I do not like or own guns. Yes I want progressive ideas to win in America. No I do not think the DNC or many Liberal Pundits help that cause, because they are petty tyrants who want to control lives by force of government, via the laughable theory that their outrage trumps whatever anyone thinks.
3
The cynic in me says that the NRA is signalling a willingness to ban bump stocks for one reason - they know it's coming anyway.
Of course, the process won't be quick. The NRA's public position lets interested consumers know to get this soon-to-be contraband while they can. I hope we get follow-up reports on the sales of bump stocks in the coming months.
Of course, the process won't be quick. The NRA's public position lets interested consumers know to get this soon-to-be contraband while they can. I hope we get follow-up reports on the sales of bump stocks in the coming months.
2
After Sandy Hook, when 20+ elementary school kids were murdered in their classrooms, half of country believed that the only reasonable response was for elementary school teachers to carry loaded guns in the classroom and be trained in SWAT techniques. That fact doesn't give me much hope that we'll be seeing real gun laws any time soon.
4
The memorial to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims brought me to tears. It is inconceivable to me that the republican Congress has done nothing to control gun violence. And nothing will be done after this latest mass killing in Las Vegas. Which brings up the question, what will it take for congress to enact sensible gun control laws? The answer is replace the republican congress with democrats. This will take time and unfortunately many more people will lose their lives to gun violence.
2
Prediction:
The only measurable outcome will be a temporary surge in gum sales, especially while this "national conversation" is underway.
The only measurable outcome will be a temporary surge in gum sales, especially while this "national conversation" is underway.
1
How Long Until We Debate Real Gun Laws?
The answer is never. Once the anger subsides after this current gun related bloodbath the need to debate as to why we need stricter gun control legislation enacted without further delay in Congress will eventually fade away. Oh I'm sure the Democrats and Republicans will make a big deal out of banning bump stocks but that's as far as the phony display of bipartisan is going to get.
Life will go on.
The answer is never. Once the anger subsides after this current gun related bloodbath the need to debate as to why we need stricter gun control legislation enacted without further delay in Congress will eventually fade away. Oh I'm sure the Democrats and Republicans will make a big deal out of banning bump stocks but that's as far as the phony display of bipartisan is going to get.
Life will go on.
1
In DC v Heller (and McDonald v Chicago) the SCOTUS dealt another death blow to our democracy by overturning 200 years of precedent and ruling that individual citizens have an individual constitutionally protected right to bear arms. Even if a miracle happens and progressive legislators with a rational view of the matter take over congress, any legislation they pass will be challenged. How can we overturn Heller and McDonald - not likely given that Mitch McConnell and his merry band of thieves stole a SC seat from the last president. If and when rational minds recapture our government, the first order of business should be to expand the number of SC jurists to 11 - yes pack the court, how else can we deal with the traitorous behavior of the republican senate leadership. Follow with amendment to constitution setting that number as 11 for all time. It may also undo damage caused by Citizens United and other monstrosities created by the Robert's court.
1
In 1989, the national debt clock was initiated in Times Square to highlight the perils of our ever mounting national debt. In the 28 years since, although our national debt has rollercoasted without an apocalyptic conclusion, our national love affair with guns has continued, unmonitored, only to gain the spotlight as the result of a tragedy with sufficient body count. Despite episodes involving high school students, day care students, college students, employees civil or private, real action, no real dialog has been forestalled by a motivated, well lardered lobbying juggernaut. Maybe, just maybe a new tallying clock will raise the visibility and awareness sufficiently to tackle our real crisis. Our national debt is what we owe to the lives that have been lost to an anachronistic ideal that is well past its time.
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.
All that is needed is a normal reading of the 2nd amendment. The first sentence is the reason for the 2nd sentence. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but only in the sense that a Well Regulated Militia is necessary to the security of the state.
At the time people owned guns and the militia was organized from the people that owned guns and they used their own guns. You have to interpret the Constitution according to the time it was written and what the country looked like at the time.
The second amendment is being looked at and adjudicated with a political and personal bias and not being interpreted based on what it meant at the time.
All that is needed is a normal reading of the 2nd amendment. The first sentence is the reason for the 2nd sentence. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but only in the sense that a Well Regulated Militia is necessary to the security of the state.
At the time people owned guns and the militia was organized from the people that owned guns and they used their own guns. You have to interpret the Constitution according to the time it was written and what the country looked like at the time.
The second amendment is being looked at and adjudicated with a political and personal bias and not being interpreted based on what it meant at the time.
2
I should have said, The first part of the sentence is the reason for the 2nd part.
1
Ann says, "Gun violence destroys our sense of safety and freedoms in the most basic ways."
Yes, that is exactly what the International Mafia Top 1% Global Financial Elite Robber Baron/Radical religion Good Old Boys Cabal - with The Con Don as their talking head and the Goldman-Sachs boys and girls as their American operatives - want. They think we will all cower in our homes and follow the rules like Hitler's victims did. They have studied our habit and think they have figured out how to take over the world.
WE THE PEOPLE will no longer stand for this. It is time for a GET GUNS OFF THE STREETS OF AMERICA rallies, marches and protest across America. Do NOT cower. Do NOT be afraid. Do NOT let them win again. Not now. Not ever again.
Yes, that is exactly what the International Mafia Top 1% Global Financial Elite Robber Baron/Radical religion Good Old Boys Cabal - with The Con Don as their talking head and the Goldman-Sachs boys and girls as their American operatives - want. They think we will all cower in our homes and follow the rules like Hitler's victims did. They have studied our habit and think they have figured out how to take over the world.
WE THE PEOPLE will no longer stand for this. It is time for a GET GUNS OFF THE STREETS OF AMERICA rallies, marches and protest across America. Do NOT cower. Do NOT be afraid. Do NOT let them win again. Not now. Not ever again.
2
For starters here's a law I'd like to see. Anyone found in possession of a bump stock or other device to enables rapid firing should be fined $5,000 per device and the devices confiscated. People may turn these devices in to police departments without penalty. Next we should bring back the assault weapons ban with very much the same penalties.
1
Once again, I will quote Eddie Izzard, of all people.
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But the gun sure makes it easier."
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But the gun sure makes it easier."
4
Possible solution: every year psychologically test, and re-test all school children from 1st grade till they reach high school to find those with the propensity to commit maniacal mass murders. Problem with this solution is that the constitution would consider this an infringement on individual rights. However, some of your 5-6 yr old school children of today will be your Paddock’s of tomorrow.
Keep in mind that we can not cover every contingency in schools or anywhere else. A perfect example are terrorists. After 9/11 all airports, passengers, and luggage are searched, the pilots cabin is locked, and Osama Bin Laden is dead. This means no more terrorists attacks, right? Homicidal maniacs will always find a weapon, be that a gun, a knife, a bomb, an airplane, biological, chemical, or whatever.
Today in 2017 we are on the verge of a total global nuclear holocaust, yet we worry about little pop guns?
Most Americans believe that they can do whatever they wish because the constitution gives them permission....no matter if what they do is moral or immoral, decent or indecent, or right or wrong. With this kind of total freedom the future will have no need of prisons, law enforcement agencies, nor law books. Why? Because if the law allows you to do what you want, then there is no wrong you can do.
Keep in mind that we can not cover every contingency in schools or anywhere else. A perfect example are terrorists. After 9/11 all airports, passengers, and luggage are searched, the pilots cabin is locked, and Osama Bin Laden is dead. This means no more terrorists attacks, right? Homicidal maniacs will always find a weapon, be that a gun, a knife, a bomb, an airplane, biological, chemical, or whatever.
Today in 2017 we are on the verge of a total global nuclear holocaust, yet we worry about little pop guns?
Most Americans believe that they can do whatever they wish because the constitution gives them permission....no matter if what they do is moral or immoral, decent or indecent, or right or wrong. With this kind of total freedom the future will have no need of prisons, law enforcement agencies, nor law books. Why? Because if the law allows you to do what you want, then there is no wrong you can do.
What people do often speaks louder than what they say. One doesn't equip oneself with assault weapons if one intends to commit no assaults.
2
“Over the years,” wrote the editors of the New York Times, “the gun lobby, claiming to defend the convenience of hunters and other gun owners, has so bullied Washington that . . . sensible proposals seem beyond reach. But as gun mayhem continues to mount, the political roadblock looks less and less rational, more and more deadly.”
"These words appeared in 1993."
"Let's Have a Real Debate on Guns"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/lets-have-a-real-debate-on-guns/article/20...
"These words appeared in 1993."
"Let's Have a Real Debate on Guns"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/lets-have-a-real-debate-on-guns/article/20...
2
This should be front and center of every newspaper in America until Congress takes action. Every congressmen and congresswomen who receive NRA funds should have their picture front and center next to each and every mass shooting tally. Why is this not happening?
Aren't most (2/3rds) of gun deaths suicides, having nothing to do with gun laws?
Where do you stand on medically assisted suicide? Should people have a respectable alternative to suicide by self-starvation?
1
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about the personal ownership of guns and is a relic of slavery. The NRA has spent 40-years maligning the public’s perception of the Amendment. There has always been some form of gun control in the cities and states of the United States. The issue is how to craft rational gun control to reduce gun violence. The massacre at PULSE nightclub in 2016 suggests that the LGBTQ community could lead the way in this discussion. Visit my website at www (dot) ChuckStewartPhD (dot) net to read an academic paper on this topic. Together we can reduce gun violence. Thank you for your time. Chuck Stewart, Ph.D. Just visit www.ChuckStewartPhD.net and click on the Pulse link.
1
Why have speed limits? People are just gonna go fast anyway. Why have laws against shoplifting? Thieves are going to take whatever they want, if they want it bad enough. Why is assault and battery a crime? If someone wants to beat you up, Johnny Law's not gonna stop 'em. Why have laws against rape? It's a matter of human behavior, not of legislation. Why is arson against the law? Some people just wanna watch the world burn, anyway. Why is child abuse illegal? You can't legislate good parenting. Why is fraud a crime? If someone wants to rip you off, they'll find a way. Why is drunk driving against the law? People are gonna do what they want, why try to stop 'em? Why is embezzlement illegal? It's a crime in France, and that never stopped them from embezzling anything.
3
The times should keep that graphic running in the upper r/h corner going forward. Perhaps the day count for the last 3 major mass shootings, with a drop-down menu for the rest. New shootings can be added as they occur.
We Sit On Our Hands
I mean this in the kindest possible way, but the ignorance amongst politicians and the media of the firearm culture in America is just staggering.
In a long essay I wrote recommending specific firearm controls after the Sandy Hook murders in 2012, I included ...
"Don't get me wrong; I am not claiming that implementation of my controls will eliminate horrific acts like the one that occurred at Sandy Hook 3 weeks ago. I am, however, convinced that, on the average, it would result in our being much safer. Perhaps more important, it would enable us to live in a significantly more civilized country. In America there will always be mentally ill individuals like Adam Lanza (27 killed, 2 injured) ... and James Holmes (12 killed 58 injured) ... and Wade Page (6, 3) ... and Jared Loughner (6, 13) ... and Jiverly Wong (13, 4) ... and Nidal Malik Hasan (13, 30) ... and Michael McLendon (10, 6) ... and Seung-Hui Cho (32, 17) ... and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (13, 21) ... and Mark Barton (12, 13) ... and George Hennard (23, 22) ... and James Pough (11, 6) ... and Joseph Wesbecker (8, 12) ... and Ronald Simmons (16, 4) ... and Patrick Sherrill (14, 6) ... and James Huberty (21, 19) ... and George Banks (13, 1) ... and James Ruppert (11, 0) ... and Mark Essex (9, 13) ... and Charles Whitman (15, 32) ... just to name a few that I can recall offhand."
Since I wrote that, we can add Omar Mateen (49, 59) and Stephen Paddock (59, 489).
And we sit on our hands ...
I mean this in the kindest possible way, but the ignorance amongst politicians and the media of the firearm culture in America is just staggering.
In a long essay I wrote recommending specific firearm controls after the Sandy Hook murders in 2012, I included ...
"Don't get me wrong; I am not claiming that implementation of my controls will eliminate horrific acts like the one that occurred at Sandy Hook 3 weeks ago. I am, however, convinced that, on the average, it would result in our being much safer. Perhaps more important, it would enable us to live in a significantly more civilized country. In America there will always be mentally ill individuals like Adam Lanza (27 killed, 2 injured) ... and James Holmes (12 killed 58 injured) ... and Wade Page (6, 3) ... and Jared Loughner (6, 13) ... and Jiverly Wong (13, 4) ... and Nidal Malik Hasan (13, 30) ... and Michael McLendon (10, 6) ... and Seung-Hui Cho (32, 17) ... and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (13, 21) ... and Mark Barton (12, 13) ... and George Hennard (23, 22) ... and James Pough (11, 6) ... and Joseph Wesbecker (8, 12) ... and Ronald Simmons (16, 4) ... and Patrick Sherrill (14, 6) ... and James Huberty (21, 19) ... and George Banks (13, 1) ... and James Ruppert (11, 0) ... and Mark Essex (9, 13) ... and Charles Whitman (15, 32) ... just to name a few that I can recall offhand."
Since I wrote that, we can add Omar Mateen (49, 59) and Stephen Paddock (59, 489).
And we sit on our hands ...
1
"Republican leaders have regularly responded — or, really, not responded — to past killings by blocking sensible, useful gun control."
It was not always this way with the GOP, but the Republican Party is no longer a political party that works for the best interests of this country and its people. It is now simply an advocacy organization and an arm of the NRA.
Mike Spies, a journalist who studies the NRA, was on Terry Gross's show on NPR yesterday, and his matter-of-fact presentation and information even surprised Terry at times.
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555859571/nra-backed-gun-laws-have-found-s...
My conclusion is the NRA is not only intertwined with the GOP like a glioblastoma cancerous tumor; it now runs the GOP and tells the party what to do.
In other words, the GOP is in the employ of the gun manufacturers and NRA, which clearly work against good-old fashioned common sense gun regulations and laws and the safety of the adults and children of this country. Like a big, bad boss up to no good, the NRA threatens to "fire" and punish politicians who don't kowtow and do its bidding.
NRA power comes from the huge monetary contributions it makes to the Republican Party at local, state, and national levels and from the brainwashed, tight organization and power of its contributing members, a number of whom view guns as THE single most important issue in our country.
Refer to the GOP as the NRA Party
It was not always this way with the GOP, but the Republican Party is no longer a political party that works for the best interests of this country and its people. It is now simply an advocacy organization and an arm of the NRA.
Mike Spies, a journalist who studies the NRA, was on Terry Gross's show on NPR yesterday, and his matter-of-fact presentation and information even surprised Terry at times.
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555859571/nra-backed-gun-laws-have-found-s...
My conclusion is the NRA is not only intertwined with the GOP like a glioblastoma cancerous tumor; it now runs the GOP and tells the party what to do.
In other words, the GOP is in the employ of the gun manufacturers and NRA, which clearly work against good-old fashioned common sense gun regulations and laws and the safety of the adults and children of this country. Like a big, bad boss up to no good, the NRA threatens to "fire" and punish politicians who don't kowtow and do its bidding.
NRA power comes from the huge monetary contributions it makes to the Republican Party at local, state, and national levels and from the brainwashed, tight organization and power of its contributing members, a number of whom view guns as THE single most important issue in our country.
Refer to the GOP as the NRA Party
1
The GOP is the "I'll support your single-issue obsession if you'll support mine" political party. Unfortunately for them, they're too antisocial even to manage that.
1
My suggestion for those who are so tired of living in Tombstone USA, if you have the means, seek out other countries that are advanced civilizations.
To the "lets be sensitive crowd" and not "politicize this" - it's been a week,
can we start talking about how to stop or minimize this now?
Seniors died in a assisted care home without power in Florida after the hurricane just last month. EVERYBODY talks about the tragedy. Law makers quickly change codes and rules in a week! End of story. Common sense at work.
Why is this ANY different in your minds. Please tell us. (Really it's because you don't want to talk about talk your little toys away admit it.)
We better hurry because something tells me another one is coming around the bend. Then we'll have the "moratorium on common sense" again. Repeat.
Foolish train of thought.
can we start talking about how to stop or minimize this now?
Seniors died in a assisted care home without power in Florida after the hurricane just last month. EVERYBODY talks about the tragedy. Law makers quickly change codes and rules in a week! End of story. Common sense at work.
Why is this ANY different in your minds. Please tell us. (Really it's because you don't want to talk about talk your little toys away admit it.)
We better hurry because something tells me another one is coming around the bend. Then we'll have the "moratorium on common sense" again. Repeat.
Foolish train of thought.
What a disappointing position the NRA has taken. I was looking forward to the debate on 'the only way to beat a bad guy with a thumb stock is a good guy with a thumb stock.'
2
As a comedian on The Daily Show stated the other night, unfortunately I don't remember his name, the fastest way for us to get gun control would be for the black athletes in Sunday's football game to walk out onto the field, stand during the national anthem, and raise AR-15 over their heads. And just like Ronald Reagan in the 60s when the Black Panthers showed up at the California state capitol exercising their second amendment rights, Republicans would be falling all over themselves to pass gun-control immediately.
2
The flag should fly at half mast until we have at least a whole week without a mass shooting. It would not only be an act of mourning but a mark of shame. Maybe it would inspire our feckless leadership to finally get something done. Perhaps it would inspire the voters to elect real leadership.
1
To all the supporters of the 2nd Amendment I have one basic question: what is wrong with basic gun safety regulations?
Afterall, when the 2nd Amendment was written, guns consisted of muskets which took an average of 20 seconds to reload. Today, in that same 20 seconds, an AR 15 can fire over 230 rounds.
What is wrong with universal background checks, limiting the total number of rounds in a clip to under 30 rounds, totally banning all devices to turn a semi automatic weapon into a defacto automatic weapon, etc.?
For majority of Americans, the US Constitution is a pact we agree to be governed by. It is not a suicide pact facilitated by unlimited access to firearms as advocated by the NRA and fanatical 2nd Amendment supporters.
Afterall, when the 2nd Amendment was written, guns consisted of muskets which took an average of 20 seconds to reload. Today, in that same 20 seconds, an AR 15 can fire over 230 rounds.
What is wrong with universal background checks, limiting the total number of rounds in a clip to under 30 rounds, totally banning all devices to turn a semi automatic weapon into a defacto automatic weapon, etc.?
For majority of Americans, the US Constitution is a pact we agree to be governed by. It is not a suicide pact facilitated by unlimited access to firearms as advocated by the NRA and fanatical 2nd Amendment supporters.
1
The US Constitution is actually a description of the powers and organization of the US Federal Government. It specifically provides Congress with the power and authority to regulate how states manage militias. The second amendment calls upon Congress to use these powers to guard the safety and liberty of the unarmed, wherever they may travel in the US.
1
How long? We already understand the damage that guns can do, the fact that silencers may become part of any debate tells us how long! The time for debate is over, mass shootings on a regular basis and the government does nothing, How long is self evident.
"Silencers" are limited in effectiveness to bullet velocities below the speed of sound. Commando type weapons shoot heavy subsonic bullets because high velocity assault weapons bullets make an audible sonic boom after they emerge from the silencer.
1
Someone above called for "common sense" in the debate and in the application of any solution(s).
So, my two sense (sic):
-- Educate all youngsters age X -- say 10 y.o. and above -- and inculcate in them the practical aspects of firearms safety whether they or their parents have or don't have access to any weapons.
-- Require all purchasers of firearms to undergo "refresher" training at least x amount of time (imo, 6 months to one year) prior to any purchase(s) and be licensed to purchase and further training and re-training for license to carry.
-- Require all purchasers of ammunition to produce recent (within the past year or two) documentation of safety training.
Yes, above, cumbersome and somewhat restrictive (who keeps track of records and for how long) and also somewhat restrictive of purchasing.
But the fact of the matter is the above is somewhat similar to drivers license education and licensing.
Of course, persons with illegal intent will always be able to get firearms. I think the Arabian method of dealing with thieves (cut off a hand) could possibly be applied to illegal possession and/or use of firearms. Drastic, I know, but sends a very strong message to armed felons.
So, my two sense (sic):
-- Educate all youngsters age X -- say 10 y.o. and above -- and inculcate in them the practical aspects of firearms safety whether they or their parents have or don't have access to any weapons.
-- Require all purchasers of firearms to undergo "refresher" training at least x amount of time (imo, 6 months to one year) prior to any purchase(s) and be licensed to purchase and further training and re-training for license to carry.
-- Require all purchasers of ammunition to produce recent (within the past year or two) documentation of safety training.
Yes, above, cumbersome and somewhat restrictive (who keeps track of records and for how long) and also somewhat restrictive of purchasing.
But the fact of the matter is the above is somewhat similar to drivers license education and licensing.
Of course, persons with illegal intent will always be able to get firearms. I think the Arabian method of dealing with thieves (cut off a hand) could possibly be applied to illegal possession and/or use of firearms. Drastic, I know, but sends a very strong message to armed felons.
Common sense often isn't even worth two cents.
1
A goal, of course, is to get Congress to debate and pass sensible gun laws ASAP. Barring that, the people and the media must keep the debate front and center without relent. Peaceful public action -- not marches, but action -- can help, even if each action is only a drop in the bucket. How about local drives to have guns of any kind turned in to police departments, followed by assured destruction of the weapons, with broad coverage by the media? How about tit-for tat: every time a billboard goes up to support uncontrolled guns, a bigger billboard goes up to remind of the carnage of mass murders, familial murders, random street and gang violence, suicides, and gun accidents? How about every time, a candidate or legislator says "now is not the time to discuss gun control," a more sensible response is widely publicized? How about forgetting the defeatist attitude that there is no hope for sensible gun laws?
In 2018, the voters must elect legislators who do not owe the NRA anything and who support sensible gun laws. This is not about party politics but about people politics. The hard-over gun advocates will never change, but there are lots of voters in the middle who could (and should) be swayed to join the moral majority that wants to see an end to gun violence.
In 2018, the voters must elect legislators who do not owe the NRA anything and who support sensible gun laws. This is not about party politics but about people politics. The hard-over gun advocates will never change, but there are lots of voters in the middle who could (and should) be swayed to join the moral majority that wants to see an end to gun violence.
How long? If not forever and a day, at least until a new generation ascends that insists on a balanced approach. But it’s doubtful that anyone over the age of 50 will live long enough to witness it.
Allow guns. But require insurance like car insurance, obviously without "no fault" clauses. And require that the owner is held liable for any actions of said weapon. And stop letting gun manufacturers out of liability issues. Maybe we can't get guns regulated, but we can make it very expensive for those who manufacture or own them if errors (injuries) are made.
"Maybe we can't get guns regulated, but we can make it very expensive for those who manufacture or own them if errors (injuries) are made." Sounds eerily familiar to an odious tactic from our not-to-distant history used to to diminish constitutional rights...the poll tax. Who knew that the anti-gun left would look to the Jim Crow era for its new tactics.
1
So many use autos as proof of a way to bring the deaths from firearm homicides under control. Recently have been seeing about 11,000 firearm homicides a year, while with autos, which have databases, licenses and insurance we see over 40,000 deaths a year. Sure solved that problem....
1
"Republicans in Congress shouldn’t think that sacrificing bump stocks will even begin to suffice, given the depth of public fear about the dangers posed by deadly weapons that are so freely available."
Thank you NYT Editorial Board. You are why we cannot have nice things (New gun regulations that make a difference without infringing on rights of the law abiding). Most of us in the gun-owning community have no use for bump stocks and have no issue with seeing them banned. They haven't been around that long, Obama's BATFE approved them for sale. That said, if a bill comes up for a vote that lumps the rest of the anti-gun agenda in with that, we will work to defeat it. Should congress pass a bill that includes more than banning bump stocks, we will pressure the President to veto that bill.
Thank you NYT Editorial Board. You are why we cannot have nice things (New gun regulations that make a difference without infringing on rights of the law abiding). Most of us in the gun-owning community have no use for bump stocks and have no issue with seeing them banned. They haven't been around that long, Obama's BATFE approved them for sale. That said, if a bill comes up for a vote that lumps the rest of the anti-gun agenda in with that, we will work to defeat it. Should congress pass a bill that includes more than banning bump stocks, we will pressure the President to veto that bill.
1
Shooters like this latest example of of the psychopathogical effects of guns can be deterred from amassing large arsenals and stockpiles of ammunition by a system that tracks purchases of these items.
1
Translation: as long as gun owners feel any change is based on rescinding something from the Obama administration, we're good to go, otherwise not.
They are right about one thing. "Sensible" gun control won't work.
You need to ban the ability of any gun to hold over 6 bullets and to make it somewhat difficult to re-load and of course ban the entire and broad category of Assault type weapons which do not have a purpose in hunting.
All guns not meeting that criteria should be required to be turned in. Anyone caught with one should have a $5,000 fine and one year in jail with a felony on their record. Anyone using a gun in a felony type action should have a 5 year prison term.
So it is not what people think of as "sensible" gun control, but it is real gun control
You need to ban the ability of any gun to hold over 6 bullets and to make it somewhat difficult to re-load and of course ban the entire and broad category of Assault type weapons which do not have a purpose in hunting.
All guns not meeting that criteria should be required to be turned in. Anyone caught with one should have a $5,000 fine and one year in jail with a felony on their record. Anyone using a gun in a felony type action should have a 5 year prison term.
So it is not what people think of as "sensible" gun control, but it is real gun control
Thank you NYT for the graphic on the website today showing that 58 people have died in Chicago in 28 days, it just took longer than Las Vegas. The perception that Vegas is an outlier or exceptional circumstance unlikely to occur again is partly to blame for the inaction.
Most people I know do not want to visit the United States.
I think the US is possessed by some form of insanity.
I have written to my elected representatives in Canada asking that we change our laws to permanently deny entry to any American carrying a gun into Canada.
Most people I know do not want to visit the United States.
I think the US is possessed by some form of insanity.
I have written to my elected representatives in Canada asking that we change our laws to permanently deny entry to any American carrying a gun into Canada.
Actually, every two to three days the same number die in low income urban neighborhoods across the country, but people don't really care about that.
One of the reasons gun controllers keep losing this debate with the American people (despite their frequent claims that the majority support them) is that they have yet to show how any of the "reasonable gun control" measures they propose might affect either mass shootings like what just happened in LV, or the incredible gun crime in some inner cities. And most people know that. Their arguments are largely compounded from non-sequiturs and other fallacies. What many of them really want is Australian style confiscation, or outright abolition (or total evisceration) of the 2nd.
The problem with the arguments is that over the decades, yes decades, the reasonable arguments have been routinely pushed aside. Meanwhile, while the debate gets framed as only a question of 2nd Amendment rights, gun owners, seemingly en masse, have routinely increased not only the amount of guns they own but the type. So it strikes as a little disingenuous to come out at this late stage and suggest that outright abolition is unreasonable, when what is truly unreasonable (a veritable arms race) just sits as a given. Even a moral one.
So yeah. That's why gun controllers lose. The cards have been marked, the dice have been loaded, the game has been rigged.
So yeah. That's why gun controllers lose. The cards have been marked, the dice have been loaded, the game has been rigged.
There are some things currently proposed that I would agree with--expanded background checks, eliminate bump-stocks, for example. The latter is perhaps the only proposal so far that might have an effect on the Las Vegas type of shooting. But it is not a 2nd Amendment issue. It's not a firearm but an entirely optional accessory. I'm happy to get rid of them. Beyond that, there is no demonstrable reason why anything thus far "reasonably" proposed would reasonably have prevented or deterred mass shootings.
Your argument seems even less reasonable than those "reasonable" proposals. You seem to be saying that since gun controllers have not been able to win any major gun control arguments since the assault weapons ban, you might as well ask--no, demand--a total ban. Yeah, I guess, in some inverted world, that makes sense.
Your argument seems even less reasonable than those "reasonable" proposals. You seem to be saying that since gun controllers have not been able to win any major gun control arguments since the assault weapons ban, you might as well ask--no, demand--a total ban. Yeah, I guess, in some inverted world, that makes sense.
Most NYT topics are complex. By comparison this one is easy.
No relevant debate on guns is possible until DJT and mitch are out of office.
For DJT unless it impacts his brand and/or involves a real estate deal he could care less no matter how many people die.
DJT is also a convicted (on the record) liar. So why bother!?
Regarding mitch, he has proven time and again that he is incompetent as a leader and legislator. So again why bother?!
A move away from a GOP controlled government will be a start to reasonable gun regulations debates, until then I expect nothing to be done.
There will very likely be another mass shooting, but no other debate or real legislation will move forward.
No relevant debate on guns is possible until DJT and mitch are out of office.
For DJT unless it impacts his brand and/or involves a real estate deal he could care less no matter how many people die.
DJT is also a convicted (on the record) liar. So why bother!?
Regarding mitch, he has proven time and again that he is incompetent as a leader and legislator. So again why bother?!
A move away from a GOP controlled government will be a start to reasonable gun regulations debates, until then I expect nothing to be done.
There will very likely be another mass shooting, but no other debate or real legislation will move forward.
Short of amending or removing the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the solution that all gun control advocates seek is in vain. No one has proposed any laws that would have prevented Las Vegas, or future occurrences. Virtue signaling and declaring loudly and sincerely that something must be done has proved useless. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed "is quite clear. Repeal, or accept the mental health and terrorist issue that we must live with.
The time for debate is over. It is time to take real action to stop murder/suicide-by-gun at every level.
WE THE PEOPLE must demand that EVERY gun in the United States of America be registered on a national database, state licensed and fully insured for liability.
It's the best way to identify the "bad guys with a gun".
Attention gun owners: We do not want your guns. We want your guns to stop killing us and our loved ones.
WE THE PEOPLE must demand that EVERY gun in the United States of America be registered on a national database, state licensed and fully insured for liability.
It's the best way to identify the "bad guys with a gun".
Attention gun owners: We do not want your guns. We want your guns to stop killing us and our loved ones.
2
Bray and scapegoat all you want, but I have yet to see a proposal that wouldn't require a massively inflated police state and increased number of prisons and prisoners, a circumstance which would disproportionately impact people in low income areas.
A repeal of the second amendment would work, but requires 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify. That's not going to happen.
Perhaps firearm education and training for every citizen, incorporating the gravity of the responsibility and the moral education? Maybe when they're young?
I don't see a practical solution. But I fear that, so often, those who propose a mitigation of liberties pave roads to hell with good intentions. It's a charge that could plausibly be leveled at the Founders with respect to the 2A, I admit.
A repeal of the second amendment would work, but requires 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify. That's not going to happen.
Perhaps firearm education and training for every citizen, incorporating the gravity of the responsibility and the moral education? Maybe when they're young?
I don't see a practical solution. But I fear that, so often, those who propose a mitigation of liberties pave roads to hell with good intentions. It's a charge that could plausibly be leveled at the Founders with respect to the 2A, I admit.
We don't want to invade your home looking for guns. We only want you to leave your guns at home and out of public places.
1
We will never forget:
- 9/11/2001
Let's forget (to list a few):
- 10/1/2017 (Las Vegas)
- 6/12/2016 (Orlando)
- 12/2/2015 (San Bernardino)
- 11/29/2015 (Colorado Springs)
- 10/1/2015 (Roseburg)
- 7/16/2015 (Chattanooga)
- 6/18/2015 (Charleston)
- 5/23/2014 (Isla Vista)
- 4/2/2014 (Fort Hood)
- 9/16/2013 (Washington DC)
- 12/14/2012 (Newtown)
- 10/21/2012 (Brookfield)
- 9/28/2012 (Minneapolis)
Hundreds of more mass shooting events can be added to this list. This doesn't look abnormal to Congress and NRA and gun rights supporters. Let's just forget these murders, look the other way, buy more NRA memberships and stockpile more guns and assault rifles. According to them, this is the price all of us have to pay for "freedom".
When will we have paid enough?
- 9/11/2001
Let's forget (to list a few):
- 10/1/2017 (Las Vegas)
- 6/12/2016 (Orlando)
- 12/2/2015 (San Bernardino)
- 11/29/2015 (Colorado Springs)
- 10/1/2015 (Roseburg)
- 7/16/2015 (Chattanooga)
- 6/18/2015 (Charleston)
- 5/23/2014 (Isla Vista)
- 4/2/2014 (Fort Hood)
- 9/16/2013 (Washington DC)
- 12/14/2012 (Newtown)
- 10/21/2012 (Brookfield)
- 9/28/2012 (Minneapolis)
Hundreds of more mass shooting events can be added to this list. This doesn't look abnormal to Congress and NRA and gun rights supporters. Let's just forget these murders, look the other way, buy more NRA memberships and stockpile more guns and assault rifles. According to them, this is the price all of us have to pay for "freedom".
When will we have paid enough?
1
When we have nothing left to lose.
1
The idea that the Republican Party and the NRA agree to "talk about" bump stocks now makes me angrier than I ever have been at the amazing hypocrisy of these two organizations. We have to get together and put them both in the dustbin of history, likes Whigs and the KKK.
It might be too late to change global warming and it might be too late to change the way American's think. This election has shown us that no matter how hard we try to be smart and empathetic there's always the archaic kill or be killed mentality lurking in the background, and not even the background for most of the states. It's interesting that the NRA only gives huge amount to the Republicans.
Since so many Americans have guns in order to protect themselves, according to Republicans, why are these shootings continuing? Come on Republicans get out your stupid guns and protect us all!!!!
Since so many Americans have guns in order to protect themselves, according to Republicans, why are these shootings continuing? Come on Republicans get out your stupid guns and protect us all!!!!
1
Technology will advance. Laws are thus not immutable. It is just as applicable to 18th century gun fundamentalists as to 7th century religious fundamentalists.
So what are you saying? That we'll be talking about laser sword or ray gun control in 50 years?
Under Obama Democrats had control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress. What did they do? You're awful fast to blame Republicans for a problem which neither party has moved to fix.
1
I am all for preventing individuals from acquiring guns and ammo enough to transform their cellars into munitions depots. Guns like cars should be licensed. Those who use guns to attack their neighbors should be behind bars; no parole.
But an accompanying article comparing the 58 killed in Las Vegas with gun deaths in our major cities is specious.
Those 58 were ambushed; they were innocent.
If you discount the children sitting on their stoops, or playing in their second-story bedrooms, or walking with their mothers on their blocks -- all of them innocent, ambushed, even if accidentally, caught in idiot crossfire-- or the grocery store owners or cabbies and others killed by robbers -- also innocent -- what we have left are gang members killing one another.
By the dozens and hundreds every year.
That's very different. And terribly unfair to those who perished in Las Vegas.
But an accompanying article comparing the 58 killed in Las Vegas with gun deaths in our major cities is specious.
Those 58 were ambushed; they were innocent.
If you discount the children sitting on their stoops, or playing in their second-story bedrooms, or walking with their mothers on their blocks -- all of them innocent, ambushed, even if accidentally, caught in idiot crossfire-- or the grocery store owners or cabbies and others killed by robbers -- also innocent -- what we have left are gang members killing one another.
By the dozens and hundreds every year.
That's very different. And terribly unfair to those who perished in Las Vegas.
Now, if a gun was a woman's uterus this would be a roaring debate - laws passed up the wazoo!
Just this week, lost in all the news coverage of "The Militia" off on another killing spree, another law was passed in the House, 237 - 189, to restrict abortions.
Or, for another story on women's anatomy, perhaps you missed the heart-warming story of Rep. (R) Tim Murphy, one of the co-sponsors of that legislation, demanding that his mistress have an abortion lest his wife find out. (You know, Tim, you're 65 - if you don't want your mistress to get pregnant, get a vasectomy.)
If you want legislation passed, if you want regulations - don't talk "guns".
Talk regulating a woman's anatomy. Not a MAN'S!, Good heavens, no! Men don't need no stinkin' regulation: Like Tim Murphy, men are exempt from any laws on their anatomy. Only women get "regulated".
Guns don't get "regulated" - women do.
A lump of cold steel has more legal rights in this country than a female.
All those "Militias" can run around and do anything they want.
Men can do what they want.
But women and their personal anatomy...? Never.
They got the vote- and that was good enough.
This country is mad. It is insane. And, it is dark and mean.
And 5 million men in the NRA have more status than 160 million women in this country.
No Equal Rights Amendment?
Then the Second Amendment must go!
Just this week, lost in all the news coverage of "The Militia" off on another killing spree, another law was passed in the House, 237 - 189, to restrict abortions.
Or, for another story on women's anatomy, perhaps you missed the heart-warming story of Rep. (R) Tim Murphy, one of the co-sponsors of that legislation, demanding that his mistress have an abortion lest his wife find out. (You know, Tim, you're 65 - if you don't want your mistress to get pregnant, get a vasectomy.)
If you want legislation passed, if you want regulations - don't talk "guns".
Talk regulating a woman's anatomy. Not a MAN'S!, Good heavens, no! Men don't need no stinkin' regulation: Like Tim Murphy, men are exempt from any laws on their anatomy. Only women get "regulated".
Guns don't get "regulated" - women do.
A lump of cold steel has more legal rights in this country than a female.
All those "Militias" can run around and do anything they want.
Men can do what they want.
But women and their personal anatomy...? Never.
They got the vote- and that was good enough.
This country is mad. It is insane. And, it is dark and mean.
And 5 million men in the NRA have more status than 160 million women in this country.
No Equal Rights Amendment?
Then the Second Amendment must go!
3
If you want an idea of just what we are up against lobbying for sensible gun control here in Nevada, just days after this horrible event, bump stocks are selling out!! I am both ashamed and depressesd.
It almost makes you want to think that the Vegas shooting was a paid advertisement.
Other then hunting rifles and pistols, all semi and automatic weapons should be banned from selling and owning weapons of mass destruction, case in point Las Vegas, NRA has given millions of dollars to congress members who should be fired from there positions in goverment excepting those killing dollars.
If you wanna change laws, people need to do more than talk on news/write articles. Let's get out and show it!
March in thousands onto the streets, lets there be country wide protests, protests in thousands in front of the congress , organize hunger strikes.. If we can do that, they can't help but changes laws!
March in thousands onto the streets, lets there be country wide protests, protests in thousands in front of the congress , organize hunger strikes.. If we can do that, they can't help but changes laws!
Time for the Ed Board to publish a model national statute including transition procedures to deal with the huge number of firearms already in circulation. A team of columnists should be able to put this together by Thanksgiving. Carry on, NYT!
After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, killing 2,335 Americans, Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. Nobody said now was not the time to speak of such a tragedy. Of course, Japan didn't have as many lobbyists working for its government as the NRA does now. If they had, our history might have been dramatically different.
1
Fellow Americans, let's talk
Instead of "gun control"
Let's reframe the issue as "gun safety"
~ I'll start: "Who's against gun safety?"
Jet
Instead of "gun control"
Let's reframe the issue as "gun safety"
~ I'll start: "Who's against gun safety?"
Jet
Obama & Co. approved bump stocks TWICE.
Obama was the best U.S. salesman ever for guns, with legal production skyrocketing by 2-3 times and even more, depending on the exact category. Illegal production probably also increased rapidly, but it may be difficult to measure.
Obama & Democratic states did little to approve state/local use of killer/non-lethal attack drones that quickly can reach areas that are difficult or even impossible for humans to access. ND did approve non-lethal use such as Tasers, tear gas, pepper spray, etc. While probably not as effective as bullets and other items, they probably at least could have drastically reduced the carnage in the Vegas attack and many others of terrorist and non-terrorist natures. They also would deter a lot of attacks when criminals know what might be in store for them.
BUT as usual, Democrats rant and rave about “solutions” of little or no value, especially in the U.S. where there are hundreds of millions of guns. Criminals almost never file any paperwork to get them. Does anyone really think they will not be readily available?
Why not blame the Republicans, the NRA, etc.? Duping voters and others often is the Democrats’ best strategy!
Obama was the best U.S. salesman ever for guns, with legal production skyrocketing by 2-3 times and even more, depending on the exact category. Illegal production probably also increased rapidly, but it may be difficult to measure.
Obama & Democratic states did little to approve state/local use of killer/non-lethal attack drones that quickly can reach areas that are difficult or even impossible for humans to access. ND did approve non-lethal use such as Tasers, tear gas, pepper spray, etc. While probably not as effective as bullets and other items, they probably at least could have drastically reduced the carnage in the Vegas attack and many others of terrorist and non-terrorist natures. They also would deter a lot of attacks when criminals know what might be in store for them.
BUT as usual, Democrats rant and rave about “solutions” of little or no value, especially in the U.S. where there are hundreds of millions of guns. Criminals almost never file any paperwork to get them. Does anyone really think they will not be readily available?
Why not blame the Republicans, the NRA, etc.? Duping voters and others often is the Democrats’ best strategy!
"ND did approve non-lethal use such as Tasers, tear gas, pepper spray, etc. While probably not as effective as bullets and other items, they probably at least could have drastically reduced the carnage in the Vegas attack "
Stopped reading after this.
Stopped reading after this.
OK! .... Let's start the debate right now, RIGHT HERE:
1. Why anybody would need miltary weapons in their home?
and more important:
2. How will be possible to do somthing about the 350+ MILLION pieces already in circulation?
It will be great to use this forum to evaluate potentially definite and effective solutions to this outrageous scourge of more than 500 MSs in a year!
1. Why anybody would need miltary weapons in their home?
and more important:
2. How will be possible to do somthing about the 350+ MILLION pieces already in circulation?
It will be great to use this forum to evaluate potentially definite and effective solutions to this outrageous scourge of more than 500 MSs in a year!
Republicans don't want to pass any laws that'd upset the NRA. So no wonder they don't want to debate the issue.
Not that there is any humor in this, but their attitude is similar to the one in the famous New Yorker Cartoon with the caption:
"No, Thursday's Out. How About Never - is never good for you?"
http://tinyurl.com/ycb975q9
Not that there is any humor in this, but their attitude is similar to the one in the famous New Yorker Cartoon with the caption:
"No, Thursday's Out. How About Never - is never good for you?"
http://tinyurl.com/ycb975q9
There is an over-riding need to stop treating the 2nd Amendment as part of a religion.
Humans have to realize that violence does not lead to safety or peace Fear is an enemy..Listen to Jesus a Thomas Jefferson said , just read the teachings of Jesus..People who do not follow what Jesus taught should not go around saying they are "Christians",besides global warming denial is a HUGE form o Violence.
I had no idea that so many individuals were named "Militia".
1
We have an "unorganized militia" which is every body abled male between the ages of 17-45. Due to the size of our military and its reserve components it is very unlikely that they would be activated in a time of war, but it EXISTS. Why do you think we still have the Selective Service System? Don't let your Hoplophobia overrule the facts with emotions.
Pass a law obliging waiting periods to be the same for purchasing guns as it is for abortion. Thus, if they are judge-deemed unconstitutional for abortion, so too must they be for guns. Both are sacred cows.
The democrats never want a conversation about abortion, which kills approximately 20,000 people for every gun death.
The democrats never want a conversation about abortion, which kills approximately 20,000 people for every gun death.
You want compromise? I would be fine with universal background checks and placing the bump stocks on the NFA, in return concealed carry reciprocity. CCW licensees are among the most law abiding citizens there are, despite what the NYT claims using false propaganda by the anti gun rights group the Violence Policy Center, whose ultimate goal is a complete civilian ban on gun ownership. Most states require fingerprints and photographs for permit holders, average lifespan of a CCW license is 5 years. They have already been properly vetted. Just look at the OFFICIAL data for each state on permit holders and you can easily see the exaggeration of numbers by the anti gun groups.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443981/new-york-times-concealed-ha...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443981/new-york-times-concealed-ha...
2
I hope the Times maintain this Editorial and 'Guns and the Soul of America' on its website, easily accessed, so we can monitor these numbers and see how long it takes Congress to address these horrific statistics by necessary gun control legislation.
Demand that our representatives discuss, debate and legislate these long overdue measures now. Citing the growing numbers in these two articles ought to push them to consider our right to live without fear of being massacred which is more important than their blind allegiance to the NRA.
Demand that our representatives discuss, debate and legislate these long overdue measures now. Citing the growing numbers in these two articles ought to push them to consider our right to live without fear of being massacred which is more important than their blind allegiance to the NRA.
1. Here is an easy and lawful solution to gun violence in the USA: eliminate the first comma in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
But are our elected officials brave enough to take this life-saving course of action??? I doubt it.
But are our elected officials brave enough to take this life-saving course of action??? I doubt it.
1
Never!
Because as long as there is no American "we the people" who are demanding any mutually agreeable basis debate on gun laws the only law that matters is the Second Amendment.
While the U.S. Congress is a persistently poisonous politically partisan supermassive black hole that warps space time and coverts matter into energy. A lot of heated bipartisan rhetoric.
And "we" do not understand nor accept the nature of the deadliest aspect of gun related violence in America aka suicide.
Every day on average 60 Americans commit suicide by gun. About 80% are white men. Las Vegas by suicide happens every day in America.
Every day on average 30 Americans are the victims of homicide by gun. And 95% of the killers and the victims are of the same color aka race. Sandy Hook by homicide happens every day in America.
Every year 22,000 Americans commit suicide by gun. Every year 11,000 Americans are the victims of homicide by gun.
Because as long as there is no American "we the people" who are demanding any mutually agreeable basis debate on gun laws the only law that matters is the Second Amendment.
While the U.S. Congress is a persistently poisonous politically partisan supermassive black hole that warps space time and coverts matter into energy. A lot of heated bipartisan rhetoric.
And "we" do not understand nor accept the nature of the deadliest aspect of gun related violence in America aka suicide.
Every day on average 60 Americans commit suicide by gun. About 80% are white men. Las Vegas by suicide happens every day in America.
Every day on average 30 Americans are the victims of homicide by gun. And 95% of the killers and the victims are of the same color aka race. Sandy Hook by homicide happens every day in America.
Every year 22,000 Americans commit suicide by gun. Every year 11,000 Americans are the victims of homicide by gun.
2
The non-age adjusted suicide rate is about the same for the UK, US, Canada and New Zealand, in spite of very different rates of firearm ownership.
"How Long Until We Debate Real Gun Laws?"
With this Congress? "Never" is the answer.
With this Congress? "Never" is the answer.
How long? Forever as long as our Congress is in the pay of lobbyists. All lobbying should be banned, and that includes the NRA.
1
When there is a mass shooting, Republicans say now is not the time to talk about gun control.
When American territories and cities are hit by hurricanes, Republicans say now is not the time to talk about climate change.
Notice a trend here?
When American territories and cities are hit by hurricanes, Republicans say now is not the time to talk about climate change.
Notice a trend here?
6,744 days since I survived the shootings at Columbine. I'm not holding my breath.
I really wish the NRA would allow a full fledged debate, with each side arguing for its side and against the other side, including the opportunity for rebuttal by each side.
Because the arguments by the NRA for NOT allowing ANY gun restrictions are ludicrous. But the NRA will never let their arguments be challenged in a public forum, since basically what the NRA demands is irresponsible and makes no sense. The evidence is in: The consequences of the NRA's pro-gun advocacy clearly are doing lethal harm in our country, relative to responsible advanced countries that have common sense gun laws.
The more guns people have, the safer they are?? Where is the evidence for that assertion?? Military weapons in the hands of civilians--for what purpose? I heard yesterday that the NRA is trying to get rid of all gun registration and licensing "restrictions" in localities and states. What could possibly go wrong?
How do you defend guns being allowed in daycare centers, on college campuses, in bars, in churches, and making public spaces subject to open carry?
I am waiting for the GOP to ram through a bill at the request of the NRA to allow toddlers and blind people to carry guns, and to allow open carry on airplanes.
And by the way, I was in a small fender-bender yesterday and stood my ground! I got a little angry. I felt the other driver was threatening me. I think he had a gun, so I shot him. Whoops!
NRA motto: Guns are not the problem, they are the solution!
Because the arguments by the NRA for NOT allowing ANY gun restrictions are ludicrous. But the NRA will never let their arguments be challenged in a public forum, since basically what the NRA demands is irresponsible and makes no sense. The evidence is in: The consequences of the NRA's pro-gun advocacy clearly are doing lethal harm in our country, relative to responsible advanced countries that have common sense gun laws.
The more guns people have, the safer they are?? Where is the evidence for that assertion?? Military weapons in the hands of civilians--for what purpose? I heard yesterday that the NRA is trying to get rid of all gun registration and licensing "restrictions" in localities and states. What could possibly go wrong?
How do you defend guns being allowed in daycare centers, on college campuses, in bars, in churches, and making public spaces subject to open carry?
I am waiting for the GOP to ram through a bill at the request of the NRA to allow toddlers and blind people to carry guns, and to allow open carry on airplanes.
And by the way, I was in a small fender-bender yesterday and stood my ground! I got a little angry. I felt the other driver was threatening me. I think he had a gun, so I shot him. Whoops!
NRA motto: Guns are not the problem, they are the solution!
1
Where are all the people who have clean up the mess after one of these shootings? Where are the thousands of police, firemen, EMTs, ER doctors and nurses?
So NYT, what are the "real gun laws" that would have helped? How many back ground checks, waiting periods, or purchase permits would stop a determined psychopath?
It's easy to shout "Do something!" It's hard to say what something is.
It's easy to shout "Do something!" It's hard to say what something is.
3
Keep this kind of editorializing up. If anything, intensify the pressure. I'm from Ohio where one of our senators, Rob Portman (#8 on the NRA money list) doesn't even have "gun control" on his list of issues when emailing him.
Gun control isn't an option for him to discuss. I guess his prayers suffice.
Gun control isn't an option for him to discuss. I guess his prayers suffice.
1
There is not going to be any real debate, there's no money in it. If anything, we will get some variation of the usual dog and pony show.
The clock has already started on the countdown to the next massacre. We don't have time for the "thoughts and prayers", or the "this needs more study", or the "now is not the time to politicize" crapolla. There are literally thousands of nutcases out there with Paddock-like arsenals. We need to ban battlefield weapons. We need to start purging the millions of battlefield weapons that are already out in the populace. We need to shine a very bright light on those engaged in this death trade: the bought politicians, identify the NRA players and how the money is flowing, the players in the gun show circuit, ALEC, etc.
Start implementing the Australian model.
The clock has already started on the countdown to the next massacre. We don't have time for the "thoughts and prayers", or the "this needs more study", or the "now is not the time to politicize" crapolla. There are literally thousands of nutcases out there with Paddock-like arsenals. We need to ban battlefield weapons. We need to start purging the millions of battlefield weapons that are already out in the populace. We need to shine a very bright light on those engaged in this death trade: the bought politicians, identify the NRA players and how the money is flowing, the players in the gun show circuit, ALEC, etc.
Start implementing the Australian model.
I wanted to see just how hard it would be for me, a law abiding, middle class person to obtain a handgun permit in NY. The application is 17 pages long, and requires almost $500 in fees just for processing, background check, and psych eval. At the end of the application is also a page for one's spouse/co-habitant to sign acknowledging they are okay with you having a gun in the home. That is followed a page to be completed by someone you must designate to safeguard or surrender your weapons when you die or become incapacitated. This person must also be a NYS resident. Additionally, this application is a matter of public record, unless you complete a form for exemption, which is only allowed in few, specific situations.
Contrast those requirements to Nevada, where one does not need a permit, can buy as many guns at one time as they want with no mandated waiting period, can own assault weapons and large capacity magazines, and can bring guns into poling places, casinos, and bars (because guns and alcohol mix so well).
Between those 2 extremes, there is a lot of middle ground that would make all of us safer, without infringing upon the rights of gun owners. The real question is whether any persons right to life, is less sacrosanct than any persons right to own weapons that are responsible for so much loss of life?
Contrast those requirements to Nevada, where one does not need a permit, can buy as many guns at one time as they want with no mandated waiting period, can own assault weapons and large capacity magazines, and can bring guns into poling places, casinos, and bars (because guns and alcohol mix so well).
Between those 2 extremes, there is a lot of middle ground that would make all of us safer, without infringing upon the rights of gun owners. The real question is whether any persons right to life, is less sacrosanct than any persons right to own weapons that are responsible for so much loss of life?
1
With approximately 300 million guns in private ownership in the U.S., even if gun sales stopped entirely tomorrow, gun violence will be a fact of life in America for many generations to come. It has been estimated that the hidden cost of gun violence in America is $229 billion annually (or $700 per person) in direct and indirect costs. I choose to drive a car and am required to pay an annual premium, though I have not had any loses or claims in over 25 years. It would similarly be appropriate that gun ownership be required to shoulder this cost via insurance or taxes that are currently being absorbed by all.
1
Should we place a Tax on the right to vote as well? Most of the guns in America are sitting in the gun safe or a closet collecting dust, many don't even have the ammo for it. Driving on public roads is a privilege, but if if you keep your car on your private property and never drive it on a public road car insurance, registration is not required, taxing and fees for legally acquired property inside your home is unconstitutional. Legal gun ownership is a CONSTITUTIONAL right, once someone forfeits their rights to commit a crime then the blame shall be placed on the evil person pulling the trigger, the inanimate object collecting dust and occasionally seeing action at a shooting range is no more guilty than a knife used in a stabbing.
The N.R.A. coming out so fast against bump stocks is suspicious. Accounts appear to identify a few initial bump-fired bursts followed by single shots. I suspect the killer wounded many with the auto fire, and then picked off the injured with more conventional weapons and scopes. The N.R.A. would want to deflect attention away from these other weapons, which they will say remain sacrosanct.
The NY Times should be sure to get information on how each person was killed, and by which type of the killer's weapons.
All assault-type guns should be made illegal. Stop sales now. Provide a period in which to turn them in, the gun industry financing a 6-month buy-back program as penance for the many innocent lives that their products -- totally unneeded by any civilized society -- have taken. After 6 months, assault weapons will be confiscated with no compensation. And if Mr. Survivalist says "take my gun over my dead body," so be it. Send in SWAT. Better to take his gun-addled life than the life of an innocent concertgoer or innocent grade-schooler.
The NY Times should be sure to get information on how each person was killed, and by which type of the killer's weapons.
All assault-type guns should be made illegal. Stop sales now. Provide a period in which to turn them in, the gun industry financing a 6-month buy-back program as penance for the many innocent lives that their products -- totally unneeded by any civilized society -- have taken. After 6 months, assault weapons will be confiscated with no compensation. And if Mr. Survivalist says "take my gun over my dead body," so be it. Send in SWAT. Better to take his gun-addled life than the life of an innocent concertgoer or innocent grade-schooler.
Let's not be fooled by the shedding of the crocodile tears by the Congressional Republican leaders as well as few Democratic members and by the greatest hypocrite of our country at present, the Republican president called Donald Trump.
What we all in the left are hoping that somehow through a sleight of hand or just a miracle, the Republican House members and their Senators will sit down with their president and pass a simple legislation to ban all the assault weapons.
Not just 'bump stocks' that allowed a crazed individual like Stephen Paddock to slaughter 58+ fantastic Americans and injure 450+ others with 43+ guns that he acquired only to kill our own citizens inside our own country while they're enjoying an evening, listening to country music.
If the same crooked individual gone to Iraq and Syria with his 43+ guns and slaughtered 58+ I.S.I.S. fighters, nobody would've cursed him like they're doing now to his departed soul.
But this thoroughly demented individual chose to kill our own innocent citizens.
And what is our Republican leaders are doing ?
Nothing,other than saying the same thing that they always said after each mass shootings: "This is not the time to talk about gun restrictions. Let's not politicize the tragedy."
Because they know once they can sweep the current tragedy under the rug, they'll never have to pass any legislation until the next tragedy happens when they'll say the same thing again to keep millions of dollars worth of contributions from the N.R.A.
What we all in the left are hoping that somehow through a sleight of hand or just a miracle, the Republican House members and their Senators will sit down with their president and pass a simple legislation to ban all the assault weapons.
Not just 'bump stocks' that allowed a crazed individual like Stephen Paddock to slaughter 58+ fantastic Americans and injure 450+ others with 43+ guns that he acquired only to kill our own citizens inside our own country while they're enjoying an evening, listening to country music.
If the same crooked individual gone to Iraq and Syria with his 43+ guns and slaughtered 58+ I.S.I.S. fighters, nobody would've cursed him like they're doing now to his departed soul.
But this thoroughly demented individual chose to kill our own innocent citizens.
And what is our Republican leaders are doing ?
Nothing,other than saying the same thing that they always said after each mass shootings: "This is not the time to talk about gun restrictions. Let's not politicize the tragedy."
Because they know once they can sweep the current tragedy under the rug, they'll never have to pass any legislation until the next tragedy happens when they'll say the same thing again to keep millions of dollars worth of contributions from the N.R.A.
There is no 'debate' about gun laws in the United States. The gun culture is a false religion presided over by the NRA, and the high priest of this modern Moloch is Wayne LaPierre. Membership in this religion entails spending thousands of dollars on weapons designed for military use, and then firing them at gun clubs and gun ranges. The sacred text of this religion is the detached second phrase of the Second Amendment. Gun lobby 'arguments' about the need to defend against the rural legend of the 'home invasion' are not even vaguely rational. The Dickey Amendment restricting research on gun violence is surest sign that you face pure dogma, not reason. Likewise the easily accessible videos of completely deluded people showing off their weapons of mass murder as some kind of identity symbol and adult toy.
1
Los Angeles county tops other counties in the US in the number of murders. Since most murders are committed with handguns it is a good proxy for firearm homicides. California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Los Angeles county was very blue in the last election.
Does the NRA or GOP make people in California buy guns? (no). Does the NRA or GOP make people in California shoot other people? (no). Looking at the top ten counties in the US regarding murders 9 of the 10 are Democratic. So maybe the issue of guns, gun control and firearm homicides is more complicated than most are aware of.
Does the NRA or GOP make people in California buy guns? (no). Does the NRA or GOP make people in California shoot other people? (no). Looking at the top ten counties in the US regarding murders 9 of the 10 are Democratic. So maybe the issue of guns, gun control and firearm homicides is more complicated than most are aware of.
I am 45 years. Therefore, the debate will keep going on beyond my death. Meanwhile, the death toll will keep rising.
As the times has pointed out, the death toll in Vegas is matched by that of Chicago over a period of 28 days.
Why does it have to be the federal government that steps in? It's obvious it will go nowhere. Sure Washington DC and Chicago can't ban handguns outright, but there is plenty else that can be done. Stop complaining about Washington and try and get something done where you can.
Why does it have to be the federal government that steps in? It's obvious it will go nowhere. Sure Washington DC and Chicago can't ban handguns outright, but there is plenty else that can be done. Stop complaining about Washington and try and get something done where you can.
3
Obama's ATF approved "bump stocks," the devices used to make semi-automatic weapons work like fully automatic weapons.
Trump, GOP leaders and the NRA all agree that this Obama era provision should be repealed.
Trump, GOP leaders and the NRA all agree that this Obama era provision should be repealed.
1
This is a great idea, but I wish there was a way for us to see into the future, so your clock could count down to the next massacre instead of count up from the last one. That way, it would appear more urgent to save the next set of lost lives. We could say to the bought off Republicans, "you need to do something fast before the next group of people is randomly slaughtered on the 15th of x".
Of course, we know mass murders are inevitable with easy gun access and the urgency is real. The next one is always coming. The GOP of death want us to only see the "terrorists", "demented", and "evil" individual to put the blame on, and then pray for ourselves, as though these are natural rather than man-made disasters. This is religious thinking on one hand, and selfish for-profit deception on the other. They refuse to see how our system is the accomplice to these evil-doers because to do so, would limit sales and false freedoms.
Since we cannot see the future, it is best to be clear about inevitability. It is important to stop getting caught in the minutiae of motives and blame. We must start accusing them, directly. If you are not part of the solution you are an accomplice to murder. Our words should be "the next one is on you". Name names. We don't care if it turns out to be a terrorist, a psychotic, a maniac or a fat kid on a bed. None should have firepower, and those that are willing to turn away and supply them are evil too. This is the logic of inevitability.
Of course, we know mass murders are inevitable with easy gun access and the urgency is real. The next one is always coming. The GOP of death want us to only see the "terrorists", "demented", and "evil" individual to put the blame on, and then pray for ourselves, as though these are natural rather than man-made disasters. This is religious thinking on one hand, and selfish for-profit deception on the other. They refuse to see how our system is the accomplice to these evil-doers because to do so, would limit sales and false freedoms.
Since we cannot see the future, it is best to be clear about inevitability. It is important to stop getting caught in the minutiae of motives and blame. We must start accusing them, directly. If you are not part of the solution you are an accomplice to murder. Our words should be "the next one is on you". Name names. We don't care if it turns out to be a terrorist, a psychotic, a maniac or a fat kid on a bed. None should have firepower, and those that are willing to turn away and supply them are evil too. This is the logic of inevitability.
To stop mass killings, many people want to restrict or eliminate guns. Before doing that, I think it might be helpful to try to put yourself in the shoes of someone intent on committing mass murder.
"Gun Control and Mass Killers"
https://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/rush-draft-why-gun-cont...
This may please neither Republicans nor Democrats.
"Gun Control and Mass Killers"
https://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/rush-draft-why-gun-cont...
This may please neither Republicans nor Democrats.
Wait for Congress? This is a national issues that requires the participation of the citizens!
Thank you NYT_ Keep up the great work. Journalists are essential to a democracy!
There are numerous reasons we needed an armed militia after the Revolution. None of them apply to bump stocks. In fact, they don’t apply to easily available assault rifles, free wheeling gun shows, concealed carry, registry databases or pretty much anything today. The 2nd Amendment is obsolete. The current absurdity of hiding behind it is obvious.
It’s sad this is even a debate. And a the trajectory of a bullet doesn’t take into account which side you’re on.
It’s sad this is even a debate. And a the trajectory of a bullet doesn’t take into account which side you’re on.
Slippery slopes are not one-way slides, they are two-way see-saws.
And the NRA has always implied it can only go one way, while it cleverly greased the skids going their way.
Human nature is not compatible with gun ownership of any kind. Over a lifetime, all of us will have moments of rage, or despair, or intoxication. And if we have a gun at that inevitable moment, then something bad could happen. the only smart way is the Australia way. Bump stocks are just our latest abomination, their existence show how insane this country has become.
And the NRA has always implied it can only go one way, while it cleverly greased the skids going their way.
Human nature is not compatible with gun ownership of any kind. Over a lifetime, all of us will have moments of rage, or despair, or intoxication. And if we have a gun at that inevitable moment, then something bad could happen. the only smart way is the Australia way. Bump stocks are just our latest abomination, their existence show how insane this country has become.
Two things.
1. If Congress is serious, then they should IMMEDIATELY HALT SALES of all weapon modification accessories like the bump-stock before the products disappear from the shelves of dealers and into the hands of gun owners. Only then, will I believe that lawmakers are as serious about taking on the gun issues as they are about the "thoughts and prayers" tweeted to surviving family members. If not Congress, then each state should impose an immediate halt to bump-stock sales.
And the bill legalizing the sale of silencers should be scuttled.
2. Congress and the President, should have to write letters to each and every family who loses a member due to gun violence. Maybe after having to put pen to paper thousands of time a year and humanize the tragic loss of life, they will realize the magnitude of this American experience. Until then, they tweet a condolence and then forget it, having "done their part."
1. If Congress is serious, then they should IMMEDIATELY HALT SALES of all weapon modification accessories like the bump-stock before the products disappear from the shelves of dealers and into the hands of gun owners. Only then, will I believe that lawmakers are as serious about taking on the gun issues as they are about the "thoughts and prayers" tweeted to surviving family members. If not Congress, then each state should impose an immediate halt to bump-stock sales.
And the bill legalizing the sale of silencers should be scuttled.
2. Congress and the President, should have to write letters to each and every family who loses a member due to gun violence. Maybe after having to put pen to paper thousands of time a year and humanize the tragic loss of life, they will realize the magnitude of this American experience. Until then, they tweet a condolence and then forget it, having "done their part."
1
And the bill legalizing the sale of silencers should be scuttled.
=====================
The sale of suppressors is already legal
=====================
The sale of suppressors is already legal
Yes, let's have a debate about gun laws. But let us focus that debate on what really works. How about "stop and frisk?" If you don't like stop and frisk because the number of guns removed from the streets is too small to justify the intrusion on individuals, then apply the same standards to any gun law. Does it remove enough guns from criminals and the mentally ill to justify the intrusion on law abiding gun owners?
And what about the mentally ill? Are their privacy rights worth more than our right not to be killed? If you say very few mentally ill people become mass murderers, the same argument applies - even more so - to law abiding gun owners.
But there will be no debate until both sides make some concessions. How about if the left agrees that the Second Amendment provides a right for law abiding citizens to own guns, while the right agrees that some restrictions on that right are appropriate. Then we can get down to the details.
And what about the mentally ill? Are their privacy rights worth more than our right not to be killed? If you say very few mentally ill people become mass murderers, the same argument applies - even more so - to law abiding gun owners.
But there will be no debate until both sides make some concessions. How about if the left agrees that the Second Amendment provides a right for law abiding citizens to own guns, while the right agrees that some restrictions on that right are appropriate. Then we can get down to the details.
As a hunter, shooting sports enthusiast, and gun owner, I would fully support the following gun control initiatives:
- more background checks
- a National Gun Registry
- smaller clips
None of these would infringe on my Second Amendment Rights, nor impact hunting/shooting activities. A vast majority of the gun owners that I know feel the same. Can we please stop listening to the vocal minority?
- more background checks
- a National Gun Registry
- smaller clips
None of these would infringe on my Second Amendment Rights, nor impact hunting/shooting activities. A vast majority of the gun owners that I know feel the same. Can we please stop listening to the vocal minority?
Lots of pathos, but no logos in this article & the comments.
What is "sensible" or "common sense" gun control? We hear that term a lot.
To some commenters, it's ban bump stocks.
Various opine we should limit magazine capacity.
To others, any more than 2 guns is an "arsenal."
And finally, some see "sensible" as banning all firearms.
No wonder gun owners distrust arguments about "sensible" gun control. Common sensibilities are anything but.
What is "sensible" or "common sense" gun control? We hear that term a lot.
To some commenters, it's ban bump stocks.
Various opine we should limit magazine capacity.
To others, any more than 2 guns is an "arsenal."
And finally, some see "sensible" as banning all firearms.
No wonder gun owners distrust arguments about "sensible" gun control. Common sensibilities are anything but.
1
What the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment is seems almost secondary in the absence of all rational thinking. What legitimate reason does any law abiding citizen have for owning what are weapons of mass destruction or owning vast quantities of weapons?
None.
if you want to play with such weapons - fine - they should be held securely at well regulated and investigated gun clubs where you can go and live out your deadly fantasies without possibly endangering the rest of us.
None.
if you want to play with such weapons - fine - they should be held securely at well regulated and investigated gun clubs where you can go and live out your deadly fantasies without possibly endangering the rest of us.
1
As the Times reported, the man who patented his bump stock made a homemade prototype out of wood and metal in just two hours. Even if commercial bump stocks were banned, what would prevent people from making their own? The answer isn't imposing "additional regulations" on bump stocks -- it's banning all assault rifles that can be converted to automatic mass-killing machines. Time for Congress to wake up, ignore the NRA and do the right thing.
Even if commercial bump stocks were banned, what would prevent people from making their own?
==================
You would have to ban springs
==================
You would have to ban springs
It will not happen on a national level for decades, if ever. The gun fanatics -- and even 'fanatic' is mild description of how these people simply worship their guns, would take to the streets on a scale this country hasn't seen since the 1960s and early 70s, but this time the protesters and the militarized police will be heavily armed.
if big business and entities like the NCAA start to consider a state's gun environment like they do these ridiculous bathroom bills then that will lead to more common sense regulations. Money talks to the GOP. Amazon should make a point of considering this when choosing a state for its new headquarters, for example.
Whenever "reasonable" people explain that we have guns to slaughter deer not people, I get confused. Where does the 2nd amendment mention venison?
We have rationalized constant violence in our society because of some fantasy that a bunch of weekend warriors are going to defend our democracy. And then we fail to vote, fail to be outraged by corruption, fail to pay attention to who is buying our politicians.
We have rationalized constant violence in our society because of some fantasy that a bunch of weekend warriors are going to defend our democracy. And then we fail to vote, fail to be outraged by corruption, fail to pay attention to who is buying our politicians.
There are apparently close to 300 million guns in private hands.
The Supreme Court has recognized a right to private gun ownership.
States whose population opposes gun ownership are free within certain limits to harass law abiding gun owners and make their lives more difficult. But a little more than half of the population doesn't support increased gun control, let alone confiscation or semi-automatic bans or repeal of the 2nd Amendment. These are all things which are popular with some of the columnists and commenters here. But nothing major will happen on a national level.
I am more concerned not with the spree killer but with the killer cop, who shoots people like Patrick Harmon in the back and walks away free.
You want gun control? Let's take guns away from the cops. They've shown they can't be trusted to use them.
If preventing cops from having guns sounds ridiculous to you, then you know what repealing the 2nd Amendment or banning semi-automatics sounds like to me.
The Supreme Court has recognized a right to private gun ownership.
States whose population opposes gun ownership are free within certain limits to harass law abiding gun owners and make their lives more difficult. But a little more than half of the population doesn't support increased gun control, let alone confiscation or semi-automatic bans or repeal of the 2nd Amendment. These are all things which are popular with some of the columnists and commenters here. But nothing major will happen on a national level.
I am more concerned not with the spree killer but with the killer cop, who shoots people like Patrick Harmon in the back and walks away free.
You want gun control? Let's take guns away from the cops. They've shown they can't be trusted to use them.
If preventing cops from having guns sounds ridiculous to you, then you know what repealing the 2nd Amendment or banning semi-automatics sounds like to me.
1
NRA is trying to slip in votes for concealed gun laws while giving permission to their Republicans lackeys to vote against bump stocks.
The big gun companies don't make money from bump stocks. They're made by companies that make items that support and enhance gun company products. So no loss for the major gun companies. They can afford to take a magnanimous posture in this instance and maybe boost their chances on the obscene concealed gun laws. How to these people sleep at night?
The big gun companies don't make money from bump stocks. They're made by companies that make items that support and enhance gun company products. So no loss for the major gun companies. They can afford to take a magnanimous posture in this instance and maybe boost their chances on the obscene concealed gun laws. How to these people sleep at night?
1
The Second Amendment is NOT for hunting and sportsmen, but to protect the human right of self preservation and prevent tyranny. The English Constitution had a right for citizens to bear arms, and the Second Amendment was reaffirming an existing right. This is regardless of service in a militia, as the right being outlined in the Second Amendment is to keep (in your home and property) and bear (in public) arms. In light of Heller v DC, the remaining legal argument is that there is NO right for citizens to bear arms. Any talk of banning certain weapons should note Scalia's majority opinion setting the standard for 2nd amendment protection as "firearms in common use". Seeing as upwards of 70% of all arms (handguns, rifles, shotguns) are semiautomatic any ban would not meet this legal standard.
4
First off the English don't have a "constitution.' As to your statement as wha the second amendment means it is clearly YOUR interpretation of it. Many noted legal scholars firmly disagree with the interpretation you've outlined and document that it referred to a well regulated militia, not personal arsenals.
I would also note that we are a nation of laws. Unlike England our country was founded upon a written document. We escape tyranny by relying upon our laws and our court system to ensure our freedoms. We don't rely on guns to do so.
I would also note that we are a nation of laws. Unlike England our country was founded upon a written document. We escape tyranny by relying upon our laws and our court system to ensure our freedoms. We don't rely on guns to do so.
2
Translation: while our politicians were helping to put the debate at bay, we managed to up the ante.
Hence the need to change the law, or the Constitution, whichever.
1
We, the "common people", are expendable. Collateral damage. It's all a matter of money.
12
When the Liberal media keeps responding to the Right, this is what I expect. I have not seen a comparison of how for every other catastrophe the conversations are immediate?
It is because as with everything the Right is in lockstep and coordinated.
Bottom line: Americans need all the guns because America is unsafe because it is full of guns.
It is because as with everything the Right is in lockstep and coordinated.
Bottom line: Americans need all the guns because America is unsafe because it is full of guns.
3
Guess what? Without the idiots out there with gang issues, drug issues, mental issues, poverty, broken homes, and no education, all those guns would just sit there on the table or in the cabinet, doing nothing.
Instead of passing more silly new laws which, in essence, say "this time we really, really, really mean it" we should enact Federal legislation which will require all gun owners, from manufacturers to dealers to final customers, to carry firearm insurance and hold them STRICTLY LIABLE for ALL harm caused by their guns regardless of who uses them. That's vicarious liability, as with cars.
We need all guns and ammo to be traceable. As with cars, guns should have Certificates of Title so we know who owns what gun at any given moment. And the ammo? When I buy eggs at Trader Joe's each egg is imprinted with a code. We can't do that with ammo so we can see who is buying what and in what quantities?
Do this and people will safeguard their guns and transfer them legally. Of course if the guns and ammo are stolen and the owner was not complicit or negligent in allowing the theft to take place the gun owner would be off the hook. You're not fool enough to leave your car parked on the street with the windows open and the keys in it are you?
Nothing that I have suggested conflicts with that pesky Second Amendment.
We need all guns and ammo to be traceable. As with cars, guns should have Certificates of Title so we know who owns what gun at any given moment. And the ammo? When I buy eggs at Trader Joe's each egg is imprinted with a code. We can't do that with ammo so we can see who is buying what and in what quantities?
Do this and people will safeguard their guns and transfer them legally. Of course if the guns and ammo are stolen and the owner was not complicit or negligent in allowing the theft to take place the gun owner would be off the hook. You're not fool enough to leave your car parked on the street with the windows open and the keys in it are you?
Nothing that I have suggested conflicts with that pesky Second Amendment.
9
If someone steals your car and commits murder with it you are not charged with a crime. You are only liable if you have given/lent the person the car and the person is acting as your agent/employee. And car rental agencies are not liable for what the person renting the vehicle does.
Of course your ideas have nothing to do with the carnage in Vegas since the killer purchase all of his weapons legally over a period of years.
Of course your ideas have nothing to do with the carnage in Vegas since the killer purchase all of his weapons legally over a period of years.
3
Really?
So you actually believe that the illegal guns used in 90% of gun crime and gun homicides will get insurance policies on them?
Really?
So you actually believe that the illegal guns used in 90% of gun crime and gun homicides will get insurance policies on them?
Really?
2
Sounds like the 2nd amendment equivalent of a poll tax.
1
And what of the daily drumbeat of three US women dying at the hands of gun-wielding domestic partners? Where do those numbers show up in this debate? Apparently, 900 dead women every year is the cost of our brand of freedom.
19
And what about the 5000+ yearly gun homicides in the long-time Democrat-run large inner cities, most of which has strong gun control laws? Where is the debate about that?
1
Probably somewhere near the debate about universal federal law a la Australia, that would reduce the perpetual flow of guns into places that attempt to manage them.
So Republicans are ready to talk about banning "bump" stocks, a measure half-heartedly supported by the NRA. This means they'll be able to claim they did something about gun violence yet still retain their A ratings from the NRA.
More profiles in courage.
Stop legitimizing the NRA and doing its bidding. Then you'll be doing something about gun violence.
More profiles in courage.
Stop legitimizing the NRA and doing its bidding. Then you'll be doing something about gun violence.
11
With 50+% of our gun homicides happening in our long time democrat run inner cities, with the Democrats in thos cities responsible for the conditions that created that mess, it look more like we need to stop voting Democrats into offices.
Fix the culture out there that the Democrat have wrought, and you will actually be doing something about gun violence.
Fix the culture out there that the Democrat have wrought, and you will actually be doing something about gun violence.
Daedalus, did YOU vote for the Republicans in 2016? And if, as I suspect, you voted against them, and will vote against them in 2018, please explain to me WHY they should listen to you.
Never deal with people in terms of how they SHOULD act. Deal with them in terms of how they WILL act, and realize that you do have SOME control over how they will act.
Use your power wisely.
Never deal with people in terms of how they SHOULD act. Deal with them in terms of how they WILL act, and realize that you do have SOME control over how they will act.
Use your power wisely.
Doubt that the daily murders in Chicago are done by NRA members
The left doesn’t want to have an actual debate. They make demands, they give you emotions. Then they refuse to acknowledge the truth when you hit them with hard indisputable facts and statistics that prove the fallacies of their “arguments”.
To begin with, the left may want to know about guns, as they tend to conflate automatic weapons (largely illegal and rarely used in mass shootings) with semi-automatic weapons.
To begin with, the left may want to know about guns, as they tend to conflate automatic weapons (largely illegal and rarely used in mass shootings) with semi-automatic weapons.
7
There must be a point in there, somewhere, but clarity would be helpful.
1
Slann: I can't help you if you refuse to acknowledge truth and deny reality. Perhaps therapy?
1
These graphic editorials, along with the stunning numbers of donations received by members of Congress (and their "heart-felt" thoughts and prayers), are a real public service NY Times.
Please keep up the pressure. None of my so-called representatives are even interested in banning a device to alter semi-automatic guns so they can kill even more people. We live in a very sick society.
Please keep up the pressure. None of my so-called representatives are even interested in banning a device to alter semi-automatic guns so they can kill even more people. We live in a very sick society.
6
By making guns harder to get and requiring (for example...a safety/knowledge test), you show respect and honor for those responsible gun owners who understand the responsibility required for safe, responsible gun ownership.
By doing so, those who are most or more likely to use the a or the wrong gun for the wrong reason (INCLUDING suicide) you make a safer environment for the Gun Owner and his/her family as well as better protect those in Society from becoming victims of gun violence and massacres.
The right to bear arms is inviolate, but it should never give those who will not abide by the caveats that responsible gun ownership should and needs to have, the easy access, unlimited opportunity and unrequited ability to do much harm and cause such suffering as is able and can so easily be done because of just how easy it is to get guns to do what they at their worst are capable of doing.
That is the task America must set itself on to do...for the benefit of all.
By doing so, those who are most or more likely to use the a or the wrong gun for the wrong reason (INCLUDING suicide) you make a safer environment for the Gun Owner and his/her family as well as better protect those in Society from becoming victims of gun violence and massacres.
The right to bear arms is inviolate, but it should never give those who will not abide by the caveats that responsible gun ownership should and needs to have, the easy access, unlimited opportunity and unrequited ability to do much harm and cause such suffering as is able and can so easily be done because of just how easy it is to get guns to do what they at their worst are capable of doing.
That is the task America must set itself on to do...for the benefit of all.
When a large number of republicans get massacred, which I offer only to make a point, and not as a suggestion. Many republicans have warm feelings and loyalty to their own. The rest of us, though, are either a means to an end or in the way.
2
Bill O’Reilly writes that public shootings, such as the Las Vegas massacre, are “the price of freedom,” implying that gun control—intended to reduce deaths—also subtracts from American liberties. I am not opposed to this framing, other than to append a concluding question: is that a price worth paying? O’Reilly, of course, explains away the fact that the assault rifles used in Las Vegas were purchased legally because, when it comes to gun regulation, a massacre is somehow tantamount to an act of freedom (while taking a knee during the national anthem is not to be tolerated). And despite the fact that our citizens are 1000x more likely to die from an American’s bullet than to be killed by a foreign-born terrorist, O’Reilly and his kind keep plugging along with their heads in the sand. It’s about time that Americans remind O’Reilly that we also have the right to think freely and demand reform, and THAT is the true price of freedom!
5
I think the only way to resolve your issue is to have a referendum and let the citizens be the final word.
1
It will be the day when current GOP is pushed to become minority or minority party(regional party located in few southern cities next to NRA), just like Russia has become in traditional war.
1
You mean like the current Democratic Party - a regional party restricted to the coasts.
I agree, do something to reduce the national firearm homicide rate. Per PEW almost 75% in low income Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
Below is part of an article from the NYT in Sept, 2014.
The Assault Weapon Myth - LOIS BECKETT
"….It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.
In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows."
Below is a table of murders by county, how the people voted for President in 2016, and the state and county. State totals aren't good measures of where murders happen as murders tend to be very localized, and a red/blue county map of the US makes it clear that Democrats are typically islands of blue in a sea of red. 9 of 10 of the counties where most murders occurred are Democrat. I don't have just firearm homicides but homicides are good proxy as the majority are committed with handguns.
The lead county is in California which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, same of Chicago.
150 D LA Orleans Parish
163 D MO St. Louis city
186 R AZ Maricopa County
211 D MD Baltimore city
212 D FL Miami-Dade County
248 D PA Philadelphia County
321 D TX Harris County
341 D MI Wayne County
476 D IL Cook County
526 D CA Los Angeles County
Below is part of an article from the NYT in Sept, 2014.
The Assault Weapon Myth - LOIS BECKETT
"….It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.
In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows."
Below is a table of murders by county, how the people voted for President in 2016, and the state and county. State totals aren't good measures of where murders happen as murders tend to be very localized, and a red/blue county map of the US makes it clear that Democrats are typically islands of blue in a sea of red. 9 of 10 of the counties where most murders occurred are Democrat. I don't have just firearm homicides but homicides are good proxy as the majority are committed with handguns.
The lead county is in California which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, same of Chicago.
150 D LA Orleans Parish
163 D MO St. Louis city
186 R AZ Maricopa County
211 D MD Baltimore city
212 D FL Miami-Dade County
248 D PA Philadelphia County
321 D TX Harris County
341 D MI Wayne County
476 D IL Cook County
526 D CA Los Angeles County
1
The incident in Las Vegas was a terrorist attack on behalf of a political organization called the National Rifle Association. It was meant to intimidate the population by showing us that we are at their mercy and that any attempts to control them and will be met with vicious and random violence.
I think it worked.
I think it worked.
5
A good beginning would be a national referendum on 'guns'. We could stop guessing what the American people want, then act appropriately.
1
It is interesting how the majority of Republicans pay attention to anti-abortion issues at the national and local level yet do nothing to protect future parents and their children from NRA violence.
2
That's because it's easier to regulate women than regulate a lump of metal.
1
Fine-sounding but ultimately empty words. What are "real gun laws"? At this late date, gun control is a lost cause for 300 million reasons.
2
What would be "effective" legislation? You don't offer any iideas on what that would be?
Bump "stocks" can be banned and the possession of them made illegal but bump fire can be ahieved in other ways so making such devices illegal is not going to matter.
Bump "stocks" can be banned and the possession of them made illegal but bump fire can be ahieved in other ways so making such devices illegal is not going to matter.
1
This mind-numbing killing spree has gone on for way too long now and there is no end in sight. It baffles me as to why we let civilians buy military-style weapons used to kill foreign invading armies.
It's time to amend or repeal or at least not abuse the 2nd amendment. And make sensible gun control laws in this country.
How do people feel safe anywhere here when they go about their daily business? I feel like I am in Pakistan, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, where a roadside bomb can go off anytime killing you.
Thank you NYT Editorial Board for this insightful opinion.
It's time to amend or repeal or at least not abuse the 2nd amendment. And make sensible gun control laws in this country.
How do people feel safe anywhere here when they go about their daily business? I feel like I am in Pakistan, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, where a roadside bomb can go off anytime killing you.
Thank you NYT Editorial Board for this insightful opinion.
1
When do we have real debate on anything of substance in this country other than feelings of others? The elites on both sides of the aisle like it that way and their friends in the media comply every singe time.
We need the courage to confront the language of the Second Amendment and actually regulate the keeping and bearing of arms without damaging the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This Amendment was promulgated at a time when we loathed the idea of a standing army. We certainly changed our mind on that idea just as we have changed our thinking on what constitutes arms. For certain, we do not permit a homeowner to have a loaded howitzer on the lawn. Surely, we permitted the sherriffs in the Old West to require cowboys to check their guns when entering a town and having them returned upon leaving. Sensible regulation without removing the right.
1
10 mins-over 50 dead--500+ injured more than half were shot. Yet, Trump and the GOP say " this is not the time to discuss gun laws.' WHEN IS THE RIGHt TiME? Never if you ask an NRA backed member of Congress. This isnt about the 2nd Amendment. The NRA has twisted the discussion far out of bounds. Its not gun ownership. A "well regulated" militia doesnt fit the equation. This is the gun industries voice twisting the narrative to make cold, calculating cash.
Add together the lives lost in Vegas-- the kids who died at Sandy Hook + Orlando and many more--all are evidemce that weapons of war have 1 end. Killing humans.
Owning 1 assult weapon is 1 too many. When lives are lost in such a horrendous fashion, it should scream "STOP" to all Americans. We are the only "civilized" society to get the place for assault weapons-wrong. Sportspersons, I among them. have a shotgun. I duck hunt. No one is dear hunting with an Ar15. Why-oh-why?
Add together the lives lost in Vegas-- the kids who died at Sandy Hook + Orlando and many more--all are evidemce that weapons of war have 1 end. Killing humans.
Owning 1 assult weapon is 1 too many. When lives are lost in such a horrendous fashion, it should scream "STOP" to all Americans. We are the only "civilized" society to get the place for assault weapons-wrong. Sportspersons, I among them. have a shotgun. I duck hunt. No one is dear hunting with an Ar15. Why-oh-why?
How long? We all know. Until the wholly owned, corporate stooges on both sides of the aisle are replaced by real representatives of the electorate. And how likely is that, ever?
3
Our nation has an illness that is literally killing people. And we're letting the illness fester and get worse because it makes people uncomfortable. It's not supposed to be comfortable, much as talking about treating a fatal disease isn't comfortable. Meanwhile, we're making a big deal about banning the bump stock, which is like treating throat cancer with cough drops.
1
The United Kingdom does just fine without all these assault type guns. The Constitution also give the right to a reasonable expectation of safety. Neither do I feel safe knowing rules are such that people own arsenals. And ATF? How does an agency that knows at least a machine gun is illegal approve a piece of plastic that turns an already ridiculous gun into a machine gun? On a technicality.
You know on safety, and living where I grew up in rural America. If you had a flat on your car, you could walk up the driveway to a house, knock on the door, and get help.
You know on safety, and living where I grew up in rural America. If you had a flat on your car, you could walk up the driveway to a house, knock on the door, and get help.
1
The Editors state, "Too many days have passed, from one tragedy to the next. It’s time for Congress to act. " Rather, too many days have passed without forensic investigations, no public hearings, no trial-level standards of proof. Therefore there are no tested and verified facts and data. These are crimes scenes, yet evidently being adjudicated by headlines, lobbying and human interest sentiment. Law rests on evidence that can withstand examination and appeal. It rests, in these cases, on trial procedure, due diligence, deposition, witness testimony, examination, cross-examination, forensic evidence and conformity to standards, among other factors. These are all crime scenes, yet devoid of civil or military criminal procedure. It is indeed time for Congress to act: to demand procedure in law. It may find that rather than a mere gun control issue, they may represent much more complicated crimes. Otherwise, it is the larger Constitution at issue, not a mere Amendment. It is unfortunate that the press is not instinctively reacting in this manner of public service, rather than as a special interest advocate. There is no better case than these, where Aristotle's wise counsel especially applies: "The law is reason free from passion." Congress will be intensely pressured to react; they should rather act in law and process. Hearings are a good place to start, provided they don't devolve into a Kangaroo Court, which is where this is currently headed.
1
You forgot one number - 3,017 - the number of days since the Democrats had complete control of the Federal Government after Al Franken's theft of the Minnesota Senate seat. I guess all of the gun control laws passed by Democrats during that time period were unable to accomplish enough...because, with all of the outrage, I'm certain that they would have addressed the issue.
3
As a small favor, I would like to see lawmakers stop patronizing the American people with "thoughts and prayers". It would be less disingenuous for them say absolutely nothing during these terrible incidents.
5
Very powerful article, with the graphic tracking of the passage of time after the killings vs passage of gun control by the legislature.
We can spit and sputter all we want about Congress, but Congressmen don't elect themselves.
We, the people, pull that lever again and again, sending these same people back to Congress election after election.
We, the people, keep insisting on our precious right to buy instruments of death in every form imaginable, carry them openly on the streets in front of children, the elderly, and survivors of previous massacres.
We, the people, wring our hands, offer thoughts and prayers, and then tell one another that "this is the price of freedom."
We, the people, after 22 kindergarteners were slaughtered like so much cattle, watched our Senators cower under the authority of the NRA, and then reelected most of them.
As soon as we, the people, get fed up with our spineless Congressmen and the corporate control of our society and our culture, we will see change.
Clearly, that has not yet occurred.
We, the people, pull that lever again and again, sending these same people back to Congress election after election.
We, the people, keep insisting on our precious right to buy instruments of death in every form imaginable, carry them openly on the streets in front of children, the elderly, and survivors of previous massacres.
We, the people, wring our hands, offer thoughts and prayers, and then tell one another that "this is the price of freedom."
We, the people, after 22 kindergarteners were slaughtered like so much cattle, watched our Senators cower under the authority of the NRA, and then reelected most of them.
As soon as we, the people, get fed up with our spineless Congressmen and the corporate control of our society and our culture, we will see change.
Clearly, that has not yet occurred.
2
On January 10, 2015, 4 people were shot - three fatally - here in the little town of Moscow, Idaho. One of those killed was a dear friend. The shooter was her son, who had a paranoid form of schizophrenia. He had accumulated a small arsenal, including semiautomatic weapons. Several of us close to those killed are still in treatment for trauma, including me. The carnage inflicted by these crimes is multiplied many times by their excruciating effects on loved ones and communities - not to mention those surviving direct injuries who have lingering medical and psychological wounds. Many of us will never recover. If we all rallied against the NRA would it make a difference? Will we ever be heard? Soon we will reach a point where everyone in America will have had the shared experience of the effects of a mass shooting or other violent gun-related crime. What then?
1
Even though the NRA has broken their Golden Rule of keeping silent and have finally agreed that bump stocks should now be regulated they are a little late in my book concerning this matter. I am a card caring NRA member don't get me wrong but I also believe that their should also be more stringent Laws where owning and purchasing any type of guns are concerned. I also believe that anyone with any type of mental disability should not be allowed to purchase nor own a gun neither. Then there is the matter of Gun safety. They must also go through a thorough back ground check as well. But what I truly believe would stop most of this mass killing is limiting the amount of Guns per house hold and NOT allowing Semi Automatic weapons to be purchased at all. Shut down all purchasing availability at Gun shows and only allow it at Federally & State Regulated Licensed Establishments...If all else fails lets follow the European way and remove all Guns from the public unless proven that they're for Hunting purposes only and with the police or DNR and is kept in a locked safe and even take GUNS away from the Police and only allow Tazzers to be used Once all illegal Fire arms are confiscated and destroyed. Lets prove to our American Citizens we care just as much about them as we do about those Guns that we fight so hard to keep the right to own so that they can be used in MASS MURDERS.
10
So, I'm curious: Please explain exactly WHY you are a card carrying member?
Exactly what do you get from your membership that pleases you? Whatever it is, how do you justify that against what you call "MASS MURDERS"?
Out of the 320 million people in this country, members of the NRA are only 5 million. You are one. Clue us in on exactly what it is that you are getting out of your membership check.
Exactly what do you get from your membership that pleases you? Whatever it is, how do you justify that against what you call "MASS MURDERS"?
Out of the 320 million people in this country, members of the NRA are only 5 million. You are one. Clue us in on exactly what it is that you are getting out of your membership check.
1
It is very difficult to have a discussion of any complicated issue in our highly politicized country. Gun violence is a variety of problems, and there is no single solution for all the problems. Elderly white males committing suicide, black, drug related street crime, mass murders by terrorists and gun use by the insane are very different problems, and therefore reducing each subset of gun violence requires different solutions. This same inability to hold meaningful discussion, and find way to minimize problems applies to climate change, health care and almost all complex issues.
More guns equal more gun deaths. That simple fact tells thinking people what action the U.S. needs to take to reduce gun deaths. A summary of the data can be viewed at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4qUsgHa4Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4qUsgHa4Y
2
I have zero confidence that a Congress and Executive branch controlled by the GOP will ever enact any common sense gun laws. The NRA controls them and controls this country by obscene amounts of political campaign money and insane propaganda about the 2nd Amendment.
As long as there is money in politics, there will be no real reform on guns or any other issue.
As long as there is money in politics, there will be no real reform on guns or any other issue.
3
I don't believe we'll ever debate real gun laws. I heard the father of one victim defend the right of the gunman to own weapons. When people are willing to put the "right" to own a deadly weapon ahead of the lives of their own family members, I'm not sure what else there is to say.
2
There is plenty to say. Every member of the US military, myself included, has put your "rights" above our own lives. They're that important.
1
We continue to return to the same problem: a Congress that refuses to accept the reality that guns kill. Too many members have been bought and paid for by the NRA. Backing up all this carnage is the Second Amendment.
How many more mass killings will it require to stop this? Who can answer that question?
How many more mass killings will it require to stop this? Who can answer that question?
3
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
A Declaration - not an amendment - a 2nd amendment - poorly written and so poorly read.
The rights to Life and Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are unalienable, and granted by the creator - not by men in a poorly written amendment to some document.
These rights supersede any "right" of anyone to own a gun, or many guns, and deprive others of their unalienable right to Life.
A Declaration - not an amendment - a 2nd amendment - poorly written and so poorly read.
The rights to Life and Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are unalienable, and granted by the creator - not by men in a poorly written amendment to some document.
These rights supersede any "right" of anyone to own a gun, or many guns, and deprive others of their unalienable right to Life.
3
The so called "bump stock" or "slider" is, as has been pointed out, a gimmick, a novelty, for novices pretending at a firing range—which by sloppily recoiling the gun back and forth also reduces accuracy. BUT the recent Las Vegas shooter really didn't need accuracy as he fired into a massed crowd. He just wanted speed and maximum output of bullets.
THEN let's go down to the next notch with the NRA and Republicans. WHY does a rifle need to be "modified" to be semiautomatic? Again, so it can fire more bullets in a given amount of time. Same answer as the "bump stock" above, which most people are decrying. The issue is the number of bullets fired in a given amount of time.
So for civilians and "sportsmen" let's just let a rifle be a rifle. No semiautomatic rifle and no "assault" rifle.
THEN let's go down to the next notch with the NRA and Republicans. WHY does a rifle need to be "modified" to be semiautomatic? Again, so it can fire more bullets in a given amount of time. Same answer as the "bump stock" above, which most people are decrying. The issue is the number of bullets fired in a given amount of time.
So for civilians and "sportsmen" let's just let a rifle be a rifle. No semiautomatic rifle and no "assault" rifle.
3
Semi-automatic rifle technology is over 130 years old at this point. A majority of handguns and rifles in private hands are likely semi-automatic.
Semi-automatic rifles aren't going away.
Semi-automatic rifles aren't going away.
Nothing will create total public safety, but background checks on gun owners will come close.
1
One answer to "how long" is until it hurts important wallets - like the wallets of casino and resort owners - MGM, Disney, etc etc and other "destinations" - by people choosing not to visit resorts in states that don't curb guns.
2
Since the American people have elected a majority of Republicans in Congress and put one in the White House, the debate on gun control will last as long as it takes for the people to move on to another shiny object. Counting on voters extremely short attention spans, Republicans will weather this latest storm by diverting the talk to "bump stocks", which is just a stalling ploy by the NRA and Republicans. How much relevance will the present fury being perpetrated by the gun lobby over "bump stocks" last? Only as long as is needed. All one has to know about "bump stocks" is its initials. That's all this "controversy is about.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
2
Republicans and the NRA look ready to give gun control advocates the concession of banning the bump stock device -- SO WHAT. This will be a token gesture, a bandaid, a kiss-it-to-make-it-better so that Americans can shove this crisis under the rug again until the next mass slaughter. The greatest right of all, the right to life, is undermined by an obsession with gun freedom that is pure insanity as there will always be insane people who want to kill with dangerous weapons.
America is not the greatest nation in the world or the most just until we repeal the second amendment and reassert the greater right to a safe environment. We must look outside of the United States to other advanced nations who have dealt with this problem effectively. Just as we were able to end an injustice as great as slavery, so can we end gun violence. We must have a gun buy back program, something that was effective in Australia, a nation which has not had a mass shooting since 1996.
Until we have meaningful gun control, Americans are not a free people but are slaves to fear.
America is not the greatest nation in the world or the most just until we repeal the second amendment and reassert the greater right to a safe environment. We must look outside of the United States to other advanced nations who have dealt with this problem effectively. Just as we were able to end an injustice as great as slavery, so can we end gun violence. We must have a gun buy back program, something that was effective in Australia, a nation which has not had a mass shooting since 1996.
Until we have meaningful gun control, Americans are not a free people but are slaves to fear.
28
Australia didn't have a 2nd Amendment. The buy back program in Australia was mandatory. The government confiscated guns.
There are more guns in the United States than there are people in Australia.
There will be no repeal of the 2nd Amendment because there are at least 13 and maybe as many as 20 states that would not support it.
Trying to ban guns in the US would be a second Prohibition that would work as well as the first. Trying to confiscate guns would lead to war. Are you willing to fight and kill your fellow Americans over this?
There are more guns in the United States than there are people in Australia.
There will be no repeal of the 2nd Amendment because there are at least 13 and maybe as many as 20 states that would not support it.
Trying to ban guns in the US would be a second Prohibition that would work as well as the first. Trying to confiscate guns would lead to war. Are you willing to fight and kill your fellow Americans over this?
Australia has made it work over the past 20 years, but the US has significantly more weapons in circulation than did Australia when they enacted their current laws and began buying back and destroying weapons. While such a law would certainly disarm law-abiding citizens, I have serious reservations about whether the US could disarm career criminals and organized crime figures. Even attempting to do so would require a significant level of police intrusion into areas that are not typically not welcoming to law enforcement. I doubt urban gang members or rural drug manufacturers are going to comply with restrictive laws without a fight. Furthermore, in many areas within the US that currently have strict gun laws in place such as Chicago or Washington, DC, gun violence is worse than areas where the laws are less restrictive. I realize there are many confounding factors, but on the surface it appears the efficacy of gun laws in the US leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps repealing the 2nd Amendment might actually reduce gun related violence in the US, but enforcing the law will create a surge in the rate of incarceration of young men, and will most likely cost many lives, including those of law enforcement officers. Simply banning guns won't eliminate gun violence in the near term, and I question whether Americans have the stomach to endure the bloodshed that would result when an armed criminal element suddenly realizes that potential victims are unarmed.
I'm confident that outlawing bumper stocks will have as much effect on reducing everyday firearms-related deaths in this country as removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Statehouse grounds has had on reducing the suppression of minority voters in that state.
3
The bump stock concession by the NRA is an easy token for them to offer. It's a timely distraction that takes the focus off the recent carnage and the need for more extensive gun regulation. It's all carefully calculated, designed to buy time until the public once gets distracted by the next media frenzy (another hurricane, a Trump tweet) and forgets about Las Vegas.
2
If liberals are truly serious about new "gun control" laws, then they should start from the proposition that ANY such new law passed would have a sunset provision, whereby the laws would have to be explicitly RENEWED after some period of time. Doubt that the GOP would consider them, but at least it would provide some cover to those who might be willing to talk. Otherwise, you can continue wailing and rending your garments; ain't nothing going to happen.
2
Sunset for assault rifles is how they got back on the shelves. Kicking the can down the road until someone manipulates an uninformed public into accepting its reversal gives us a break, which is much more than we have now.
There are two articles about the gun control debate on today's homepage of RealClearPolitics.Com One link accesses this article and right below is another link that accesses an article here at The Weekly Standard.
I read the Weekly Standard article first, them came here knowing I would find and article and comment section that proved the author's point to a tee. I wasn't disappointed in my assumption.
Here are a couple of lines from the Standard's piece:
"Supporters of stricter gun laws are not stupid. Some are rather prone to moral exhibitionism, for sure. Yet gun-control proponents persist in this charade. Why? Because their real aim—an outright ban on all civilian use of handguns and most rifles—would require a repeal of the Second Amendment.
They can’t or won’t call for such a repeal because, for all their brandishing of opinion polls and claims to speak for the majority, they stand no chance of accomplishing it. The main obstacle for gun-control advocates is not some mendacious lobby but Americans themselves. We like guns. We like shooting them. We use them to protect our families and our businesses from criminals. it is a cultural and sociological fact that will not be overcome by incremental restrictions and sanctimonious jeremiads against gun manufacturers and denunciations of the allegedly omnipotent gun lobby."
The full article is worth a read.
I read the Weekly Standard article first, them came here knowing I would find and article and comment section that proved the author's point to a tee. I wasn't disappointed in my assumption.
Here are a couple of lines from the Standard's piece:
"Supporters of stricter gun laws are not stupid. Some are rather prone to moral exhibitionism, for sure. Yet gun-control proponents persist in this charade. Why? Because their real aim—an outright ban on all civilian use of handguns and most rifles—would require a repeal of the Second Amendment.
They can’t or won’t call for such a repeal because, for all their brandishing of opinion polls and claims to speak for the majority, they stand no chance of accomplishing it. The main obstacle for gun-control advocates is not some mendacious lobby but Americans themselves. We like guns. We like shooting them. We use them to protect our families and our businesses from criminals. it is a cultural and sociological fact that will not be overcome by incremental restrictions and sanctimonious jeremiads against gun manufacturers and denunciations of the allegedly omnipotent gun lobby."
The full article is worth a read.
I am a gun owner and a belief that those who seek gun control are calling for a Second Amendment repeal is misinformed. Like the First Amendment, the vast majority of Americans want reasonable limits so that rights are protected without putting people at unnecessary risk. ("Fire" in a theater, causing panic, inciting a riot, etc.) Guns can and should be available to responsible citizens for use in hunting and for self-protection in their homes and businesses. Few find that unacceptable and, when the facts are discussed, there's plenty of agreement. Unfortunately, some choose to amplify the fears of some gun owners to benefit themselves. What most people will find reasonable are: Background checks for all; gun safety courses for all; liability insurance for gun owners/users; concealed carry "for-cause"; limits on the capacity of ammunition clips and assault-type weapons.
To quote the late Justice Scalia: "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." Further, "... the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time'." And "...that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
To quote the late Justice Scalia: "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." Further, "... the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time'." And "...that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
There are two currencies which politicians care about. Dollars, and votes. Offer them either, or both and you can get them to listen.
But if you say to them, "Do the right thing" they will say, "Yes, of course," but eventually end up going where the votes and the money are.
It would be easy to outbid NRA in terms of money but instead we talk about "How long until we debate". And the votes cannot be in New York - the Republicans have already given up on that "sanctuary city." The votes have to be in Ohio and Florida where they can make a difference.
Finally, liberals would be wise to ACCEPT the second amendment in the way it is conventionally understood. It is your talk about reinterpreting the second amendment which scares gun owners and drives them into the arms of the NRA.
It wiser to say, "Yes, the second amendment does apply but not to automatic weapons." Then you might get somewhere.
To GET something, you must GIVE something. That, to quote a well known politician, is the Art of the Deal.
But if you say to them, "Do the right thing" they will say, "Yes, of course," but eventually end up going where the votes and the money are.
It would be easy to outbid NRA in terms of money but instead we talk about "How long until we debate". And the votes cannot be in New York - the Republicans have already given up on that "sanctuary city." The votes have to be in Ohio and Florida where they can make a difference.
Finally, liberals would be wise to ACCEPT the second amendment in the way it is conventionally understood. It is your talk about reinterpreting the second amendment which scares gun owners and drives them into the arms of the NRA.
It wiser to say, "Yes, the second amendment does apply but not to automatic weapons." Then you might get somewhere.
To GET something, you must GIVE something. That, to quote a well known politician, is the Art of the Deal.
2
How long? How long is 'never'? That is how long.
BUT--in many states like NY, NJ, CT, etc., there is meaningful gun control with stiff penalties for violations often involving mandatory jail time. Nothing is perfect but it works better than many states that have zero gun control.
The only solution is to bypass the debate and organize an effort for tourists and conventions to avoid those states which have not enacted sensible gun control legislation.
The real problem is the spineless politicians who will not take the lead, preferring instead, to follow their unenlightened constituents who have an absolutist position on weaponry.
BUT--in many states like NY, NJ, CT, etc., there is meaningful gun control with stiff penalties for violations often involving mandatory jail time. Nothing is perfect but it works better than many states that have zero gun control.
The only solution is to bypass the debate and organize an effort for tourists and conventions to avoid those states which have not enacted sensible gun control legislation.
The real problem is the spineless politicians who will not take the lead, preferring instead, to follow their unenlightened constituents who have an absolutist position on weaponry.
1
The reality is, the People don’t have representation in government. Congress hasn’t been doing their job, they’ve been deflecting for years. In my memory, it goes back before Bush. And it’s what we ‘hoped’ Obama would ‘change’.
If we actually had representation in our government we would have gotten sensible gun laws years ago. Our banks wouldn’t be robbing their own customers, and we’d have universal health care. Among other things. But that stuff’s not important! As long as I can have my guns.
If we actually had representation in our government we would have gotten sensible gun laws years ago. Our banks wouldn’t be robbing their own customers, and we’d have universal health care. Among other things. But that stuff’s not important! As long as I can have my guns.
2
Guys, let me reveal you something, that you probably do not understand. Free access to guns is a pillar of a true democratic society. That shows that government is not afraid of its people and trust them. True democracy rests in hands of people and their backyards, not in parliaments or elections.
I see how in Europe, governments are really afraid of people, and tries to keep them as far as possible from governing and decision making. That is why guns almost restricted in EU. So EU is not a democracy.
US are.
I see how in Europe, governments are really afraid of people, and tries to keep them as far as possible from governing and decision making. That is why guns almost restricted in EU. So EU is not a democracy.
US are.
NRA's regulatory bump stock ploy is the biggest debate scapegoat in their history. Don't buy it. They want to throw us a bone with non-profiting bump stocks, handled by the ATF--and not debated in congress.
2
Are we forgetting that Congress is still controlled by Republicans who are working for, and only for, special interest lobbyists who in turn work for contributors? They have no interest whatever in working for the public good. This needs to change at the voting booth, not by appeals to common sense.
2
Given the current mentality of much of the country, primarily conservative voters, and the power of the NRA, we'll never see real gun reform. Period.
There is no threshold on the number of daily or yearly deaths caused by guns that will change this opinion. The country could literally be turned into a war zone and a large portion of conservatives would simply yearn to acquire more firepower.
And for GOP politicians? Sure, they are afraid of the NRA. But I believe many of them fear their base even more considering the millions of guns embedded throughout this country.
Hopefully, we'll never see the day where ordinary Americans will be fleeing this country to escape the madness.
There is no threshold on the number of daily or yearly deaths caused by guns that will change this opinion. The country could literally be turned into a war zone and a large portion of conservatives would simply yearn to acquire more firepower.
And for GOP politicians? Sure, they are afraid of the NRA. But I believe many of them fear their base even more considering the millions of guns embedded throughout this country.
Hopefully, we'll never see the day where ordinary Americans will be fleeing this country to escape the madness.
I'm not opposed to gun control, but why is the demand for stricter gun laws always and inevitably the only response to the latest outrage of mass violence? Excessive violence is one of our society's greatest and most obvious flaws. Do we really think gun restrictions will solve the problem? I feel we need to broaden the debate and consider all of the steps we could take over time to bring the level of violence in the US down to that found in the world's least violent countries. No politician or party should be able to get away with not having good practical ideas about how to accomplish this, such as http://cureviolence.org/.
The debate will be endless and many-sided. But even if the Constitution is not a set of dictates engraved in stone, like the Ten Commandments, the exiting Amendments must be respected, and the Second Amendment should be supplemented by the Thirty-Fourth, with the three words overlooked by the Founding Fathers: the right to bear arms, everywhere and always, ...
As long as the Second Amendment remains in effect, debating real gun laws is a fool’s errand. That Amendment serves as a trump card for even the most reasonable, sensible gun law supported by irrefutable evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed law.
When the most intellectually-challenged opponent of gun laws can prevail against overwhelming scientific evidence and near-universal support for a gun law simply by saying “It’s my right”, then there is no point to a debate.
Repeal the Second Amendment and allow our legislators to pass common-sense laws regulating the ownership, possession, and use of firearms.
When the most intellectually-challenged opponent of gun laws can prevail against overwhelming scientific evidence and near-universal support for a gun law simply by saying “It’s my right”, then there is no point to a debate.
Repeal the Second Amendment and allow our legislators to pass common-sense laws regulating the ownership, possession, and use of firearms.
2
Congress will pass some meaningless bump stock bill, pose together in a bipartisan group shot, arms linked, on the steps of Congress singing America the Beautiful. They will then return to work to work on a 'silencer' bill. After all, don't want the children of America to hear that horrific sound of rapid fire. That was so upsetting.
2
The conservative leaders of the last 20 years represent a generation who selfishly sacrificed the greater public's safety for money and their own careers. They allowed an industry that should be heavily regulated - guns are weapons - to become so powerful that it dictates laws and created a subculture that worships guns and the power they confer. Owning a weapon has now become an important part of some people's identity which is why this issue is now so difficult. This will be one of the main ways history remembers this generation of conservative "leaders."
1
Gun law debate, like pregnancy choice debate has nothing to do with the constitution or religion. Second amendment clearly defines "Regulated" militia established after the war with the British was technically over and there was no federal armed forces at the time. Why it was never amended is a political decision used to justify the "un"civilized social norms at the time. Guns might have been necessary in the days when the white Americans fighting were expanding westward fighting eith th defending native Americans. And this expansion was completely unregulated. Even though there was fedearl army at the time, the settlers needed to protect themselves from the native Americans and also the white American outlaws. that had changed after the westward expansion was completed and this "self" protection as an excuse for unregulated gun ownership was no longer justifiable. I do not understand why the people who believe in obeying the American laws oppose registering their guns. The fact is the NRA leadership has inflamed the owners of the fear and distrust against our own government. And the gun manufacturing capitalists could care less about the social well being andd only care abut their own profits. Shame on them and the politicians who support them. They are maligning the constitution.
19
" Second amendment clearly defines "Regulated" militia established after the war with the British was technically over and there was no federal armed forces at the time."
The difficulty is that if the second amendment goes then nothing prevents a liberal government (as in 2009-2011) from banning ALL individual possession of guns.
So as long as you talk about "deconstructing" the second amendment, you are pushing all gun owners into the welcoming arms of the NRA.
The difficulty is that if the second amendment goes then nothing prevents a liberal government (as in 2009-2011) from banning ALL individual possession of guns.
So as long as you talk about "deconstructing" the second amendment, you are pushing all gun owners into the welcoming arms of the NRA.
The unremitting 'killings' by the unrestricted availability of guns is, for republicans and the gun lobby, a grand spectacle seen supposedly with a prudent emotional distance but still just 'the price of doing business' (what the military would call 'collateral damage', when innocent bystanders are mowed down). Republican passivity insofar gun control is concerned will remain until we the people get enraged by this miserable situation...and send then packing. Republicans are beyond repair. True 'representatives' job is to educate the citizenry and explain why we cannot go on with the 007 license to kill, not willi-nilly support unreasonable demands of possibly deranged individuals. The gun lobby's intent is to make money, to hell with morals...unless we have the will, and courage, to stop this carnage as a matter of course.
1
Dear Mr Kim Jong Un,
There´s no need to spend money to develop a hydrogen bomb to kill Americans. The NRA and the Republicans will do it for you.
Best regards,
There´s no need to spend money to develop a hydrogen bomb to kill Americans. The NRA and the Republicans will do it for you.
Best regards,
4
May I please point out a major error in the NYT headline today - it's not 58 deaths in 1 day, it's 58 deaths in 10 min.
4
Yes, Congress and the Supreme Court need to indeed enforce the intent of the 2nd amendment.
The intent is to provide for 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.
My reading of the second amendment states that it is Congress's responsibility to REGULATE guns. It is Congress's responsibility to delegate gun usage to a MILITIA (armed forces) not the NRA.
It is Congress's responsibility to enforce the amendment to provide for the SECURITY of a FREE STATE. Nowhere does it give the right to individuals to use guns for sport, even to use guns to defend their families. In fact as the current understanding by Congress of the second amendment, the STATE is a whole lot LESS SECURE.
What part of the amendment do not the Congresspeople not understand? One could question their ability to read.
The intent is to provide for 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.
My reading of the second amendment states that it is Congress's responsibility to REGULATE guns. It is Congress's responsibility to delegate gun usage to a MILITIA (armed forces) not the NRA.
It is Congress's responsibility to enforce the amendment to provide for the SECURITY of a FREE STATE. Nowhere does it give the right to individuals to use guns for sport, even to use guns to defend their families. In fact as the current understanding by Congress of the second amendment, the STATE is a whole lot LESS SECURE.
What part of the amendment do not the Congresspeople not understand? One could question their ability to read.
2
What part of NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?
See, I can do it too.
See, I can do it too.
If the waiting period for buying guns was the same as the waiting period for enacting gun control legislation the problem would solve itself.
Of course, this is as helpful a solution as "Now is not the time."
Of course, this is as helpful a solution as "Now is not the time."
5
All these Republican politicians didn't magically appear. They were elected. They have majorities in Congress, statehouses, and hold the presidency. The American people want this. Republicans should have been voted out to a man/woman in 2008 following the disastrous Bush years, again after the ridiculous tea party, and definitely after Sandy Hook. Maybe it's subconscious, but the American people want this sickness to continue.
1
Correction: SOME (and not even the majority) of American people want this.
1
I think that we should just all be very grateful that the NRA has now given the Republicans permission to say publicly that the bump stock device be outlawed. Otherwise, the Republicans would have been constrained to stick to their talking point not to politicize the issue. The NRA even had Speaker Ryan talking about the prime importance of mental health interventions as the most appropriate preventive measure for these mass killings abetted in part by our ludicrous gun laws. It can't be easy to have to continually roll over for the NRA.
3
The fact that our gun laws themselves are insane intensifies the irony of this debate to the breaking-point.
2
Notice that they carefully did NOT say outlawed, just re-examined for legality by BATFE. Not congress.
2
John--Sucking up is a Washington DC art, made easier with bribes. Makes the sliding in and out so much slippery-er. Not only do they have no morals, they have no self esteem. Pathetic.
1
All guns need to be registered, and it should be a felony to own an unregistered gun. Law enforcement should be able know if any person is stockpiling weapons, especially assault weapons. There is no legitimate reason to own an arsenal like the Las Vegas shooter's. Sooner or later such a gun hoarder will want to use that firepower, just the way a person obsessed with hammers starts seeing everything as a nail.
4
You can't speak for everyone in a group. How many gun collectors with vast "arsenals" have actually gone on shooting sprees? How many hammer collectors have actually gone on murderous hammering sprees? Using your logic, someone who owns many, many cars (say Jay Leno) will eventually begin mowing down pedestrians. You can only speak for yourself. What do you own more than two of?
How would you know if a person has an unregistered gun or not?
Who are you to decide how many guns a collector should own?
Do you also want to get rid of the 4th and 5th Amendments?
Do you want law enforcement to be able to enter people's homes without warrants?
Or maybe stop-n-frisk, which has been via a law enforcement gentleman's/woman's agreement largely limited to black citizens, should be expanded to everyone. Police should just stop and frisk everyone they see because that "perp" might have an unregistered weapon.
I don't think most of the people calling for more laws have thought through the implications.
Who are you to decide how many guns a collector should own?
Do you also want to get rid of the 4th and 5th Amendments?
Do you want law enforcement to be able to enter people's homes without warrants?
Or maybe stop-n-frisk, which has been via a law enforcement gentleman's/woman's agreement largely limited to black citizens, should be expanded to everyone. Police should just stop and frisk everyone they see because that "perp" might have an unregistered weapon.
I don't think most of the people calling for more laws have thought through the implications.
Hard as it is to understand the mentality of gun lovers--and I have tried with some success--I can at least agree that the presence of over 300 million guns, one for every person in the nation--right now, even if we stopped manufacturing guns today, we'd not have solved the problem of mass shootings. Anyone who's ever read "The Friends of Eddie Coyle" will know that supply will meet demand in trade for illegal guns just as it does in trade for illegal drugs.
So I'm at a loss about what legislation might actually "cure" the problem. Do we have an effective approach, if the goal is to stop mass shootings?
If the goal is to reduce overall deaths--kids shooting themselves or playmates at home, angry men killing their wives, then there might be regulatory solutions to that.
As for suicides by gun, the issue might be framed, do we even have a moral imperative to do that?
So "gun control" and "gun violence" and our "culture of death" are not simple issues and the outcry from the NYT "Do something!" is more emotion than clear thinking.
My father was a lifetime member of the NRA, and had a locked arsenal of rifles at home, but he was appalled at the idea anyone would be foolish enough to consider a gun a weapon to protect yourself at home. Anyone you shoot in your home is far more likely to be a family member than some home invader, who always has the element of surprise, not the gun, as his most potent weapon.
So I'm at a loss about what legislation might actually "cure" the problem. Do we have an effective approach, if the goal is to stop mass shootings?
If the goal is to reduce overall deaths--kids shooting themselves or playmates at home, angry men killing their wives, then there might be regulatory solutions to that.
As for suicides by gun, the issue might be framed, do we even have a moral imperative to do that?
So "gun control" and "gun violence" and our "culture of death" are not simple issues and the outcry from the NYT "Do something!" is more emotion than clear thinking.
My father was a lifetime member of the NRA, and had a locked arsenal of rifles at home, but he was appalled at the idea anyone would be foolish enough to consider a gun a weapon to protect yourself at home. Anyone you shoot in your home is far more likely to be a family member than some home invader, who always has the element of surprise, not the gun, as his most potent weapon.
4
The US is in denial that its present firearms regulations insinuate legitimacy to claims that citizens need guns to shoot each other and hold the government at bay.
1
Once again the politician from both parties have managed to make guns a left and right issue with the help of NRA. It has never been a liberal or conservative problem, the guns are really an issue between "responsible and irresponsible." Given the number of guns in the United States, its basically too late and virtually impossible to ban the guns. I think time and energy would be well spent if we discussed strict background checks, mental health screening, go after the illegal guns, better training to obtain the license and bring "zero tolerance" laws.
I suppose Las Vegas was pretty horrible. So are the 110+ gun deaths in the few short days since.
But I'm weary of the constant bleating for meaningful debate. We're so past that.
It's time to call out NRA legislators for the shallow, greedy, immoral little boys they are (the occasional mean-spirited little girl, yes). Its time to dump the brimstone and blast the fire.
They are self-interested, arrogant, oddly terrified little people who have made a career of lying to themselves and putting a brave face on their duplicity.
Lately they've had difficulty keeping the truth from oozing through their blackened lips, admitting, for example, that there's no pressing need for individuals to carry automatic or assault weapons, but "some people just enjoy firing them", and these family moments at the range are worth an infinite number innocent lives.
Or we have Rob Portman-esque personal conversions. Country western stars, for instance, with flags and eagles and "kill 'em all" tattooed on their withering biceps who realize "under fire" that, no, a pickup load of guns may not be worth dying for, or even a good idea.
We're well past debate, and debate will get us nowhere. Time to call out the NRA and its executives and its legislative minions in direct, damaging, demeaning terms. Time to expose their "wolves at the door" recruitment videos for the foolishness they are.
Its time to make pro-gun politicians explain themselves beyond boiler-plate references to rights and history.
But I'm weary of the constant bleating for meaningful debate. We're so past that.
It's time to call out NRA legislators for the shallow, greedy, immoral little boys they are (the occasional mean-spirited little girl, yes). Its time to dump the brimstone and blast the fire.
They are self-interested, arrogant, oddly terrified little people who have made a career of lying to themselves and putting a brave face on their duplicity.
Lately they've had difficulty keeping the truth from oozing through their blackened lips, admitting, for example, that there's no pressing need for individuals to carry automatic or assault weapons, but "some people just enjoy firing them", and these family moments at the range are worth an infinite number innocent lives.
Or we have Rob Portman-esque personal conversions. Country western stars, for instance, with flags and eagles and "kill 'em all" tattooed on their withering biceps who realize "under fire" that, no, a pickup load of guns may not be worth dying for, or even a good idea.
We're well past debate, and debate will get us nowhere. Time to call out the NRA and its executives and its legislative minions in direct, damaging, demeaning terms. Time to expose their "wolves at the door" recruitment videos for the foolishness they are.
Its time to make pro-gun politicians explain themselves beyond boiler-plate references to rights and history.
6
I understand your frustration over debating the issue. I wonder why Obama and the Democrats did nothing when they controlled everything. They just debated, even though they came into power on the heels of the 2007 massacre on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, one of the deadliest shootings in U.S. history,
“People respond to incentives, although not necessarily in ways that are predictable or manifest. Therefore, one of the most powerful laws in the universe is the law of unintended consequences.” -From the book “SuperFreakonomics”
If today all guns were confiscated, tomorrow at least the following unintended consequences would ensue (many people are aware of these consequences; just read the comments following the many articles on gun control):
More sophisticated 3D printed guns. Even without a ban, could someone, for instance ISIS-influenced terrorists living in the U.S., right now be printing AR-15s? To borrow a decades-old bromide about nuclear weapons, the genie is out of the bottle.
A sky-rocketing bomb-making ingenuity and a proliferation of home-made bombs in basements, garages, storage facilities, etc.
A much bigger black market for weapons — as happened in Australia — resulting in gun-runners as we’ve never seen them before, coming mostly from or through, say, Mexico, their number perhaps equaling drug runners.
“People respond to incentives, although not necessarily in ways that are predictable or manifest. Therefore, one of the most powerful laws in the universe is the law of unintended consequences.” -From the book “SuperFreakonomics”
If today all guns were confiscated, tomorrow at least the following unintended consequences would ensue (many people are aware of these consequences; just read the comments following the many articles on gun control):
More sophisticated 3D printed guns. Even without a ban, could someone, for instance ISIS-influenced terrorists living in the U.S., right now be printing AR-15s? To borrow a decades-old bromide about nuclear weapons, the genie is out of the bottle.
A sky-rocketing bomb-making ingenuity and a proliferation of home-made bombs in basements, garages, storage facilities, etc.
A much bigger black market for weapons — as happened in Australia — resulting in gun-runners as we’ve never seen them before, coming mostly from or through, say, Mexico, their number perhaps equaling drug runners.
2
MM, you're right...nothing to do but brace ourselves for when our number's up.
Shot close up, from behind, from a distance, from a car, with a plastic gun, with an acid filled water pistol, with a faux-automatic. Doesn't matter. Come get us, boys! Game over.
For every gun we control, eight more takes its place. For every bullet we block, twelve get through.
Stop mourning the carnage! Party instead! New Orleans everywhere!
Imagine the looks on anthropologists' faces a thousand years hence...of course we won't live that long, so we may as well die tomorrow.
Yep, you win.
Or we could do the simple things:
Allow gun research
Allow enforcement agencies to talk about guns
Make guns mark each round fired
Require registration, waiting periods, fees for every gun sale public or private
Eliminate automatic/faux-automatic/armor-piercing/sound suppression/flash suppressing ordnance
Hold gun makers, executives especially, responsible for illicit sale, easy conversion of the weapons they sell
Hold responsible gun dealers for illicit sales and failure to keep track
Maybe undo legislative brilliance that says bars and nursery schools are swell places for weapons
Eliminate concealed carry
Don't let lobbyists write legislation
Never allow a McConnell to destroy an open and accommodating legislative process.
Does this solve, even address, all our self-imposed gun problems? No sir.
But a start is better than the "first you're hopeless, then you're shot" alternative you offer.
Shot close up, from behind, from a distance, from a car, with a plastic gun, with an acid filled water pistol, with a faux-automatic. Doesn't matter. Come get us, boys! Game over.
For every gun we control, eight more takes its place. For every bullet we block, twelve get through.
Stop mourning the carnage! Party instead! New Orleans everywhere!
Imagine the looks on anthropologists' faces a thousand years hence...of course we won't live that long, so we may as well die tomorrow.
Yep, you win.
Or we could do the simple things:
Allow gun research
Allow enforcement agencies to talk about guns
Make guns mark each round fired
Require registration, waiting periods, fees for every gun sale public or private
Eliminate automatic/faux-automatic/armor-piercing/sound suppression/flash suppressing ordnance
Hold gun makers, executives especially, responsible for illicit sale, easy conversion of the weapons they sell
Hold responsible gun dealers for illicit sales and failure to keep track
Maybe undo legislative brilliance that says bars and nursery schools are swell places for weapons
Eliminate concealed carry
Don't let lobbyists write legislation
Never allow a McConnell to destroy an open and accommodating legislative process.
Does this solve, even address, all our self-imposed gun problems? No sir.
But a start is better than the "first you're hopeless, then you're shot" alternative you offer.
The writer wants real gun laws but offers no idea what he means by real gun laws. I believe it's reasonable to ban any device that would alter a semi-automatic weapons rate of fire but, before we do anything, let's understand the totality of what's being asked for. There are too many on the left who would have no problem eliminating the right altogether and that kind of talk only entrenches those who want to keep it.
3
"There are too many on the left who would have no problem eliminating the right altogether..."
No, there are not.
You are not so Independent as you seem to think.
Registration is not the same as taking guns.
Bullets identified by the gun that fired them is not the same as taking guns.
Asking that my daughter's kindergarten not be an open carry haven is not the same as taking guns.
The majority of "lefties" do not favor eliminating the right to own weapons. Don't even try to Google it, your computer will wither under the plague of partisan hoo-ha. Try Google Scholar, instead.
To your point, though, lefties also probably do not favor the right to own fifty weapons and unlimited ammunition and carry them around wherever you please.
Other speculative columns, this whimpering that the mean old left, which I remind you does not enjoy any political power to speak of, does not want to "repeal the second amendment", an obsession of the Right almost as wacky as their recently abandoned "War Against Christmas".
What the left wants, if I may speak for them all, is for the second amendment to be seen as something less than a blanket demand for every weapon to be available to every person without limits or control.
What the left also wants is for the Right to explain how they ever got to the point where they believe the US Army was invading Texas to steal the guns and hold the door open for a Chinese invasion?
This alone explains why we don't really trust you all that much.
No, there are not.
You are not so Independent as you seem to think.
Registration is not the same as taking guns.
Bullets identified by the gun that fired them is not the same as taking guns.
Asking that my daughter's kindergarten not be an open carry haven is not the same as taking guns.
The majority of "lefties" do not favor eliminating the right to own weapons. Don't even try to Google it, your computer will wither under the plague of partisan hoo-ha. Try Google Scholar, instead.
To your point, though, lefties also probably do not favor the right to own fifty weapons and unlimited ammunition and carry them around wherever you please.
Other speculative columns, this whimpering that the mean old left, which I remind you does not enjoy any political power to speak of, does not want to "repeal the second amendment", an obsession of the Right almost as wacky as their recently abandoned "War Against Christmas".
What the left wants, if I may speak for them all, is for the second amendment to be seen as something less than a blanket demand for every weapon to be available to every person without limits or control.
What the left also wants is for the Right to explain how they ever got to the point where they believe the US Army was invading Texas to steal the guns and hold the door open for a Chinese invasion?
This alone explains why we don't really trust you all that much.
15
The gun laws should certainly be tightened but it won't solve the underlying issue, which is the culture of violence in the U.S. It permeates film, for example. It permeates TV. It's a junk culture that has a historical basis (the wild west, pioneer conditions, etc.) but due to technology, modern rapid-fire guns and so forth, has become a poison in modern society. You have to leach out that poison.
Even if you took the guns away, people could drive an airplane full of fuel into a crowd like in Las Vegas, their own - Paddock was a pilot - or hijacked. They could drive a big truck into it and set off a bomb. Unfortunately many other things could be done, too gruesome to list.
Society perhaps is too large and complex now to get a real handle on it. The Times focuses obsessively on the gun issue and while I agree laws should be much stricter it assigns too much importance, in effect, to this one factor.
Why don't you call for a Hollywood boycott if guns continue to feature in movies?
Even if you took the guns away, people could drive an airplane full of fuel into a crowd like in Las Vegas, their own - Paddock was a pilot - or hijacked. They could drive a big truck into it and set off a bomb. Unfortunately many other things could be done, too gruesome to list.
Society perhaps is too large and complex now to get a real handle on it. The Times focuses obsessively on the gun issue and while I agree laws should be much stricter it assigns too much importance, in effect, to this one factor.
Why don't you call for a Hollywood boycott if guns continue to feature in movies?
1
I agree with your point that begins with "Even if you took the guns away."
Mass killings in the U.S. and other countries occurred long before TV and movies. It would be almost impossible to get the media to stop portraying violence in a nation with freedom of speech. So boycotting Hollywood, I think, is not a realistic, worthwhile course.
I recommend:
"Gun Control and Mass Killers"
https://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/rush-draft-why-gun-cont...
Mass killings in the U.S. and other countries occurred long before TV and movies. It would be almost impossible to get the media to stop portraying violence in a nation with freedom of speech. So boycotting Hollywood, I think, is not a realistic, worthwhile course.
I recommend:
"Gun Control and Mass Killers"
https://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/rush-draft-why-gun-cont...
If you really believe in stricter gun laws, start by installing a breathalyzer in your car - and all cars in America. It's the same concept applied to a different problem with the same number of fatalities. Assign culpability to the entire group for some that are negligent.
I guess I am not up on the latest technology, but I don't understand this comment. Will the breathalyzer find out that you have been eating bullets?
This wouldn't be deflection, would it? Perhaps this comment could be reserved for when a drunk is accused of premeditated mass killing with a car. You know, something that could be prevented with a breathalyzer. We want our killers to be sober, not drunk.
This wouldn't be deflection, would it? Perhaps this comment could be reserved for when a drunk is accused of premeditated mass killing with a car. You know, something that could be prevented with a breathalyzer. We want our killers to be sober, not drunk.
How long will the NYTimes peddle its faulty analyses of and fake solutions to the problem and ignore research that would help sort through the various proposals? Increasing background checks seems reasonable but it won't make a dent in the overall murder rate. Ditto for banning or regulating bump-stocks. The problem is cultural, but it is not "America's Gun Culture". If you look at counties were "America's Gun Culture" reigns, you will see much lower murder rates than the inner cities, even when you control for poverty levels. Upset by this fact, gun control fanatics then mix in suicide rates to try to make sure the gun is still to blame and not the culture. As for concealed carry permits leading to a Wild West situation, that is just laughable with no evidence to support it (but, of course, we have been told by gun control historians such as Adam Winkler that the Wild West really wasn't that wild... so much for the analogy).
1
Interesting.
we are where we are, overrun by guns in number and as cultural symbols.
imagine where we'd be if we were not in such blatant violation of the second amendment, if our guns were owned by members of the "well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free
state..." if our cultural symbol was a citizen prepared to defend the country and, if the country went sour, to oppose, state by state, the tyranny and injustice therefrom...think of a sheet of commemorative stamps with various versions of minute men and woman, armed, ready and willing, in coveralls, three piece suits, blue jeans and maybe prada.
the effort to get it right would be monumental and probably not a task welcomed by a culture gone to convenience, far easier to stay in a state of constitutional sin and have more confessional
"conversations."
imagine where we'd be if we were not in such blatant violation of the second amendment, if our guns were owned by members of the "well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free
state..." if our cultural symbol was a citizen prepared to defend the country and, if the country went sour, to oppose, state by state, the tyranny and injustice therefrom...think of a sheet of commemorative stamps with various versions of minute men and woman, armed, ready and willing, in coveralls, three piece suits, blue jeans and maybe prada.
the effort to get it right would be monumental and probably not a task welcomed by a culture gone to convenience, far easier to stay in a state of constitutional sin and have more confessional
"conversations."
We need to have a serious discussion about the gun violence we see in the movies and on television. There is too much seen in entertainment and can leave us numb. This is very unhealthy for us to see a constant barrage of shooting but of course it makes money. This must come to an end regardless of the economics involved. Lives are far more important than money.
2
Retrofitting semi-automatic weapons to make them fully automatic is already illegal. This did nothing to stop Stephen Paddock from slaughtering dozens in Las Vegas. Murder is also illegal, another law that did not stop Mr. Paddock.
What, exactly, does the NY Times propose that will actually work? The same kinds of laws that make controlled substances illegal? How does that stop drug dealers from plying their trade?
The vast majority of deaths that are attributable to guns are either suicides or gang-related deaths. Unless we are prepared to deal with gangs, putting in place more ineffective gun restrictions will do nothing to end the mayhem.
What, exactly, does the NY Times propose that will actually work? The same kinds of laws that make controlled substances illegal? How does that stop drug dealers from plying their trade?
The vast majority of deaths that are attributable to guns are either suicides or gang-related deaths. Unless we are prepared to deal with gangs, putting in place more ineffective gun restrictions will do nothing to end the mayhem.
1
Yesterday Bret Stephens wrote "Repeal the 2d Amendment" and I was one who commented supporting him. Later, I read a comment that said, we do not need to repeal the 2d, just enforce it. I do not remember if the comment writer developed an argument from that recommendation but want to "put it in print" here without delay. If I can find the comment, I'll add in reply to this note.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Debating gun laws in the U.S. is like trying to convince a suicidal hysteric that shooting yourself in the head is dangerous. There's a kind of death wish in the country -- massive opioid epidemic, refusal to organize health care in a rational way, climate change denial, extreme inequality, and many more guns than there are people. When the society as a whole is acting out like a self-destructive adolescent it's difficult to discuss small behavioral reforms. It seems like the gun fever might just have to burn itself out over time. That could take centuries.
1
America does not need to "talk about," "discuss," "debate" or "address" sane and practical gun regulations, of the kind most other countries have had for many decades (along with a fraction of the rates of gun violence suffered in the United States). The 195 million registered voters who are not members of the NRA need to discover the basic qualities, duties and skills of citizens of a democracy, and liberate themselves, and their Congress, from the murderous impact of the 5 million who are members of the NRA.
2
I am not optimistic about any real change being made on gun control, fair taxation, health care, etc...
I am more and more convinced that our political "leaders" are bought and paid for by corporations.
I hope I am wrong...
I am more and more convinced that our political "leaders" are bought and paid for by corporations.
I hope I am wrong...
Those who make semiautomatic tactical rifles have nothing to gain from bump stocks. The firearms industry is the driving force for the NRA, so it does make sense that the NRA would oppose these devices.
Then in their mind they can claim the moral high ground when standing against any meaningful registration, limits on purchases per month, mental health background checks for those purchasing military-style weapons, or stricter conceal carry laws.
Then in their mind they can claim the moral high ground when standing against any meaningful registration, limits on purchases per month, mental health background checks for those purchasing military-style weapons, or stricter conceal carry laws.
9
Bravo, at least you bring a few idea's. I am not knocking them but I have a few questions:
* Meaningful registration - How, exactly, is that different from the current registration requirements? (Not kidding - please give details)
* Limit on purchases per month - Solid idea! I like it. May not stop them but would slow them down a bit.
* Mental Health background checks - I am all for this but we will need a working definition of what it checks for and some legal means to avoid the obvious HIPAA / DR-patient privilege issues that would prevent Health Care Professionals from disclosing the necessary information.
* Stricter concealed carry laws - such as what? Specifically?
Help me out on these and we may have the beginning of something.
* Meaningful registration - How, exactly, is that different from the current registration requirements? (Not kidding - please give details)
* Limit on purchases per month - Solid idea! I like it. May not stop them but would slow them down a bit.
* Mental Health background checks - I am all for this but we will need a working definition of what it checks for and some legal means to avoid the obvious HIPAA / DR-patient privilege issues that would prevent Health Care Professionals from disclosing the necessary information.
* Stricter concealed carry laws - such as what? Specifically?
Help me out on these and we may have the beginning of something.
It should be remembered that the bump stock is a pretty crude device. True automatic fire is inaccurate except when used by trained disciplined shooters. Bump stock fire is not as rapid as true automatic fire, is inaccurate for everyone, and (because the stock must be pressed into your shoulder) significantly degrades your options for movement and position. It's ONLY useful for an amateur who is firing at a massed crowd and who is not himself being fired back at. Had I been inclined to do so (and I am not so inclined) I could certainly have killed more with semiautomatic fire, as could hundreds of thousands of present and former Marines. I could have killed more if I had taken considerable trouble to convert an
AR-15 to automatic, or if I had converted an M-14 (the first rifle I used in the Marines) to automatic (which I could have done quickly with tools a household commonly has)
My point is not to brag, but to let you know that banning bump stocks will still leave you open to worse the next time.. And there will be many next times.
AR-15 to automatic, or if I had converted an M-14 (the first rifle I used in the Marines) to automatic (which I could have done quickly with tools a household commonly has)
My point is not to brag, but to let you know that banning bump stocks will still leave you open to worse the next time.. And there will be many next times.
1
This is very powerful — and shameful. Thank you.
So, obviously, there is no distance to be had from these events. Congress must start talking and not stop until they enact some common sense gun control measures.
So, obviously, there is no distance to be had from these events. Congress must start talking and not stop until they enact some common sense gun control measures.
The problem is deeper than gun control. See:
"Gun Control and Mass Killers"
https://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/rush-draft-why-gun-cont...
"Gun Control and Mass Killers"
https://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/rush-draft-why-gun-cont...
Excellent idea! What are you proposing? What law would have prevented this tragedy? What legislation would prevent attacks like this in the future? I'm sure you have an idea, right? So lets have it - your awesome plan, your "common sense" gun control measures.
That's what I thought.
That's what I thought.
The problem that needs to be addressed is corporate control of our government. Public support for better gun laws is widely supported by the public, but congress doesn't dare enact it.
How about really raising taxes on ammunition? It worked for cigarettes. Maybe if a bullet cost $50 they would be used more sparingly.
Use the revenue to fund healthcare since “mental health” is such a priority for the GOP when it comes to guns.
Use the revenue to fund healthcare since “mental health” is such a priority for the GOP when it comes to guns.
1
Five million Americans own some version of so-called assault rifles. If you ban them and half the people refuse to turn them in then what? There are currently approximately 2.5 million people in prison and the left bemoans that number. Will you put another 2.5 million people in jail for refusing to turn in their guns, will you send police door to door to track them and their guns down? Because if you do you will prove the case of those who claim that private ownership of guns protects our freedoms from the government. And aren't even talking about hand guns with are far more prevalent.
1
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette letter to the editor, 10/4/17
In 2016, in a letter to the Post-Gazette, I said if something were not done regarding the ban of assault weapons, mass shootings would happen again. Unfortunately, I was correct. Our U.S. senators and representatives say how sad these situations make them feel but do nothing about it.
As a Vietnam veteran and registered gun owner, I have shot an M-16 and been shot at by an AK-47. Maybe if our federal elected officials were at a gun range and someone shot 20 rounds from an AK-47 near them, their perspective would change? Or if they lost a loved one or a friend to a mass shooting, how would they feel?
When the Second Amendment was written (1791), I believe the only firearms available were single shot, not semi-auto, or full auto with 20- to 30-round (or more) clips. Our politicians are so afraid of the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby that they do nothing. I do not believe that current top executives at the NRA ever served in combat or were a target of these weapons. They just say “we all need these guns.”
Yes, better mental health and gun registration would help, but if a mass shooter could fire only one round at a time, the toll would be much less. This has to stop now. How many innocent victims will die or be wounded the next time? The only personnel who should have assault weapons are police and military — no one else.
ps: bump stocks also should be banned.
In 2016, in a letter to the Post-Gazette, I said if something were not done regarding the ban of assault weapons, mass shootings would happen again. Unfortunately, I was correct. Our U.S. senators and representatives say how sad these situations make them feel but do nothing about it.
As a Vietnam veteran and registered gun owner, I have shot an M-16 and been shot at by an AK-47. Maybe if our federal elected officials were at a gun range and someone shot 20 rounds from an AK-47 near them, their perspective would change? Or if they lost a loved one or a friend to a mass shooting, how would they feel?
When the Second Amendment was written (1791), I believe the only firearms available were single shot, not semi-auto, or full auto with 20- to 30-round (or more) clips. Our politicians are so afraid of the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby that they do nothing. I do not believe that current top executives at the NRA ever served in combat or were a target of these weapons. They just say “we all need these guns.”
Yes, better mental health and gun registration would help, but if a mass shooter could fire only one round at a time, the toll would be much less. This has to stop now. How many innocent victims will die or be wounded the next time? The only personnel who should have assault weapons are police and military — no one else.
ps: bump stocks also should be banned.
1
Yet 148,000 die every year from trauma. 1,480,000 in the last decade. Source: Nath Acad of Science
30,000/year could be saved. 300,000 in the last decade.
How? Improving emergency planning & operations and training all on basic first aid.
Solve the biggest problems first.
30,000/year could be saved. 300,000 in the last decade.
How? Improving emergency planning & operations and training all on basic first aid.
Solve the biggest problems first.
"Dear Clients, please no more than 10 automatic weapons per room"
Now compare this scandalous laxness with the paranoia in airports.
How can someone introduce 23 automatic weapons in a hotel-room and no personel notes it ? This hotel should be accused of compliceship in the murder.
If a society tolerates more casualties from firearms than from all past wars and terrorism put together, there is a massive collective responsibility for every committed crime. Why invest billions in war against terrorism if a cheap ban of domestic arms could save thousands of lives ? This absurd lack of logic leads to the cruel conclusion that US citizen don't mind being shot, as long as they can indulge in the phantasm of a wildwest scenario.
Now compare this scandalous laxness with the paranoia in airports.
How can someone introduce 23 automatic weapons in a hotel-room and no personel notes it ? This hotel should be accused of compliceship in the murder.
If a society tolerates more casualties from firearms than from all past wars and terrorism put together, there is a massive collective responsibility for every committed crime. Why invest billions in war against terrorism if a cheap ban of domestic arms could save thousands of lives ? This absurd lack of logic leads to the cruel conclusion that US citizen don't mind being shot, as long as they can indulge in the phantasm of a wildwest scenario.
Debate, sincere and earnest debate, will not happen until big money lines the pockets of legislators who are pro gun control.
1
You see the problem and well document it with your graphics.
However, both the left and right come up with simplistic solutions to solve the problem.
The left's fantasy is regulate, regulate up to and including bans of the gun.
The right's fantasy is stationing the national guard in the inner cities forever.
Until both sides realize it is a national cultural sickness, on both sides and that only a comprehensive policy of legality, regulation, responsibility and non promotion of the gun is put in place, the carnage will go on.
We did it for cig. smoking, drunk driving and safe driving with great results.
We can do the same for gun violence if we really want to.
However, both the left and right come up with simplistic solutions to solve the problem.
The left's fantasy is regulate, regulate up to and including bans of the gun.
The right's fantasy is stationing the national guard in the inner cities forever.
Until both sides realize it is a national cultural sickness, on both sides and that only a comprehensive policy of legality, regulation, responsibility and non promotion of the gun is put in place, the carnage will go on.
We did it for cig. smoking, drunk driving and safe driving with great results.
We can do the same for gun violence if we really want to.
2
If just one man is able to have a gun then all of them should. And that's the general feeling among a lot of men - even those who don't own one.
So the big question is this:
Let's say we as a people decided to enact some types of gun controls in this country with about as many firearms as people. How do you enact it?
Are we going to confiscate newly illegal types of firearms, accessories and ammunition or are we just going to pretend that they will go away?
Are we going to start putting people into jail for dealing in illegal weapons and ammo?
Are we going to try to lock up people who do not willingly surrender their firearms?
I am not arguing against reasonable gun laws, but passing a law and making it stick are two very different things. Before we do the knee jerk thing and pass an ill conceived and unenforceable law, we need to know exactly what is being advocated along with a detailed plan for implementation.
The one thing we do not need are feel good laws that do not change a thing.
Let's say we as a people decided to enact some types of gun controls in this country with about as many firearms as people. How do you enact it?
Are we going to confiscate newly illegal types of firearms, accessories and ammunition or are we just going to pretend that they will go away?
Are we going to start putting people into jail for dealing in illegal weapons and ammo?
Are we going to try to lock up people who do not willingly surrender their firearms?
I am not arguing against reasonable gun laws, but passing a law and making it stick are two very different things. Before we do the knee jerk thing and pass an ill conceived and unenforceable law, we need to know exactly what is being advocated along with a detailed plan for implementation.
The one thing we do not need are feel good laws that do not change a thing.
1
How long until we get around to discussing real gun control laws? -- The sad truth of the matter was repeatedly uttered by this administration when they answered: "Now is not the time".
And if now is not the time, after the worst mass-shooting in U.S. history, when is the time? -- It certainly wasn't after innocent children were needlessly killed in Sandy Hook, or even after Congress members were gunned down at their baseball practice.
So what will it take? Or, more appropriately, how many more?
It's not enough that the NRA is now slowly dragging its feet toward recognizing the need to limit devices that can turn ordinary guns into semi-automatic weapons of destruction, when these devices should be banned outright and altogether.
Gun enthusiasts and 2nd Amendment-swearing-Americans who seek entertainment in firing off more, and faster clips at targets, should recognize that they might one day become one.
In this atmosphere, no one, no where is safe any longer.
And if now is not the time, after the worst mass-shooting in U.S. history, when is the time? -- It certainly wasn't after innocent children were needlessly killed in Sandy Hook, or even after Congress members were gunned down at their baseball practice.
So what will it take? Or, more appropriately, how many more?
It's not enough that the NRA is now slowly dragging its feet toward recognizing the need to limit devices that can turn ordinary guns into semi-automatic weapons of destruction, when these devices should be banned outright and altogether.
Gun enthusiasts and 2nd Amendment-swearing-Americans who seek entertainment in firing off more, and faster clips at targets, should recognize that they might one day become one.
In this atmosphere, no one, no where is safe any longer.
21
“Slippery Slope.” The NRA plays this argument that once any restrictions upon guns will lead to “they” coming and taking away people’s guns.
Who “they” are puzzles me. Presently, the Republicans control the House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court. If Republicans champion guns, why would gun owners fear the federal government?
But what of local states? 32 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans. As for governors, 34 states have Republican governors.
Is there a fear that should Democrats win, they will loose their guns?
Clinton held office for 8 years, and the number of guns in private hands increased.
Obama held office for 8 years, and the number of guns in private hands increased.
Who are “they” that will take away your guns?
Hunting, sport, or self-protection are also arguments used for gun ownership. But when does owning a rifle for deer hunting or gun for target shooting or home protection become a reason for purchasing 40 or more weapons? When is the line crossed between owning a gun for hunting or self-protection become stockpiling an arsenal?
Who “they” are puzzles me. Presently, the Republicans control the House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court. If Republicans champion guns, why would gun owners fear the federal government?
But what of local states? 32 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans. As for governors, 34 states have Republican governors.
Is there a fear that should Democrats win, they will loose their guns?
Clinton held office for 8 years, and the number of guns in private hands increased.
Obama held office for 8 years, and the number of guns in private hands increased.
Who are “they” that will take away your guns?
Hunting, sport, or self-protection are also arguments used for gun ownership. But when does owning a rifle for deer hunting or gun for target shooting or home protection become a reason for purchasing 40 or more weapons? When is the line crossed between owning a gun for hunting or self-protection become stockpiling an arsenal?
28
We've become a very perverse country.
We give human rights to corporations to express themselves with money.
We give human rights to guns; they are more important than human life and are protected from meddlesome people seeking peace. Guns can't be studied, and can't be sued for negligence or injury to others.
We pray for the dead, and do nothing for the living suffering from gunshot injuries. Oh, we start gofundme pages and take up collections, but after a few weeks we slip back into our comfort zone of false security and the sense we helped the victims.
We seem more calcified than ever, whether its guns, health care, tax reform, education, energy etc.
Perhaps, America had reached its zenith in the recent past, holding together disparate values in the country, but these differences now seem to spell the demise of our past success.
We give human rights to corporations to express themselves with money.
We give human rights to guns; they are more important than human life and are protected from meddlesome people seeking peace. Guns can't be studied, and can't be sued for negligence or injury to others.
We pray for the dead, and do nothing for the living suffering from gunshot injuries. Oh, we start gofundme pages and take up collections, but after a few weeks we slip back into our comfort zone of false security and the sense we helped the victims.
We seem more calcified than ever, whether its guns, health care, tax reform, education, energy etc.
Perhaps, America had reached its zenith in the recent past, holding together disparate values in the country, but these differences now seem to spell the demise of our past success.
34
"WE" do not give any rights to any person or corporation. The rights that we have are protected by the Constitution and laws , at least according to the Declaration of Independence.
Where were you when the office of the president lost its rectitude? How about Congress? Where would you even begin?
Now, lets add the highest court in the land - the one that gave us Bush v. Gore - the same court that broke with 70 years of settled jurisprudence, and, in the tortured logic of Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller, affirmed the Second Amendment's individual rights clause. Ever heard of it? There's a reason. It doesn't contain one.
{"Up until the 1980s, there was no “individual-rights” theory of the Second Amendment. Many states had adopted provisions protecting an individual right to own guns, but this tradition was distinct from the Amendment. All that changed when right-wing think tanks undertook a conscious effort to fund new scholarship to rewrite the amendment’s history. At first that effort was not well received, even in conservative circles. As late as 1991, former Supreme Court chief justice [and conservative] Warren Earl Burger famously called the idea of an individual right to bear arms “one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word ‘fraud’ - on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”} ~ Macneil-Lehrer Newshour
Now, lets add the highest court in the land - the one that gave us Bush v. Gore - the same court that broke with 70 years of settled jurisprudence, and, in the tortured logic of Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller, affirmed the Second Amendment's individual rights clause. Ever heard of it? There's a reason. It doesn't contain one.
{"Up until the 1980s, there was no “individual-rights” theory of the Second Amendment. Many states had adopted provisions protecting an individual right to own guns, but this tradition was distinct from the Amendment. All that changed when right-wing think tanks undertook a conscious effort to fund new scholarship to rewrite the amendment’s history. At first that effort was not well received, even in conservative circles. As late as 1991, former Supreme Court chief justice [and conservative] Warren Earl Burger famously called the idea of an individual right to bear arms “one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word ‘fraud’ - on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”} ~ Macneil-Lehrer Newshour
Despite my personal contempt for the NRA I must concede that it is a well-run, relentless organization. Clever too. The NRA's `approval rating' has now become a coveted - and feared - designation among its slaves on Capitol Hill. In fact, anything less than a 100 percent approval rating from the NRA is considered a serious political liability. The spineless will not move an inch on guns, fearing a drop in their rating. Anything less than a 100 percent rating invites a possible primary challenge. And there's nothing worst than that - even if it's a nation covered in blood. What the sane among us have to do is turn the tables. We have to invent our own `approval rating' that turns the NRA high marks into a scarlet letter. Let's call our rating the `murder approval rating.' A member of Congress who supports reasonable gun control would get a zero murder approval rating. A member of Congress who remains the property of the NRA would be branded with a murder approval rating of 100 percent. How do you sell that to your constituents?
52
You've got SCOTUS historical precedent on your side:
As late as 1991, former Supreme Court chief justice [and conservative] Warren Earl Burger famously called the idea of an individual right to bear arms “one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word ‘fraud’ - on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”} ~ Macneil-Lehrer Newshour
As with global warming, so with guns. It takes time to rewrite history, and more time to gin up the weight of scholarly articles to accomplish it. It took even longer to get to Heller. That's because the NRA knew that in court, their lock on the inalienable, individual rights argument amounted to counterfactual lies and counter-originalist misrepresentations. The gun lobby was so skittish about going up against the Second Amendment they avoided SCOTUS like the plague.
But revisionism slowly ground away, and finally, in 2008, with a conservative majority, the NRA was warily ready for its day in court. And in an ironic twist, the Court's most ardent originalist, Antonin Scalia wrote the 5-4 decision.
As late as 1991, former Supreme Court chief justice [and conservative] Warren Earl Burger famously called the idea of an individual right to bear arms “one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word ‘fraud’ - on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”} ~ Macneil-Lehrer Newshour
As with global warming, so with guns. It takes time to rewrite history, and more time to gin up the weight of scholarly articles to accomplish it. It took even longer to get to Heller. That's because the NRA knew that in court, their lock on the inalienable, individual rights argument amounted to counterfactual lies and counter-originalist misrepresentations. The gun lobby was so skittish about going up against the Second Amendment they avoided SCOTUS like the plague.
But revisionism slowly ground away, and finally, in 2008, with a conservative majority, the NRA was warily ready for its day in court. And in an ironic twist, the Court's most ardent originalist, Antonin Scalia wrote the 5-4 decision.
How long? Until hell freezes over, or members of Congress are not tempted by bribes and intimidated by threats.
Now that the customary political statements of sympathy without contrition have been released we can expect several months of "study".
After a few more mass shootings, we'll hear proposals to tweek the useless bureaucratic background checks.
Fake studies, useless tweaks, meaningless concessations, endless delays.
Meanwhile, the bullet-ridden star-spangled banner hangs limply o'er the land of the shot and the home of the sad. The free and brave are forgotten after a week. The corrupt and cowardly are always with us.
Be sure to kneel in prayer when you hear the sentimental but false words that conclude our national anthem!
Now that the customary political statements of sympathy without contrition have been released we can expect several months of "study".
After a few more mass shootings, we'll hear proposals to tweek the useless bureaucratic background checks.
Fake studies, useless tweaks, meaningless concessations, endless delays.
Meanwhile, the bullet-ridden star-spangled banner hangs limply o'er the land of the shot and the home of the sad. The free and brave are forgotten after a week. The corrupt and cowardly are always with us.
Be sure to kneel in prayer when you hear the sentimental but false words that conclude our national anthem!
7
Other commenters are already covering the guns themselves quite nicely.
What about a gun makes them lethal? Ammunition. Perhaps another way to work on the problem of gun violence is to change laws regarding the sale of ammunition. In the short term, rounds that work in the various high-rates-of-fire guns could be made illegal to purchase except by police and military. Want to use those kinds of guns? Join the Marines. Long term, offer gun and ammunition buy-back by the federal government. Offer cash or a tax-credit, destroy the gun and ammunition. To pay for it, dramatically increase the tax on the sale of all guns and ammunition. We as a society decided we wanted to reduce smoking, so we made it more expensive. Clearly the majority of Americans want to reduce gun violence and the fear of it, where is the Congressional Caucus for all the other Constitution's Amendments?
What about a gun makes them lethal? Ammunition. Perhaps another way to work on the problem of gun violence is to change laws regarding the sale of ammunition. In the short term, rounds that work in the various high-rates-of-fire guns could be made illegal to purchase except by police and military. Want to use those kinds of guns? Join the Marines. Long term, offer gun and ammunition buy-back by the federal government. Offer cash or a tax-credit, destroy the gun and ammunition. To pay for it, dramatically increase the tax on the sale of all guns and ammunition. We as a society decided we wanted to reduce smoking, so we made it more expensive. Clearly the majority of Americans want to reduce gun violence and the fear of it, where is the Congressional Caucus for all the other Constitution's Amendments?
1
Legislative change won't address the hundreds of millions of guns that are already in the hands of the public. Nor will it remove the billions of rounds of ammunition stockpiled throughout America.
It will take generations, even if sane gun laws were implemented, for the vast proliferation of gunnery to dwindle. Sadly, I don't see that happening- guns are an integral part of American culture. We reserve the right to shoot ourselves and/or others. It's an American right. It's what distinguishes us from Australians and Swedes.
It will take generations, even if sane gun laws were implemented, for the vast proliferation of gunnery to dwindle. Sadly, I don't see that happening- guns are an integral part of American culture. We reserve the right to shoot ourselves and/or others. It's an American right. It's what distinguishes us from Australians and Swedes.
1
Now that the NRA and many of its supporters have admitted that there should be some limits to gun possession and ownership, which presumably do not violate the Second Amendment, the most important question is what restrictions will best protect the security of all Americans without violating other constitutional protections. The solution is aggressively restricting the ability of any person, except designated law enforcement officers, from possessing stockpiles of weapons and munitions that can be used to kill many people at once. It should be a total ban, which includes weapons and munitions that American already possess.
A ban with complete compensation to the owner is possible, a taking is not.
1
Why not repeal the second amendment? Problem solved.
Granted, every little step saves lives. But spending so much time and efforts (and money) to achieve -- perhaps -- the tiniest improvement in people's safety takes away from the time and efforts (and money) needed to achieve bigger steps, thus actually condemning many more lives to end prematurely, and violently. The real question, then, should be: How Long Until We Start Rereading the 2d Amendment and draw the obvious conclusion, which is that other than "militias" such as the police and the military, NO ONE should have access to guns? Not realistic, you will say. But given the "realistic" chances of passing the tiniest common sense gun-related laws, wouldn't it make more sense for level-headed citizens to return to basics and fight for an overarching principle?
We've had a ton of debate, we don't need more debate. All we've had is debate. There is nothing that can be said that is more powerful than what happened at Sandy Hook. This is not going to happen: "I see your point Senator. When those people got mowed down in Las Vegas, I wasn't troubled, but because of your eloquence here at the debate, I now understand that guns cause problems, and even though the NRA destroy might destroy my career for doing so, I'm going to vote in favor of background checks." It's like climate change - any senator who even says those words will have the oil lobby swoop in and destroy their political career. More debate of gun control will only hurt the careers of those who favor it. We don't need more debate, and we aren't going to have it. We also aren't going to get any significant gun control legislation out of this administration. Next topic, please.
We have had laws, both effective and Constitutional, that helped to control rapid fire firearms in the past. We can create laws to control who is able to own firearms, and check who is buying them. Why hasn't this Congress begun acting to enact such laws?
"Real gun laws..."
Very similar to the phrase "Common Sense Gun Laws" frequently uttered by Obama when pandering to his base.
The fundamental issue with both is that what's "real" or "Common Sense" to some will be intolerable/unacceptable to others. Another commenter made a valid point in mentioning the bill regarding concealed carry reciprocity and States Rights. You can't have it both ways. If New York wants a draconian regimen, and it's put in place by the officials elected in New York, that should be accepted by those from outside of New York State. Vis a vis, States wishing to have a different (to some reasonable or Constitutional) set of standards, that too should be their right.
I choose not to live in a number of States (NY among them, despite being born there and growing up there) due to their political climate, prevailing philosophies and yes, gun laws. I respect those States laws and don't go there. I also expect not to be subjected to what I consider sever and probably un-Constitutional laws similar to what those States have enacted. I'm generally satisfied with the state of "gun laws" in Texas. We have some improvements (from my perspective) to make, but in general we're acceptable.
To conclude, I feel the predominant factor should reside in the States, not in the Federal Government, which is generally operating extra-Constitutionally in most cases.
Very similar to the phrase "Common Sense Gun Laws" frequently uttered by Obama when pandering to his base.
The fundamental issue with both is that what's "real" or "Common Sense" to some will be intolerable/unacceptable to others. Another commenter made a valid point in mentioning the bill regarding concealed carry reciprocity and States Rights. You can't have it both ways. If New York wants a draconian regimen, and it's put in place by the officials elected in New York, that should be accepted by those from outside of New York State. Vis a vis, States wishing to have a different (to some reasonable or Constitutional) set of standards, that too should be their right.
I choose not to live in a number of States (NY among them, despite being born there and growing up there) due to their political climate, prevailing philosophies and yes, gun laws. I respect those States laws and don't go there. I also expect not to be subjected to what I consider sever and probably un-Constitutional laws similar to what those States have enacted. I'm generally satisfied with the state of "gun laws" in Texas. We have some improvements (from my perspective) to make, but in general we're acceptable.
To conclude, I feel the predominant factor should reside in the States, not in the Federal Government, which is generally operating extra-Constitutionally in most cases.
2
All this outpouring of emotion! Americans don't really care. As long as it wasn't them. They want their guns. America has yet to elect any politician who has been against guns and the second amendment. Forget the polls that say 65% of Americans want to do something, because most of those 65% aren't going to vote. If I was a politician I wouldn't try to do a damn until 100% of those 65% start voting.
1
My feelings after the Las Vegas massacre are summed up by the famous speech in the movie Network, "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!" I won't take the delay that it's too early too talk about; I won't take the bone thrown out by the N.R.A. concerning banning bump stocks; and I won't take the delay and not "'politicize'" it!! It's time at long last for Congress to act and finally pass universal background checks and while they're at it to beef it up to include domestic abuse by requiring certification for men by their spouse, ex-spouse, or current significant other. They should also ban semi-automatic guns given how easy it is to turn them into automatic ones, and limit them to holding only six bullets. We can end this uniquely "American carnage" as other countries have. We and our loved ones, not just the unborn, have a "right-to-life." And, if once again the Congressional Republicans on the N.R.A. payroll (aka receiving millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the N.R.A.) continue to obstruct, I will make this my personal litmus test when I vote in November. I know the vast majority of the American people share the need for "commonsense" gun control. In the final analysis, it's up to us to vote to end this madness and to protect the lives of our loved ones.
38
We should not politicize the issue of guns at this time. That would be like politicizing the issue of terrorism after the September 11 attack, or politicizing the free stock market after the October 29 1929 crash. This is not politicizing, this is preventing any American who wants to kill a massive number of people from being able to do so as easily as buying milk.
"I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!"
Didn't we say that after Pulse, Columbine, Sandy Hook, and all the other mass shootings?
Didn't we say that after Pulse, Columbine, Sandy Hook, and all the other mass shootings?
1
While banning bump-stocks sounds great, there are a host of other ways to accomplish the same thing - including with a simple rubber band - so you better look into banning them as well.
Universal background checks are already in place, and have been for a few decades.
Domestic abuse is already something that can get your guns confiscated - but the police need to actually enforce those laws.
Even banning semi-autos will accomplish little to nothing. Australia did just that, and their "mass murder' count has skyrocketed - 2 before the ban, and 14 since.
When you actually come up with a "common sense" gun control law that will actually work, you might be surprised at the support you will get -- but the nonsense that keeps being touted as "common sense" so far has been non-sense.
You want to protect the lives of you loved ones?
Don't live an area that has been controlled by the Democrats for decades - it is those areas that produce the majority of our gun homicides and gun crime - and the vast majority of all that is being done with illegal guns, not legal ones.
Universal background checks are already in place, and have been for a few decades.
Domestic abuse is already something that can get your guns confiscated - but the police need to actually enforce those laws.
Even banning semi-autos will accomplish little to nothing. Australia did just that, and their "mass murder' count has skyrocketed - 2 before the ban, and 14 since.
When you actually come up with a "common sense" gun control law that will actually work, you might be surprised at the support you will get -- but the nonsense that keeps being touted as "common sense" so far has been non-sense.
You want to protect the lives of you loved ones?
Don't live an area that has been controlled by the Democrats for decades - it is those areas that produce the majority of our gun homicides and gun crime - and the vast majority of all that is being done with illegal guns, not legal ones.
With this moron president and the GOP in control of the House and Senate, NEVER.
They care more about staying on the good sign of Wayne LaPierre and gun manufacturers - and their ignorant cracker base - than they care about the lives of their neighbors, friends and even their own children.
This is depravity.
They care more about staying on the good sign of Wayne LaPierre and gun manufacturers - and their ignorant cracker base - than they care about the lives of their neighbors, friends and even their own children.
This is depravity.
7
No, it's unfettered capitalism. Republicans gained their position of power by manipulating ignorant crackers, and couldn't care less about them as human beings. Saying they care about their base is fake news.
Now is not the time to talk about gun law reform. Now is not, is code for never. We have been through this way too many times to believe for even a moment that congress has the gonads or the decency to challenge the NRA. The gonads to place the value of human life above the right to purchase, own and use weapons of mass death. Imo our money motivated congressional corporate shills are covered in the blood of innocent victims. Time has very clearly defined exactly where their priorities lie. The lives of innocent victims are nowhere near the top.
4
Since there are other means to obtain the bump stocks aim (pun intended) of achieving an automatic rate of fire, the language of any bill banning them should be broadened to include any device, method or part that enhances or makes automatic the firing rate of any firearm. Plus, it would of course be advisable to limit magazine size to 5-10. Otherwise we are sure to see souped-up belt-fed AR-15s with something other than bump stocks that perform similarly.
I suppose nobody really cares that bump stocks ruin aim,but when you fire into a crowd, it is not truly a major consideration.
I suppose nobody really cares that bump stocks ruin aim,but when you fire into a crowd, it is not truly a major consideration.
1
Guns are like drugs. So long as they are available, people will use them. Oh but people have a choice! It's all a matter of personal responsibility. Most gun owners are responsible people and take care of their weapons.
But there are over 30,000 gun deaths a year. There are over 75,000 gunshot injuries. That's well over 100,000.
We have drug problems. Most people don't abuse drugs and we have strict laws and procedures to control drugs. But there are over well over 60,000 drug overdose deaths and many more times that which require hospitalization. Oh but people have a choice. It's a personal responsibility problem.
People die from drugs and guns because they are freely available. They exist so we die. Drugs don't kill non-users very often. Guns kill innocents and many at one time. We spend tens of billions to combat drugs and untold billions to push guns onto the street. We have laws that prohibit drugs and laws that make it legal for people to carry guns without any restrictions, even out in the open.
The same excuse is used in both cases, personal responsibility. One has laws to prevent use and one has laws to encourage use. Both result in mass carnage and death.
This is because they are both in widespread circulation. Anyone can get a gun, especially a military grade weapon, and anyone can get drugs. They are everywhere.
So long as society is flooded with both, people will die by the thousands. Personal responsibility doesn't work.
But there are over 30,000 gun deaths a year. There are over 75,000 gunshot injuries. That's well over 100,000.
We have drug problems. Most people don't abuse drugs and we have strict laws and procedures to control drugs. But there are over well over 60,000 drug overdose deaths and many more times that which require hospitalization. Oh but people have a choice. It's a personal responsibility problem.
People die from drugs and guns because they are freely available. They exist so we die. Drugs don't kill non-users very often. Guns kill innocents and many at one time. We spend tens of billions to combat drugs and untold billions to push guns onto the street. We have laws that prohibit drugs and laws that make it legal for people to carry guns without any restrictions, even out in the open.
The same excuse is used in both cases, personal responsibility. One has laws to prevent use and one has laws to encourage use. Both result in mass carnage and death.
This is because they are both in widespread circulation. Anyone can get a gun, especially a military grade weapon, and anyone can get drugs. They are everywhere.
So long as society is flooded with both, people will die by the thousands. Personal responsibility doesn't work.
28
"On Thursday, the National Rifle Association broke its usual post-massacre silence by saying bump stocks “should be subject to additional regulations.” In the same statement, though, it called on Congress to require states to recognize concealed-carry permits issued by other states, spreading a Wild West mentality from coast to coast."
Let's remember the NRA will never freely give up an outrageous gun practice without further loosening gun laws elsewhere.
I want to see where the legislation on "silencers" goes. It's receded in to the background while fallout from Las Vegas settles. It's promoted by gun enthusiast Donald Trump Jr. as a good "health measure" for training kids about guns.
A far better "good health" measure would be tighten background checks in an increasingly porous gun culture where anyone anywhere can get their hands on guns and plot mayhem.
It seems as if after every shooting the public craves--no, demands--an easy explanation as to a gunman's motive. The more you can tie it to mental illness, or terrorism, the easier it is to avoid the issue of gun safety.
So Las Vegas is problematic because so far, there's no way to understand the mind of an obviously intelligent man who just "snapped."
Which begs the question: how many other Paddocks are there out there, ready to boil over and mow down people with impunity?
Ponder the Las Vegas mayhem if silencers were allowed with every gun purchase.
Let's remember the NRA will never freely give up an outrageous gun practice without further loosening gun laws elsewhere.
I want to see where the legislation on "silencers" goes. It's receded in to the background while fallout from Las Vegas settles. It's promoted by gun enthusiast Donald Trump Jr. as a good "health measure" for training kids about guns.
A far better "good health" measure would be tighten background checks in an increasingly porous gun culture where anyone anywhere can get their hands on guns and plot mayhem.
It seems as if after every shooting the public craves--no, demands--an easy explanation as to a gunman's motive. The more you can tie it to mental illness, or terrorism, the easier it is to avoid the issue of gun safety.
So Las Vegas is problematic because so far, there's no way to understand the mind of an obviously intelligent man who just "snapped."
Which begs the question: how many other Paddocks are there out there, ready to boil over and mow down people with impunity?
Ponder the Las Vegas mayhem if silencers were allowed with every gun purchase.
2
Even the ATF acknowledges that 'silencers' are rarely used in crimes. Handguns are used in the majority of firearm homicides, mass shootings included, but people for some persist in the banter about silencers, armor piercing ammunition and such. This is puzzling as the weapons used in crimes readily available for everyone to see on the FBI site, and have been for years. The continued focus on insignificant contributors to the national homicide rate suggests that a lot of (most ?) people get their information about what goes in the world from news sources, forgetting that it is news, what sells papers, ans that much is absent in such content.
4
So, please explain the legitimate, productive reason for which a person needs a silencer for a gun.
2
Don't hold your breath! NRA has already backtracked on "bump stock," the $99 - $200 cheap killing machine. And to reasonable people, "bump stock" is the moral equivalent of banning sarin but allowing other chemical agents as legitimate "defensive" weapons. Assault rifles like AR15 and AK47 can never be defensive nor can they for hunting purposes considering their profile and posture.
Someone on the internet has just update the "dog in the house of fire" meme by having it saying: "it is not the time to talk about the fire," while the house is burning. The meme is a cliche; sadly, reality is worse
Someone on the internet has just update the "dog in the house of fire" meme by having it saying: "it is not the time to talk about the fire," while the house is burning. The meme is a cliche; sadly, reality is worse
16
Firearms are inherently offensive weapons enhanced by the element of surprise.
1
"Assault rifles like AR15 and AK47 can never be defensive nor can they for hunting purposes considering their profile and posture."
True. But perhaps they are defensive against the feds. During Obama's presidency Republican confidence in the federal government fell to 5%.
The problem with Obama is not that he is black. The problem is that on social issues he is too far to the left of the country and even further to the left of Republicans.
What is to prevent a man who issued that bathroom order from ordering all Americans to give up their guns?
Right now we have Trump and for all his faults, Republicans must be heaving a sigh of relief that they have a crackpot Republican rather than a third term of Obama.
I wish NYT readers spent more time understanding the other side and less time abusing it.
True. But perhaps they are defensive against the feds. During Obama's presidency Republican confidence in the federal government fell to 5%.
The problem with Obama is not that he is black. The problem is that on social issues he is too far to the left of the country and even further to the left of Republicans.
What is to prevent a man who issued that bathroom order from ordering all Americans to give up their guns?
Right now we have Trump and for all his faults, Republicans must be heaving a sigh of relief that they have a crackpot Republican rather than a third term of Obama.
I wish NYT readers spent more time understanding the other side and less time abusing it.
1
@Aruna
not sure if you were reading just faux news or you are faux news yourself but President Obama wanted to ban all guns have been debunked many times over
And other myths perpetrated by NRA and/or the Putin gang. For instance:
- The 2nd Amendment was never meant to be AR15 or AK47
- If assault rifles are defensive, surely one could argue other means of mass destruction
- Where did you get the "Republicans confidence in the federal government fell to 5%" And which Republicans? Now that we know Speaker Boehner would sneak into the White House?
- And what other side you are talking about. If you are American, we are all on the same side.
- If by bathroom order you mean the North Carolina's brouhaha, it was the Republicans who instigated it. And Texas too. Everyone else is happy go lucky.
- The assault weapon ban dated before President George W Bush but he caved to the NRA. It is nothing to do with President Obama
The above is just off the top of my head.
not sure if you were reading just faux news or you are faux news yourself but President Obama wanted to ban all guns have been debunked many times over
And other myths perpetrated by NRA and/or the Putin gang. For instance:
- The 2nd Amendment was never meant to be AR15 or AK47
- If assault rifles are defensive, surely one could argue other means of mass destruction
- Where did you get the "Republicans confidence in the federal government fell to 5%" And which Republicans? Now that we know Speaker Boehner would sneak into the White House?
- And what other side you are talking about. If you are American, we are all on the same side.
- If by bathroom order you mean the North Carolina's brouhaha, it was the Republicans who instigated it. And Texas too. Everyone else is happy go lucky.
- The assault weapon ban dated before President George W Bush but he caved to the NRA. It is nothing to do with President Obama
The above is just off the top of my head.
1
This bullet was in an article this morning:
• Investigators were still struggling on Thursday to understand what motivated the gunman to open fire on concertgoers…
To understand Paddock’s motivation is irrelevant and secondary to the real root issue at stake and all of us know the obvious relevant question that needs to be addressed and part of a national discussion. The script repeated again and again is, it’s deranged people and not guns that kill.
The NRA endorsed a minor concession to band devices that convert semi-automatic weapons to fire as rapidly as fully automatic machine guns. Better to concede and endorse banning “bump stocks” or other similar devices than risk having Congress endorse more substantive legislation reaching beyond just the issue of selling such devices. I’m sure NRA’s first action following the reported blood bath was to poll Congressional (R)’s to gauge their willingness to continue fighting any change to current gun laws. When they realized that (R)’s felt politically compelled to pass some small restriction in response to the Las Vegas massacre, even the NRA would have to make some minor concession to hide behind to resume the purchase of (R) lawmakers’ defending every NRA position that places any limits on guns.
• Investigators were still struggling on Thursday to understand what motivated the gunman to open fire on concertgoers…
To understand Paddock’s motivation is irrelevant and secondary to the real root issue at stake and all of us know the obvious relevant question that needs to be addressed and part of a national discussion. The script repeated again and again is, it’s deranged people and not guns that kill.
The NRA endorsed a minor concession to band devices that convert semi-automatic weapons to fire as rapidly as fully automatic machine guns. Better to concede and endorse banning “bump stocks” or other similar devices than risk having Congress endorse more substantive legislation reaching beyond just the issue of selling such devices. I’m sure NRA’s first action following the reported blood bath was to poll Congressional (R)’s to gauge their willingness to continue fighting any change to current gun laws. When they realized that (R)’s felt politically compelled to pass some small restriction in response to the Las Vegas massacre, even the NRA would have to make some minor concession to hide behind to resume the purchase of (R) lawmakers’ defending every NRA position that places any limits on guns.
11
It sure looks to me as though Wayne Lapierre runs the Congress.
2
The motive is relevant. Like some other shootings this was a murder-suicide, and as a result is prone to a contagion. There are guidelines on how to report such events in order a contagion, but of course the media doesn't abide by those in the case of a mass shooting.
Guns exacerbate every pre-existing mental illness in people who bring them into their lives.
3
Thanks to McConnell, Congress doesn't debate anything. So gun law debate is an absurd proposition. To return Congress to proper order, defeat McConnell.
40
I would add to that- do not visit and ask your company to boycott McConnell's and Ryan home states. Do not buy any product made there either. Spread the word.
1
And now is definitely not the the time to 'pray' about America's public safety disaster of guns and bullets.
Now is the time to legislate gun registration, gun insurance, free mental health clinics and a ban on military arsenals by civilian gun fetishizers whipped into a paranoid gun-state that has turned America into a nationally shooting gallery.
Now is the time to recognize that 'praying' for gun victims and abandoning them to legislation inaction is about the most despicable thing you can do as the next batch of victims and 'prayers' on the assembly line of American gun deaths roll off the gun factory floors.
If one wants to honor the victims, celebrating the continuing clinical insanity of the 2nd Amendment and 'praying' is akin to confirming the sanctity of their senseless violent deaths.
Don't insult the victims by 'praying' for them.
Honor the victims by reducing the number of guns and bullets and paranoid delusions of violence from America's sick society.
Now is the time to legislate gun registration, gun insurance, free mental health clinics and a ban on military arsenals by civilian gun fetishizers whipped into a paranoid gun-state that has turned America into a nationally shooting gallery.
Now is the time to recognize that 'praying' for gun victims and abandoning them to legislation inaction is about the most despicable thing you can do as the next batch of victims and 'prayers' on the assembly line of American gun deaths roll off the gun factory floors.
If one wants to honor the victims, celebrating the continuing clinical insanity of the 2nd Amendment and 'praying' is akin to confirming the sanctity of their senseless violent deaths.
Don't insult the victims by 'praying' for them.
Honor the victims by reducing the number of guns and bullets and paranoid delusions of violence from America's sick society.
89
None of your suggestions will have the slightest effect on the murder rate, and this fact is already known to criminologists. So to have a real debate on guns, we would need the gun control fanatics to stop having knee-jerk reactions, and instead familiarize themselves with the basic research and to actually think about how their proposals might play out.
@Socrates
Spot on as usual.
Do you mind if I plagiarize a few of your lines to add to my boilerplate comments related to guns? ....
The clock has already started on the countdown to the next massacre. We don't have time for the "thoughts and prayers", or the "this needs more study", or the "now is not the time to politicize" crapolla. Now is the time to recognize that 'praying' for gun victims and abandoning them to legislation inaction is about the most despicable thing you can do. Don't insult the victims by 'praying' for them. There are literally thousands of nutcases out there with Paddock-like arsenals. We need to ban battlefield weapons (I'm not talking about hunting rifles, pistols,etc). We need to start purging the millions of battlefield weapons that are already out in the populace. We need to shine a very bright light on those engaged in this death trade: the bought politicians, identify the NRA players and how the money is flowing, the players in the gun show circuit, ALEC, etc.
We need to start implementing the Australian model.
Spot on as usual.
Do you mind if I plagiarize a few of your lines to add to my boilerplate comments related to guns? ....
The clock has already started on the countdown to the next massacre. We don't have time for the "thoughts and prayers", or the "this needs more study", or the "now is not the time to politicize" crapolla. Now is the time to recognize that 'praying' for gun victims and abandoning them to legislation inaction is about the most despicable thing you can do. Don't insult the victims by 'praying' for them. There are literally thousands of nutcases out there with Paddock-like arsenals. We need to ban battlefield weapons (I'm not talking about hunting rifles, pistols,etc). We need to start purging the millions of battlefield weapons that are already out in the populace. We need to shine a very bright light on those engaged in this death trade: the bought politicians, identify the NRA players and how the money is flowing, the players in the gun show circuit, ALEC, etc.
We need to start implementing the Australian model.
1
You are preaching to the choir, Socrates. We are NY Times readers not GOP legislators nor fans thereof.
GOP legislative members do what their big bucks political funders order them to do. The public, in most states, vote for GOP federal and state legislators. Why? I really do not know. It must be that they find being shot at exciting and that they get great joy out of watching the super-rich get richer while they get poorer.
GOP legislative members do what their big bucks political funders order them to do. The public, in most states, vote for GOP federal and state legislators. Why? I really do not know. It must be that they find being shot at exciting and that they get great joy out of watching the super-rich get richer while they get poorer.
3
I saw a few cops yesterday who said they understood both sides of the debate but lamented on the fact that it will be very difficult to stop determined individuals from engaging in gun violence.
They said one of the biggest problems is with so many guns in circulation already, and so many ways to obtain them illegally, that gun control may not do what people think it will to prevent these sort of tragedies.
The other big challenge they noted was the endless number of vulnerable events and places that are at risk.
They said while baseball stadiums and other venues have airport like security, there are countless open events such as Christmas tree lightings and local fairs, and extremely large and crowded areas like Times Square for example, where it would be very difficult to stop someone who is determined to hurt people.
They said theee are no easy answers or solutions.
They said one of the biggest problems is with so many guns in circulation already, and so many ways to obtain them illegally, that gun control may not do what people think it will to prevent these sort of tragedies.
The other big challenge they noted was the endless number of vulnerable events and places that are at risk.
They said while baseball stadiums and other venues have airport like security, there are countless open events such as Christmas tree lightings and local fairs, and extremely large and crowded areas like Times Square for example, where it would be very difficult to stop someone who is determined to hurt people.
They said theee are no easy answers or solutions.
8
Yet we must begin somewhere. I happen to own an AR 15, and I would be happy to surrender it for what I paid, if the government did a buyback program. They buyback would be a first step toward outlawing that category of weapons all together. I do not oppose that sort of legislation at all.
3
The only first world county with a major gun problem says there are no answers or solutions! The irony. Maybe stop talking to cops about this and start listening to comedians. Might be easier to find answers.
2
Yes there are easy solutions. Try reading what Australia did. Read up on gun laws in Canada and the UK.
3
“Real gun laws” are debated all the time. They were debated in detail in 2013, in the U.S. Senate in the wake of Sandy Hook, with Dianne Feinstein and fellow travelers on one side, and almost all Republicans on the other. They just weren’t enacted. If Sen. Feinstein had been less arrogantly ambitious and more willing to acknowledge the reality and weight of opposed interests, she might have closed a deal on SOME of them. Alas, she wasn’t and she didn’t. We got bupkis.
I’m far less irked by the claim that we don’t debate “real gun laws” than I am at the blithe assumption that the editors have the only legitimate read on what “real gun laws” are – I’ve always supported more extensive curbs on guns in this forum. But so long as you persist in this delusion that the only valid burning bush is yours, and that everyone who doesn’t genuflect before it is a Neanderthal, then the Neanderthals are going to keep us from moving forward even one inch. You think “bump stocks” regulation is now a sure thing? Insult gun rights activists a little more, see how real that is.
What’s more, central arguments on the right include the very legitimate claim that the problem is psychopaths, not guns, and the claim that the means of inflicting mass death are varied – such as massive fertilizer bombs – and that we distract ourselves by focusing so exclusively on means rather than on motivations. These very defensible positions figure not at all in your arguments.
BOTH sides need to get a clue.
I’m far less irked by the claim that we don’t debate “real gun laws” than I am at the blithe assumption that the editors have the only legitimate read on what “real gun laws” are – I’ve always supported more extensive curbs on guns in this forum. But so long as you persist in this delusion that the only valid burning bush is yours, and that everyone who doesn’t genuflect before it is a Neanderthal, then the Neanderthals are going to keep us from moving forward even one inch. You think “bump stocks” regulation is now a sure thing? Insult gun rights activists a little more, see how real that is.
What’s more, central arguments on the right include the very legitimate claim that the problem is psychopaths, not guns, and the claim that the means of inflicting mass death are varied – such as massive fertilizer bombs – and that we distract ourselves by focusing so exclusively on means rather than on motivations. These very defensible positions figure not at all in your arguments.
BOTH sides need to get a clue.
20
Agreed. Below is an article about the debate on gun laws after Sandy Hook; Democrats scuttled the last possible proposal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us/politics/senate-obama-gun-control.h...
Mr. Begich said the Senate could have united behind measures with broad support, like strengthening the existing background check system with more data about would-be gun buyers who have been deemed mentally ill, rather than expanding the checks to sales not now covered. Mr. Begich also cited bolstering school safety, criminalizing gun trafficking and improving mental health programs….Those modest steps, however, were sacrificed because other Democrats did not want to see further-reaching provisions fail at the expense of a package that the gun rights lobby wanted, aides said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us/politics/senate-obama-gun-control.h...
Mr. Begich said the Senate could have united behind measures with broad support, like strengthening the existing background check system with more data about would-be gun buyers who have been deemed mentally ill, rather than expanding the checks to sales not now covered. Mr. Begich also cited bolstering school safety, criminalizing gun trafficking and improving mental health programs….Those modest steps, however, were sacrificed because other Democrats did not want to see further-reaching provisions fail at the expense of a package that the gun rights lobby wanted, aides said.
5
@John: The 2013 article you provided deserves unpacking, because it highlights a number of issues that are relevant to the failure of gun reform. It's simplistic to say that "Democrats scuttled the last possible proposal." The excerpt you included suggests that Republicans put forward a reasonable compromise to what Democrats had initially proposed. That's not the case. And you left out the part of the piece describing the NRA's aggressive efforts to scuttle any reform efforts. Among other things, they spent a half million dollars on advertising that labeled any potential legislation as "Obama's gun ban." That's typical of the lies and hyperbole that many gun-rights advocates employ to cement their position.
7
This is just like the health care issue: the US it too arrogant and stupid to learn anything from anyone else. This country is a nonstop insult to intelligence.
3
"In the same statement, though, it called on Congress to require states to recognize concealed-carry permits issued by other states,"
Presumably these are the same people who keep proclaiming their preference for states' rights--in everything else.
Presumably these are the same people who keep proclaiming their preference for states' rights--in everything else.
35
Exactly. But the same people are also those who fetishize the Constitution, when they agree with part of it.
1
There is no need for "debate" on such, we have done that in the past. What we do need is for governments to closely enforce current gun laws especially against criminals and gangs. We probably need a blue ribbon commission to actually investigate the root causes that can be legally addressed. Then we can have proposals for legal improvements. The bump stock issue would have been much easier to address when it first came up, somehow it was not important enough. Now we will have issues with transition period. It would help if people stopped talking about "assault weapons" (who knows what that means) or "machine guns" which are already almost totally illegal.
6
Well, if a hunting rifle is a rifle used for hunting, an assault weapon is most likely a weapon intended for mounting an assault. A blue ribbon commission sounds like a great idea. Stalling what needs to be done for years and using lots of taxpayer money to do it.
2
Oh, here comes the familiar refrain: we don't need more restrictive gun laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have! Right! And the total mystery of "assault weapons" (best not to talk about them!) and "almost totally illegal" machine guns (so nothing to talk about.
The guy who shot all these people in Vegas was not a member of any gang and had no criminal history. What he did have though, was the ability to amass a great deal of people-killing weaponry and ammunition. Do you see the connection?
The guy who shot all these people in Vegas was not a member of any gang and had no criminal history. What he did have though, was the ability to amass a great deal of people-killing weaponry and ammunition. Do you see the connection?
2
@ vulcanalex Tennessee - Vulcan I note that your comment follows a standard form used by comment writers who apparently own weapons or claim or perhaps do have more knowledge about weapons than do we who have never owned such.
I interpret use of this standard form as being an effort to discredit us who are so ill informed. Perhaps you have not noted that a standard police statement often takes the form of "the alleged shooter had a rifle" and a standard newspaper report is "rifles were found at the home of the alleged shooter". Why don't they tell us the truth?
We who read and listened to the Times account using a graphic showing the patterns of sounds recorded in Las Vegas and elsewhere did not need to use phrases like "assault weapons". We could simply point to the analysis - x projectiles per second. That was enough to tell us what we needed to know.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
I interpret use of this standard form as being an effort to discredit us who are so ill informed. Perhaps you have not noted that a standard police statement often takes the form of "the alleged shooter had a rifle" and a standard newspaper report is "rifles were found at the home of the alleged shooter". Why don't they tell us the truth?
We who read and listened to the Times account using a graphic showing the patterns of sounds recorded in Las Vegas and elsewhere did not need to use phrases like "assault weapons". We could simply point to the analysis - x projectiles per second. That was enough to tell us what we needed to know.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Obviously there is little interest in congress in debating gun control legislation. If the past incidents have mnot produced this debate, why should this incident do so? Action on the bump stock issue is not inconsequential, but it is also not enough. There is only one conclusion to be drawn, which is that Congress as presently constituted is willing to live with existing gun laws despite these horrific events. It is hard to imagine how horrific an event would have to be to change this.
25
And somehow congress keeps complaining they can't get their normal work done, so where is the time coming from to do more? Perhaps they need to work much longer and better. Tax reform, infrastructure, health insurance, and many other things need to be accomplished first.
Well, I think adapting priorities to current issues might be a good thing. Or did you want to put out, that health insurance should be handled first, so that the cost of treating gunshot wounds and funerals are covered?
2
I for one would love to see some actual evidence because I don't see evidence for even a broken nail much less a massacre by a modern day Sargent York.
It's not just the deaths, the slaughter -- it's also about the victims who survived being shot, it's about how the wounded and the maimed go on living after experiencing senseless violence. How families and loved ones cope with the loss. How communities survive. Gun violence destroys our sense of safety and freedoms in the most basic ways. Without Republicans acting to contain guns with sensible controls the only truly protected spaces will be the halls of Congress.
49
There is a word for people in general who feel highly emotional about the possibility. I bet you know what it is. Now I greatly feel for those directly effected and their immediate families. The rest just have to live in a world that is somewhat dangerous. After all we have say terrorists, drunk drivers, criminal gangs and many other things to worry about. Worry is a destructive emotion, if you really are at risk do something personally to address it. Or perhaps "don't worry, be happy"
3
@ Ann Verified California and her replier Vulcanex.
Ann, I filed comments yesterday concerned with your first point which is about the long-term consequences for each cluster of nearest-and-dearest around each of the 58 and for the wounded, many of whom are in critical condition. Vulcanex tells us that he feels greatly for those effected (sic). But he had to preface that with a Trump-like line about people who are highly emotional.
Then vulcanex finds it necessary to lecture us on worry. He apparently does not think we should even feel discomfort walking on some college campus or other reasonably safe place where people are now allowed to open-carry. Fortunately, at this stage in my life I can avoid those places. My visits to the US are to places where as far as I know most people are not armed. Maybe I am naive.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Ann, I filed comments yesterday concerned with your first point which is about the long-term consequences for each cluster of nearest-and-dearest around each of the 58 and for the wounded, many of whom are in critical condition. Vulcanex tells us that he feels greatly for those effected (sic). But he had to preface that with a Trump-like line about people who are highly emotional.
Then vulcanex finds it necessary to lecture us on worry. He apparently does not think we should even feel discomfort walking on some college campus or other reasonably safe place where people are now allowed to open-carry. Fortunately, at this stage in my life I can avoid those places. My visits to the US are to places where as far as I know most people are not armed. Maybe I am naive.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
5
Greatly "affected" is what I think you mean, vulcanalex. As for worry, I think you need to talk to Trump. After all, he "won" the election by scaring people who were already uneasy about "the others" – you know, the immigrants, terrorists, gangsters and oh, yes, elites. He scared me, too, by saying there were some "nice people" among the racist neo-nazi thugs in Charlottesville.
5