Ain't gonna happen. If a firearms manufacturer lined up behind sensible gun safety, the NRA would call for a boycott of their products that would be crippling.
2
And this safe maker wanted safe safes...
http://safeandvault.com/faq/115-gsa-containers/705-mosler-safe-company
...built the vault at Fort Knox - back when we had stuff worth keeping in it
But - somehow - we've ended up with Bitcoin and Facebook to keep our money and memories safe...
2
"If gun manufacturers are truly responsible organizations,..."
I fear that the idea of "corporate citizenship" is as antiquated as admiring the courtship dances of the Dodo in real time. This quarter's profits are the only thing that matters. Your triple great grand pop would have either (1) changed with the times, or (2) been kicked out of the organization as a "bleeding heart (gasp) librul." From what you've said, I imagine the latter is more likely because, as I understand it, even the 1% took their responsibilities as citizens more seriously back then.
My own grandpa had guns and hunted. I imagine that he, as a very law abiding conservative, would have considered responsible gun control laws wise, useful, and obtrusive only to criminals.
2
I guess inventing a safe gun would be considered an oxymoron.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I want to say thank you. Any regulation on firearms is welcome and any voice for action is good. On the other hand, just the oxymoronic juxtaposition of "safe" with "gun" makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. Ms. Romm, I'm not sure why being a distant relative to a blood-money millionaire lends authority to your view, but I grew up with gun violence and I know first hand what guns do. I've seen good people die from bullets. An innocent girl in the drivethru line at Burger King. My mother's best friend's only son. Do you know what it's like to look down the barrel of loaded gun? The point of a gun is power -- to take away another person's rightful freedom. There is no right to own a gun, because there is no right to challenge another human's freedom. I know the gun nuts will bring up the 2nd Amendment, just like the slave owners brought up the Constitution when they claimed they had a "right" to own a fellow human being. It only proves that the Constitution is deeply flawed and is crying out for the courage of the People to change it.
1
If your great-great-great grandfather, D.B. Wesson was so over-wrought about one child killed accidentally with one of his manufactured guns, then without a shadow of doubt, he would be horrified about innocent children being massacred today and all gun violence rampant in our current society. I am sure he would not be making guns safe or improving laws which will always have loopholes that a criminal can easily circumvent. He would stop manufacturing guns for citizens in a civil society. Period. The only guns manufactured would be for the Police or the Army. I am glad that your family is no more vested in a company which still has name. Right now his body must be turning in his grave, writhing in pain.
The problem with relying on background checks is that we now have far too many guns in circulation. Most of these guns were all obtained legally, but many of them have been stolen or sold illegally on the black market. It is easy to buy a gun without going through any background check--that is the problem.
A person who is contemplating killing a person or a large number of people isn't going to be concerned about legally buying a firearm. The already pretty much know that what they are about to do is illegal and crime and that they will be caught and punished. Many of them when they finish their grizzly deed, commit suicide if the police don't do it for them.
Frankly, we are at a stage where we need far more direct and effective gun controls. Background check ain't cuttin' it.
While I might agree with restoring the funding for the CDC, it behooves us to recall exactly WHY funding was cut in the FIRST place. Back in the '90s, then President Clinton was looking for support for his crime bill, which included a ban on so-called "assault weapons." His cronies at the CDC provided a plethora of junk science propaganda (the first time I recall hearing the term!) Naturally, the NRA objected and THAT is why funding was cut. NOT to hide real scientific data, but to stop political propaganda.
I also agree with Sissifus; these shootings aren't the result of poor training! All such a requirement does is place another hurdle in the way of the law abiding citizen. And lastly, a registry has no utility in the prevention of a crime, and very little in solving one. Our efforts are better used improving background checks to include the dangerously mentally ill.
I don't understand the point of weapons training for every gun buyer. The vast majority of shootings are not accidental, and the shooter was skilled, as judged by the success. The only thing compulsory weapons training could achieve is making the shooters even more lethal.
2
sissifus, this is not correct. Here in the US we have innocents killed all too often when people, mostly untrained criminals, fire "at" another person, but they are really mostly just firing in a particular direction.
So the bullets fly off, and go through cars, windows, thinly-constructed walls, and people are suddenly dead or injured.
And it doesn't have to be a criminal. When a madman shot at Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, killing many others in the crowd while wounding her, there was someone in the crowd, legally carrying a weapon. That person's training kept them from firing into a panicky crowd, and the shooter was tackled when the rapid burst of shooting was finished.
If we have to have guns in our society, training for legal owners should be rigorous, and should include training on properly storing and securing the weapon at all times, so burglaries and car break-ins (or just plain careless loss of a gun) puts more weapons into criminal hands.
1
I thank Mr. Romm for his responsible suggestions. I especially hope that we will all contact our representatives and ask that the government take a clear lead in researching what can most practically be done to reduce gun violence. In many areas congress will make a problem go away by funding one more study about what to do, but with respect to guns they made the studies go away. Even the original sponsor of the bill in congress has said that wasn't what he intended.
Good thoughts Ms. Romm. Can I add that gun makers should also be continuously working to reduce the risk that guns present - even to their legal owners?
Like guns, cars don't people, except when they do.
So cars have emergency brakes, ignition locks, anti-skid brakes, and now some even sport breathalyzers so problem drinkers don't compound the problem by operating a dangerous device while impaired.
So, gun industry, how will you make your devices resistant to tragedy in situations like this:
1 - child finds mom's gun in purse and fires it
2 - person begins cleaning gun while it's still loaded
3 - gun fires accidentally while dropped or trigger catches on obstruction
4 - lost or stolen gun falls into criminal hands
We're waiting. You have a responsibility. Or do we tax the industry to pay for every funeral, therapy session, brains/blood cleanup and healthcare for the wounded?
5
1. Mother is careless. Mother needs to be educated on securing a firearm.
2. Person cleaning the gun is careless. Every gun is loaded until you ascertain that it isn't. If you are distracted go back and make sure it isn't loaded. If a semiautomatic make sure there isn't a round left in the firing chamber after the magazine is removed by pulling back the slide and seeing the round fall out. Lock the slide back . (There's a catch on the gun for that.) Look down into the grip from the top. You should be able to see the ground through it.
3. A very rare occurrence. There's an internal lockout. A gun should be holstered when not in use or being cleaned. People are most often shot by keeping it in the waistband of their trousers. If there is a safety on the gun engage it.
4. A gun must be secured. A lost gun must be reported to the police immediately. The serial number should be put away and given with the report. The same with a stolen gun. Thieves break into safes. People get robbed and the gun is taken from their person. (No one attempts to draw when a gun is already drawn against them)
Note that all the above are caused by human carelessness. No amount safety devices will prevent that.
Like an automobile outside of your control you are not responsible for what someone else does with it provided you secured it. A stolen gun properly reported to police relieves the owner of responsibility. If your car or gun are stolen and used in a crime you are not responsible.
1
He wouldn't be the same man if he were alive today. Corporations have changed immensely. The view of the Second Amendment has changed. The NRA has turned into the equivalent of religious zealots when it comes to the right to own guns: they want nothing to get in between your right to own a gun and the public's right to be safe from being shot by someone who shouldn't have a gun, or someone who owns a gun and then decides that you or another person are a threat and uses the gun to kill.
This is about more than guns or the Second Amendment. It's about how little our lawmakers understand their duties to serve us rather than their rich corporate owners. It's about how much the GOP protects businesses at the expense of working Americans. It's about how worthless our lives are in comparison to those of the uber rich or CEOs of rich corporations.
Most hunters are very responsible with their guns. They are not the problem. The problem is the lax attitudes evinced by some who are supposed to put information about people who are not to own guns into the correct databases. And the other problem is the charade foisted upon us by the NRA and the GOP. Guns are not a necessity in today's America. We are far from that small, newly formed country born in 1776 that won the war and settled with Britain in 1782 or so.
8
" Guns are not a necessity in today's America."
I'll think of that every time I remember how two men grabbed my 68 y/o neighbor in his driveway and attempted to drag him into his house. Thankfully his girlfriend saw it happen through a window and greeted the two men with a 38 Special.
I'll think of the 18 y/o girl with her baby on the phone with 911 in Oklahoma waiting an hour for the police to show up on New Years Eve when two men broke down the door looking for the drugs that might be in her house after he husband died of lung cancer on Christmas Day 4 years ago armed with a 12 inch hunting knife.
There are hundreds of thousands of these incidents every year and you think a gun is not a necessity?
1
Ms. Romm writes beautifully about her grandfather's legacy. It is unfortunate that she appears not to recognize (possibly due to The Times Editorial Board policies) that the vast majority of firearms made under the name of her grandfather are used for peaceful purposes.
While hunting and target shooting pre-date the birth of the USA, the misuse of these weapons is probably something that Mr. Wesson could not have imagined.
The difficulty in trying to come up with a rational firearms policy (for both hand guns and long weapons) is that the restrictions are more likely to impact the law abiding citizen (the hunter/target shooter) than those bent on hurting others.
While the young people from Parkland, FL have galvanized this debate, we need to draw upon the collective intelligence of as many of us as possible. The unintended consequences of ill-considered federal and state legislation on firearms is why we should tread carefully.
Mr. Wesson's invention is a legal product and it should remain a legal product with appropriate regulations/safeguards to ensure that it is used for the good that it had been intended. In simple English, this is our challenge; possibly the thorniest one in a most complex age.
1
Hillary Clinton, had a clear vision BEFORE all the bloodletting we experienced during the unsettling months of the most unpopular president in our history.
1) Expand background checks by removing existing loopholes designed to bypass them. Loopholes make gun salesman happy but it also makes criminals happy. It also makes a few unhappy people dead. Some who take the life of others as they take their own.
Federal law allows If three business days pass without a verdict from the FBI, someone to buy a gun anyway. This allowed Dylann Roof to purchase a handgun he later used to kill nine people in a Charleston Church in June 2015 and the reason it is now known as the Charleston loophole that President Trump seems to think it is OK.
2) A moral giant Clinton was ready to take on the gun lobby. The moral weakling who is serving as president now accused other Republicans for being afraid of the NRA and the proved he was all booster, no payload, by doing an one eighty, with his tail between his legs.
3) Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill by making it a federal crime for someone to intentionally buy a gun for a person prohibited from owning one.
(Yes Virginia! there is NO Federal Law already in the books, making it illegal to provide guns to abusers, criminals, severely mentally ill, or even foreign or domestic terrorists...simply unbelievable)
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/
9
"by making it a federal crime for someone to intentionally buy a gun for a person prohibited from owning one."
There IS a federal law prohibiting buying a gun for a person prohibited from owning one. It carries a $100,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison upon conviction.
Three years ago a Nebraska women bought her felon boyfriend a gun. He used it in robberies and to kill a policeman. later he was killed by police. His girl friend was convicted of the crime and the judge gave her one year's probation as punishment. Felons are criminals.
It is already a federal crime to supply an abuser with a firearm.
It is already a federal crime to provide an ADJUDICATED mentally ill person with a firearm. Adjudicated mean that a court has found under expert testimony that he is mentally ill. Rights cannot be taken away without a court action.
1
And, from across the pond, there is this.
.
"The number of Americans interested in obtaining concealed carry permits to secretly bear arms in public has jumped dramatically since the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February – with some states having seen as much as a 250 per cent increase in training requests for this type of permit."
.
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-gun-con..."
2
Gun violence in this country is out of control. It will not be effectively addressed as long as our gun debate is remains so dysfunctional. Just read the comments below. There is on common ground. The carnage will continue as long as people hide behind ideological extremism.
As a gun owner and hunter, I support an individual's right to own firearms. However, the Preamble to our Declaration of Independence states that every citizen has "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The level of gun violence in this country has risen to a level which infringes upon these rights (especially the right to public safety). If both sides to the gun debate respect the rights mentioned above, then maybe common ground can be established which would then lead to a more constructive and meaningful discussion.
The gun debate also needs to be data driven. The US has only 4.4% of the world's population, yet we have in our possession approximately 42% of the world's civilian-owned firearms. The argument that the availablity of guns has nothing to do with gun violence is illogical, especially when you compare the levels of gun ownership and violence in the US to other developed countries.
Historically, gun advocacy groups have blocked funding for gun violence research. However, since gun violence has become a public health issue, the CDC should be given the necessary funding to do objective, scientific research. Let the evidence speak for itself.
8
Some good thoughts here but make them something they provide at minimal costs, not something that is a requirement. Everyone should have access to good training, but registration of your weapon is not something the government or a company should require. It is a right, not something else.
2
I'm sorry, but the Supreme Court decided in "District of Columbia v. Heller" that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership can be regulated. Please get informed.
Technology is improving every day and can be used in a gun to stop or deter its unauthorized use. It won't solve all the problems, but it WOULD save lives.
1
They create weapons designed to kill human beings? No, they are designed to reliably and accurately shoot bullets. What those bullets are aimed at is determined by the person controlling the weapon.
Which is why background checks, and a legal way of disarming persons dangerous to themselves and others, is mandatory. By the way, the Parkland shooter only used 10 round magazines.
4
Do you really believe that a background check would have stopped the Parkland shooter. No! It would not. In point of fact that goes for most of these massive kills we have seen in the media. Most of those people would have passed virtually any background check that is out there right now.
A legal means of disarming a person dangerous to others was not used in his case. Cruz was reported as a threat to others well prior, but they did nothing to stop him.
Good article, but really - Safe Guns ? Come on.
There are many reasons in this sad old world to have guns, but ..."Safe Guns" ? No way shape or form
Safe Guns would = zero guns & in this sick sick world, it just isn't going to happen. Not now. Maybe not ever (as far as humans are concerned that is)
2
Thank you for this article
4
If I remember correctly, Smith and Wesson tried to introduce a safer, handgun which utilized a fingerprint technology and was demonized by the tin hats of the nra. I'm not even going to capitalize those letters, I have so little regard for the organization
9
The NRA never opposed the gun at all. It was unreliable in an emergency and didn't sell, so it was dropped. The reason we don't have it on the shelf today, is because nobody wanted a gun that may or may not work when needed and cost a lot more.
4
And would fail in the market, such exist that require a special ring to be worn, they are expensive and also a failure in the market. And what difference would that make when the shooter is the owner?
1
See, you can't have safer guns, because that would reduce gun violence and hence, fear. A drop in fear would mean reduced gun sales.
8
Sad but true.
One thing the author leaves out, and that is that the gun companies are no longer small, independent businesses they once were, they are owned by mega corporations or private equity firms and the like, and the only thing they care about is return on shareholder value, which in turn means getting as much 'product' out there as possible, to hell with the consequences. Even if the executives of these companies had a soul (which I doubt), they are beholden to people who don't. It is telling that commonsense things like requiring people have training before owning a gun, and going into schools is not the same thing.
If you own a car, in all states you need a driver's license which requires proving you know the rules and can demonstrate ability to some level, the car you drive has to be registered and insured, which isn't true for guns in many states. Likewise, in many states after going through the background check and buying weapons, you are free to sell them privately and there is no consequences to it, you can sell to anyone you want, no background check, and can take guns bought legally, sell them into the black market, and since there are no reporting rules, free to do it. The irony is the conservatives who are so pro gun are big on personal accountablity, except when it comes to guns, we regulate cars and boats and things like model rocket engines more strictly than guns.
6
Owning and driving a car is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right.
7
Funny. So righteous
Right--and how's that workin' out for us.
I agree and would suggest even more. A ton of manufacturing changes could be done at the plant to produce a weapon that would deter illegal use of it.
1
Would that also apply to cars? Bats? Kitchen knives?
1
Mike, FYI Cars, bats and knives have uses other than for killing.
Like what that would be both constitutional, acceptable to the market, and not easily avoided by say a 3D printer.
While it wouldn't prevent massacres like Las Vegas, one suggestion that would prevent accidental shootings (a child playing with a gun, for example) would be fingerprint trigger locks. If our phones can be unlocked by our fingerprints, why not a gun? The technology exists and would prevent accidents and perhaps be a disincentive to steal weapons if they couldn't be unlocked easily.
2
There are gun security system that involve the wearer wearing a special ring.
There are fingerprint lock gun mini-safes
All guns come with a trigger or gun lock from the manufacturer.
2
Lots of companies have tried making one, but they're no where near reliable enough to be adopted
2
How about you keep guns away from such, or a gun lock, or gun safe. They work and keep them mostly out of the hands of criminals as well.
2
Thank you Ms. Romm for this sane piece written in an insane time, in an insane world.
8
The moment you reference "common sense" gun laws is the moment I know you're not interested in a good faith discussion. Obviously people don't agree on what is "common sense" or those rules would already be in place. Banning rifles because they have collapsible stocks or bayonet lugs is not common sense, nor is it Constitutional.
9
The writer isn’t advocating anything that has not been on the agenda of most liberals for quite awhile now, nor does her relationship to this D.B. Wesson make her a particularly good advocate for sensible gun laws. So why the op-ed? I am the 9th great-grandson of a Mayflower pilgrim, but I do not feel personal guilt for the dispossession and mistreatment of American Indians.
5
Only in America could the descendant of S&W be so "twinged" with liberal guilt and privilege, and wealth of course, that she can write an Op-Ed from her ivory tower, which is then published by the NYT, due to her exptertise...as a "rising star in the dressage world."
7
I found out years ago that I am a distant relative of George Washington and I feel he would be appalled at the elected official we have today and would want us to rejoin the Crown and become a part of Great Britain again!
Amazing how we can claim things isn't it?
6
Ron, You don't want to go to Great Britain. You can't own a gun there.
2
We can't have any honest discussion about gun policy until liberals stop lying about the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment. That clause is a statement and purpose and describes why the founders were protecting the right that followed. Further, "well regulated" meant "well trained and equipped" not "government regulated." If you can't be honest about the basics, don't expect us to want to "compromise" with you.
6
You are a mind reader.
Jon, Google the writings of Hamilton when the 2nd Amendment was proposed. "militia" referred to a citizen army, which we now call the National Guard.
2
Another amateur Constitutional lawyer. Just what we needed.
By the way, your reading of the 2nd Amendment was first adopted about 200 years after ratification, by a slim 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court headed by the not so dearly departed Antonin Scalia.
I'm also quite confident that if the drafters were resurrected today and could see the carnage those few words have wrought, and have been used to justify and perpetuate, they'd grab a bottle of 'white out' and put an end to this insanity.
2
Sound advice from a S and W descendant! And the background story was informative and very interesting!
5
The .38 Safety Hammerless was designed with a safety in the handgrip. The safety required the shooter to have the hand strength of an adult to fire the pistol. It wasn't a big seller.
3
Chromatic -- in Response to "Michael":
Typo error & correction:
"...just what military-style weapons of mass destruction to when their bullets explode inside the bodies of their victims."
Should read: "...just what military-style weapons of mass destruction DO [not 'to'] when their bullets explode inside the bodies of their victims."
1
Bullets are weapons of mass destruction, and explode inside bodies. Nuclear weapons are mass destruction and no known bullets explode inside bodies, some tumble and some expand they don't have explosive heads on normal guns. How foolish are you or just ignorant???
1
I had NO idea about the derivation of the hammerless pistol, thanks! "Wesson, known as D. B., was so distraught about the accident that he and his son, Joseph, developed a more child-safe revolver that they called the .38 Safety Hammerless."
3
QUOTE:
"This is nothing more than a PR stunt."
OK, I figured this would bring out the "Nothing can or could be done" crowd. Sigh....
Ms. Romm is an intelligent and logical thinker who shared her opinions and perspectives with us. The New York Times understands that our national discussion needs to include a variety of thoughts and opinions..
If someone is so sure that there is a strong case for leaving the relationship between Guns and America just as it is, YOU write something.
2
The NRA has a proven gun safety program for chldren named "Eddie Eagle" that is free to schools and other organizations. But, the schools, etc. refuse to let the NRA in. Any readers interested only to go to the NRA website and then the Eddie Eagle site.
4
If the NRA just stuck to gun safety and kept out of politics perhaps more people would avail themselves of its services. But when they produce and post videos smearing those who don’t agree with them as Marxists don’t expect reasonable people to seek their help.
4
How does gun safety and politics cancel each other? An anti-2A person could still learn about gun safety.
Great point, but if some did not attack the second amendment all the time they would do that. After all in the past that was their role.
I would like to hear what the 202 Club plans to do about this epidemic.
Here's a thought;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dZn0D_9VY8
Let me see if I understand the logic of the pro-gun lobby. Gun fanatics want the government to guarantee their right to own an AR-15, so that they can “protect” themselves from that same government confiscating their guns. How crazy is that?
4
Let me see if I got this. The "right"is guaranteed in the US Constitution and the people want the AR-15 to protect their rights FROM government restriction or revocation. Now that's whack.
2
Yes, laughable is it not ?
1
I hope gun manufacturers will also some day soon divest themselves from the NRA and other such blindly ideological and cynically profiteering organizations. Maybe then they will be able to have opinions of their own. Of course, this is unlikely given that gun companies are no longer family-run businesses.
1
Thank you Eliza Sydnor Romm
You have said it well. This column should be front page on every paper and in all media.
I am the grandmother of Jaime Guttenberg one of the students murdered at school in Parkland.
We must all do our part in helping to stop the murders, suicides and accidents by gun. Please everyone contact your local, State and Federal Legislators and find out where they stand on sensible gun actions.
4
My condolences on the death of your granddaughter. I am so sorry for your tragic loss.
3
What are sensible gun actions, and be very specific. I bet some of them are not constitutional or sensible to others.
I have never known the loss of one of my children or grandchildren. But, it may come to pass.
.
I would like to know where the local constabulary stands on the number of visits to the home of someone, who is dangerous or mentally unstable, before action is taken. Cruz should have been taken for a psyc eval and probably arrested, based on the accounts of his neighbors. That would have stopped his otherwise lawful acquisition of a weapon.
1
“We must collectively have the courage to ensure any actions are guided by data, by facts and by what will actually make us safer.” – While the declaration sounds noble on first blush, unless it is paired with the resolve to develop and deploy that data, it is only obstructionist. Let these gentlemen lobby for the institution of a national gun violence database that has been so long resisted by the industry.
1
"I learned the shooter used a Smith & Wesson M&P 15, a version of an AR-15 military-style rifle."
Actually the AR-15 is the civilian version of the military M-4.
Also, tyranny is as much a threat today as it was in 1791.
Finally, there will never be a national gun registry here. People still remember what happened in Nazi Germany when they had a national gun registry.
3
Nonsense - The Nazis only banned Jews and other "undesirables" from having firearms in the 1930's. The Nazi regime greatly liberalized the law regulating the ownership of firearms they inherited from the democratically elected Weimar Republic. "Good" Germans were expected to practice shooting for the defense of the Reich.
1
M16 not M4 and it might actually be reversed as the military version might have come from the semi automatic one.
1
My first thought was she sounds like who has slave ownership in her background claiming back in the day slaves weren't treated horrifically. Too guilty to accept reality or incapable of realizing her morality is different of her predecessor's.
S&W was made famous for providing a revolver which fired more rapidly than what was common at the time. It was a more efficient killer.
Maybe she's right. Ruger another firearms manufacturer that carries the founders name wouldn't provide 30 round magazines for his auto rifle. A rule which lasted until his death. Ruger somehow didn't think 20 round magazines were to much.
That's what the arguement is. What's to much? But when some people think all firearms are to much and when they have all the power. That's when the 2nd amendment comes in.
1
What on earth does ‘gun violence research’ means? And how better is it from ´guns don’t kill, people do?´
2
In all actuality the hammerless revolver is quite popular to this day because while carrying it concealed or as pocket pistol as it is,the hammer does not snag or catch on clothing or pockets when drawing. It may also be fired from inside the coat pocket without catching.Still it is fired by pulling the trigger,often easier than cocking,even by children.Semi autos including the Glock are hammerless and easy to fire in a second ,and by a child,easily, and without knowledge of hammers and triggers and such.
1
in addition to background checks, registration and safety training, I would add mandatory liability insurance.
Let the actuaries assess and price the risks.
8
I am coming around to agreement with the gun lovers. Their concern is that, while most folks are responsible, the government will take the guns away. This is a Fox fantasy, but one can reasonably ask, what else would work? We cannot know a person's exact mental state. Any study that shows a correlation between being struck by bullets and death will be dismissed as liberal propaganda, and most people who hurt themselves or others with guns own the weapons legally.
Maybe Marco Rubio has it right. There are things we can do, but they won't work. Like disease, the only way to get it under control is to reduce the number of carriers. And for now, the large number of guns deaths is a price we're willing to pay.
2
@JR
Please remove your head from the sand. No other industrialized country has the problem that the U.S. has with guns. Why not? Furthermore, it is demonstrated by data that more guns equal more gun deaths. Stop pretending that there's nothing to be done.
6
not most of americans. No military style weapons should be allowed for civilian use. Your side's arguments are we need them for hunting, guns don't kill people. You are so freaking wrong that many innocent lives are lost every year. If guns don't kill people, why don't you guys try to ban it for 10-20 years and see how it is working. Or you can try to give them knives instead of machine guns and then we will find out how many people are killed.
5
JR You should re-examine your thoughts and feelings re guns. You state that "Maybe Marco Rubio has it right". No he doesn't. How can we tell if legislation will work if that legislation doesn't exist.
JR please re-read the entire column and re-read it again. Maybe then you will learn what is possible.
4
Nicely reasoned op-ed, Ms. Romm. Thanks for sharing this. I'm continually baffled by this one fact: The NRA's membership constitutes less than 3% of the American population. (Of course I know that many more people own guns than have joined the NRA.) Still, I'm distressed that the NRA, which is only a lobbying group, is holding us all hostage to its agenda.
To me, it would be like if car makers didn't like the government-set safety standards, lobbied to do as they pleased and not have safety research studies done, and then continued to sell death traps to Americans. How long would we allow that to go on?
The other day I heard a new acronym for the NRA that made me laugh: Not Relevant Anymore. And I live in a Republican suburb! This got an agreeing chuckle from everyone in the room who heard it. So even conservatives are starting to understand we are at a tipping point, and the NRA should really tone down the belligerence if they want to, you know, remain relevant in this national discussion we are having.
13
For one thing, NRA members and those who support the group's stated mission, as hard core believers, are much more likely to turn out on Election Day. That gives them outsized power. Given that some elections only generate a 20% turnout, 3% of the population that turns out, perhaps with another 3% of the like-minded, gives their issues a large base of support.
3
I totally agree that elections matter. Good point. That's why the 'get out the vote' drive this year is more important than ever.
One of the approaches to curtailing the illness and deaths caused by cigarettes is to tax them to the point that it makes them far less affordable. Additionally the money from those taxes is used to educate the public, particularly the young about the dangers of smoking. A similar approach could be applied to gun and ammo purchases and the money could be used for gun education and distributing information about gun dangers.
I know... in a rational world.
27
Thank you to Ms. Romm for taking the time to write this heartfelt plea for greater gun control. It might have been nice of her to donate a portion of her family's wealth to advocate for that cause also. Her article does illustrate how off the rails this debate has gotten in that corporate greed has now overwhelmed any humanity that existed between these businesses and their customers. Profit now trumps all and our current President is the perfect embodiment of that principle. You don't need to imagine a world where the needs of the financial markets outweigh the value of the lost lives of thousands of men, women and children. Because folks, we're living in it now.
8
Background checks are fine, but the shooter in Parkland passed them all, and the cases in which such investigations would have prevented a crime approach 0. This is nothing more than a PR stunt.
So, too, with “gun violence research”. Nothing stops Mike Bloomberg or other rich leftists from funding any “study” they wish, but anyone with any experience with advocacy research can write the resulting report today. It will ALL be “how to arrive at Politically Correct results with statistics”. It always is.
That said, if one wishes to study why this generation contains small numbers of people who want to engage in massacres, great! It would be nice to hear some information about the “violence” portion of the equation, and get some thoughts on what causes it, whatever the tool the perp chooses to employ.
Finally, do you REALLY want well-trained mass murderers? There is NO evidence that want of training produces untoward results; the number of accidents is tiny, and those which training might prevent approximately 0. (Obviously, it will prevent no crimes) In Parkland, it appears that the lack of training – the murderer couldn’t clear a jam – saved countless lives.
In short, NONE of these suggestions will have a noticeable impact. It makes no sense to demand that we “DO SOMETHING” when the “something” for which you advocate bears no relationship to the events which produced that demand.
3
The facts bear out that almost all other countries of the civilized world have common sense firearm controls and restrictions and they work well for them; very low or non existent incidents such as what we have here in the USA. We know what we are doing is not working. Perhaps we should give a try to what many others have found to work.
The definition of Failure is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. That is the NRA position.
8
@Michael
Studies have been done about gun violence that are not funded by Mr. Bloomberg. They have found that more guns equal more gun violence. Australia is a good example, but there are others. I know that you don't want to accept data and logic, but they exist and work in other countries in spite of U.S. narrow-mindedness.
6
Tell us, how do the regurgitated talking points of the NRA taste going down your throat? Delicious, I hope?
There are no safe guns. Only guns that kill!
10
The only "safe" guns are ones without bullets. Guns kill whether by a child cocking a hammer, a deranged psychopath, a criminal, an angry lover a despondent suicidal person.
10
Wow, the entire thesis starts and ends with an admitted myth as a foundation of her argument. I wonder how the author contacted her dead relative to gather his opinion on the current state of affairs.
3
I own 3 handguns (2 revolvers and a German Mauser semi-automatic, vintage ~1920, a war souvenir of my father's), 7 shotguns (4 double-barrels, 3 pump action), and 6 rifles (including 2 Ruger rifles that are based on the "obsolete" M-14 that was the training weapon when I was in Army basic, neither of which has been fired in over 3 years). The latter 2 guns are semi-autos, but hardly capable of the rate of fire of the AR rifles, not easily modified, therefore with few Rambo add-ons and not particularly favored by those with the "gotta-have-me-one-of-those" disease that afflicts, not just the future mass killer but millions of otherwise "normal" citizens.
If a law were passed today requiring me to register the serial #s of these guns, I would do so without hesitation, if Trump were not president. My interpretation of the Second Amendment starts with its initial two phrases: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...with emphasis on "well regulated." The NRA, abetted by the learned idiots on Supreme Court's right wing have voided the first part of the Second in every way except for demanding the words be stricken from the document.
I have never feared that the Feds would come to my home and forcibly take my guns away. We have never had a president who would propose such a seizure, or a lapdog congress that would bend to his bidding...until today. If you don't believe Trump is capable of such action, you haven't been paying attention.
13
The American citizens of Japanese descent thought the same when they filled out the Census in the summer of 1940.
Reach out to the citizens of New York City that got letters in the fall of 2016 to remove, destroy, or modify (in an unknown way) their lever action .30-30's that they had registered because of the 6 round tubular magazines.
1
Very well said. Articles such as this provide a louder chorus for sane gun regulations. Combine this with the activism of the Stoneman Douglas survivors and hopefully, soon, the majority of Americans will vote out the sociopaths funded by the NRA.
12
I bought a SW hammerless .38 in 1971. Haven't shot it or any gun in over 40 years, but I still keep it handy.
The Remington Arms faulty trigger they denied for years almost killed me and I still have lead fractures.
We all know an AR is only for murder. Murdering people just like you and me. If you are too afraid and paranoid to leave your home without a gun, please stay home and call for mental help.
16
"We all know an AR is only for murder. Murdering people just like you and me." Really? Every police department I know issues/carries AR-pattern rifles. Who are they murdering?
What kind of 'safe gun' can save the 2/3rds of the 33,000 Americans who die from gunshots each year who commit suicide?
5
Blackmamba
The gun they cannot buy. We need serious background checks.
2
Kinda like the dream of healthy cigarettes?
8
I share with you your heartfelt sympathies towards all those mowed down by ever more efficient killing machines. I know there are deranged individuals pulling the trigger but the common denominator of our "accepted" carnage is the abundance of guns, available just for the asking. What a mockery is our sense of 'law and order', and justice, by being subservient to a greedy N.R.A., with blood dripping from their mouth and hands, holding our political republican prostitutes hostage to it's whims, and rendering them slaves to a conspiracy of silence about sensible regulations to stop or at least minimize the mayhem. Not even allowing research on the subject? What a sham and cowardice and self-serving politicking to preserve their miserable seat in congress. How about those hypocrites allowing the license to carry weapons of mass destruction anywhere...except in congress, where stupid laws for gun violence are concocted? Although there is so much more we need to discuss and educate the public about (reason and common sense safety measures), let me finish, for now, saying that gun manufacturers have been glaringly absent from proposing solutions to a problem they seem just too happy promote...and to ignore.
5
Handguns like those Daniel B. Wesson proudly manufactured kill far more people than assault rifles like the AR-15, which his granddaughter thinks he would have abhorred.
According to the 2016 FBI Uniform Crime Report:
• Handguns were used in 7,105 murders.
• Knives were used in 1,604 murders.
• Unarmed killers strangled, beat, kicked or stomped 652 victims to death.
• Blunt instruments were used in 472 murders.
• Rifles (including assault rifles) were used in 374 murders.
• Shotguns were used in 262 murders.
Semiautomatic rifles—including assault rifles like the AR-15—are used in only 8.6 percent of mass shootings. The shooter in the worst school shooting—Virginia Tech—used handguns to kill 32 students and teacher
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/...
3
William Case, So what is your point? That other things cause death...
According to your figures, adding all the types of guns you mention, the total is 7,741 deaths by gun. That is may times the number for other means.
BTW, the real number is 96 gun deaths a day. That is almost 36,000 gun deaths a year.
3
Cars kill more.
The larger issue is 147,000 folks die from trauma every year. Roughly 30,000 are preventable with better trauma systems and first aid training.
The key issue is that killers have a variety of ways to kill (vehicles, bombs, arson, etc.). The FBI/Secret Service studies are useful to read.
Therefore what we want is systematic, comprehensive programs to save lives.
The point is making handguns is worse than making assault rifles.
It's tiresome hearing people "speak for their ancestors." Your voice on their beliefs has no more validity than anyone else's. It is easy for this reader to imagine you arguing with your "ancestor" at the Thanksgiving dinner table and your ancestor telling you that you have no argument. (As happens to so many of us.)
Right. The early guns were meant for fair shootouts at the OK Corral and protection from the 'injuns'.
GH -
They were the best technology of the time. The use of Pennsylvania Long Rifles were the technological cutting edge of the time.
The Gunfight at the O.K. Corral was a 30-second shootout between lawmen and members of a loosely organized group of outlaws called the Cowboys that took place at about 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, Arizona Territory (part of Spanish territory in 1775 through 1783) .
1
Do you feel a "twinge of responsibility" for slavery too?
You're ridiculous.
2
It is not ridiculous to feel concern. It is the result of a person having a social conscience. What is wrong with that?
2
Dear Troy:
We all should feel more than a twinge of responsibility for Slavery, and well as all other calamities we've set upon this nation and globe. The problem with folks like yourself also inflicts this current misfit Commander-in-Chief. Taking credit for the good, casting blame for the bad. The Founders were great men, but they were also extremely flawed by today's customs.
Oh, and while we're at it, I also feel a twinge for Vietnam. When one lives in a republic, all the blame can't be heaped upon our leaders and representatives. Whom are they representing, Troy?
DD
Manhattan
3
NRA & mfrs are driven by their own survival to pander to second amendment fanatics who believe an antiquity of law justifies the mfr and sale of human killing machines having nothing to do with self protection or sport. The armed militia argument has no place in modern American society.
Profits: it’s 100% about mfr profits!
5
How absurd that the NYT would publish an opinion piece from a nobody, based solely on a very distant relationship to a man who manufactured guns in the 1800s.
2
And why do you characterize the publication of this opinion piece as "absurd"? You may disagree with the author's premise, but your language seems insulting, unless I am misreading your intent. Every single one of us on this planet, no matter how small, singular, from obscure origins or humble in one's walks in life has something of value to offer, particularly in a thoughtful and well-written essay.
If you disagree with the author's opinion, then state so and provide the reasons for your position with your rebuttal. But to characterize someone as a "nobody"? And to call it "absurd"? That's called an "ad hominem attack."
3
Dan M
You missed the point. She offered a lot of common sense ideas that should be enacted by our Legislatures. Had some of these been enacted (real background checks) my granddaughter Jaime Guttenberg who was murdered at school in Parkland might be alive today.
3
"If it wasn't dangerous, I wouldn't carry the sonofabitch," Charlie Miller, Texas Ranger
2
I'm fine with mandatory training (although how many firearm deaths include negligent discharges of firearms...my guess is that it's comparatively low), but wonder what other rights of ours have such "training" requirements? And should they?
Seems to me that free speech and social media cause a lot more destruction (physical, civic, emotional) these days than guns. Tribalism, toppling regimes, inciting terrorism. I'm not saying that we need to muffle free speech, but I wonder if guns are a red herring?
I certainly think that our society has changed in negative ways recently (few mass shooting in the early to mid-20th century, although there was higher household gun ownership) and I think that American culture is the variable here, not firearms.
2
Any "rights" conferring upon citizens the ability to obtain and use military-styled weapons requires a concomitant obligation to society to meet the highest standards of responsibility, safety, and maturity. With rights come responsibilities. Even if rigorous training requirements seem onerous, if they save even ONE INNOCENT LIFE, they will be well worth it. It all devolves down to the question of who is really "pro life." The NRA and those who advocate no laws or restrictions have proven that they are the antithesis of "pro life." Blood of innocent American lives will permanently stain the NRA, the munitions makers, and their extremist adherents.
3
"The majority of younger and older children were killed with a handgun (75% and 85%, respectively)."
per the study referenced. But, gun control advocates don't pay attention to data or reason, so they continually press for assault rifle bans. This a common problem with a lot of gun laws; ineffective ones are passed, gun owners and makers are blamed, and gun control advocates demand more (ineffective) gun laws.
1
John, Are you aware that the shooter in Parkland was not old enough to buy an "ordinary" gun but could buy an assault type weapon (one that can fire a lot of bullets in a very short time)? Laws only become effective after they are passed. So far that has not happened (some that were passed years ago were rescinded) in this country.
3
Prior to the recent law change, any 18 year-old could buy a rifle or shotgun from a dealer. Only 21 y/o could buy a pistol from a dealer.
Realizing that there are unregulated peer-to-peer sales and a large underground stolen gun market.
Semi-auto magazine fed rifles have been around since the 40s. All have the same rate of fire.
You would think that gun manufacturers would embrace smart guns – that can only be operated by the owner – because it would mean a whole new market, the same way that Apple and the others sell new cell phones. And the technology is simple, and in no way contradicts any aspect of the Second Amendment.
2
When the police think they're reliable enough to use, we'll get on board. Until then, not a chance.
1
As the owner of a store that sells firearms I can say we do everything listed on the Brady list as some things are required for the business license, some are required by ATF and some are simply common sense. My guess is 99.9% of dealers do the same. At the same time I would never support the Brady Gun Ban Group. With all the money spent by groups for and against gun control it would not take much to build a NICS app that would allow the quick, easy and free use of the NICS system for private sales and there again 99.9% of gun owners would use the system. Those that would choose not to would disregard any law requiring universal checks anyway.
2
That's because the purpose of "universal background checks" is not to reduce crime, but to burden, harass and expense law abiding people. Opening up the NICS database up to private sellers for free wouldn't accomplish those liberal goals.
2
Very true
Ahh, sanity. Ms. Romm has it. Most modern firearm manufacturers in America don't. And once again, the National Rifle Association doesn't, neither does it appear to be interested in any reform. Look at a copy of The American Rifleman, NRA's cheering section. The magazine's advertising hawks unapologetically the very kinds of firearms Ms. Romm objects to. Firearm reform must start with the NRA, and there's precious little evidence they have any intention of reforming.
6
I fail to see any sanity, in fact I see justification of paranoia
What a warm and heartfelt story. I wonder how the ancestors of car inventors sleep at night...knowing all the deaths they have caused.
5
Cars were not invented to kill or injure. That is the difference. Still, all kinds of safety measures have been implemented in vehicles. Why not address this issue with deadly weapons?
23
Cars weren't designed to kill people.
5
Yes, Tom, and while I appreciate your empathy, people die because of . . . planes, trains & automobiles, along with ships, skyscrapers and kitchen step ladders. I sleep well despite the toll of technology and "progress."
1
The reality is that guns of any kind are too easily purchased, way to easy.
There's no real scrutiny of all the personal aspects of the purchaser like:
-personal testing and skills for handling a weapon; passed with a license issued by specialized personnel employed by the Federal Government.
-the purchaser's relatives serious inquiry; the same Federal employees come and ask close relatives of the purchaser about behavior, family, incidents.
-the mental evaluation of the purchaser would come in last but would be of most importance; passed only when medical personnel gives the OK stating the persons mental health.
None of the above criteria is implemented today of if it is it's very frugal.
1
Lets start by applying that to the First amendment and see how that works out
Nicely argued. How about a proposal: Allow unconstrained right to bear any "arms" that existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified (yes, even barrel-loaded cannons) but prohibit the ownership ("right to bear") of all arms developed after that date. Shouldn't that satisfy the "originalists" who venerate the Constitution? It would satisfy me.
23
I agree, also applications of the very dangerous 1st Amendment should only be allowed to utilize those technologies that were in place at the founding.
7
Also, only those religions recognized at the time of the 1st Amendment. None of those dangerous new ones.
1
Why not have the same principle apply to all technology developed after 1787. We could emulate the Amish.
1
The main impediment toward some reasonable controls on guns isn't the NRA, despite the comfort many people get from having something to blame that is easy and convenient.
And it isn't the 100 million households where is a gun.
Instead, it is the 25% or so of Americans who have little to no experience with guns and so who can advocate for complete elimination of them because it is an easy fix.....for them. It will require no adjustment in lifestyle or attitudes.....for them.
20% of Americans want to repeal the 2nd Amendment:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-ameri...
Surveys also show that 25-30% of Americans want to ban handguns altogether:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Faced with this information, many people recognize that "reasonable gun controls" has the same underlying meaning that "reasonable abortion controls" has----which is merely the first step toward a complete ban. I believe that about abortion, which is why I am opposed to any restrictions whatsoever, and I believe it about guns, which is why I also am opposed to any restrictions whatsoever.
As long as some 25-30% of Americans secretly and not so secretly want a complete ban nothing will get done.
Stop blaming gun owners and the NRA. Blame people who want easy solutions that don't really result in any changes for themselves.
8
I am a strong advocate of serious gun control measures, and I believe I am among many such individuals who do not consider themselves as having "little to no experience with guns." Reasonableness abounds in law: it is illegal for a non-doctor to perform an abortion, a reasonable control to make the activity safer. It is illegal for car manufacturers to sell cars that do not conform to certain safety and emissions standards, a reasonable control to make the activity safer. It is illegal to manufacture, own, and operate certain types of firearms, a reasonable control to make the activity safer. It simply the contention of many of us that the standard of reasonableness must shift much closer to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than to the right to keep and bear arms.
8
If I agree with you to blame people who want a complete ban on guns, will you also agree to blame yourself and others who are using the fear of a minority of the population as an excuse to avoid engaging in a serious discussion?
By refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion about gun laws, you are just going to make the 20-30% grow to an even higher percentage. You will force the people in the middle to choose between all or nothing. That seems like a really risky strategy to me.
6
@Stephen and @Loki:
The data I provided also showed that about 40% of Democrats want to abolish the 2nd amendment. This means that 60% do not want to.
The gun control issue is not one that pits gun owners against those who want "reasonable controls" or liberals against conservatives.
It also will pit Democrats against each other.
Many Democrats live in rural areas that are basically without law enforcement. We had a break-in at our rural home, with my daughter and grandsons visiting, and scared the intruder off. But it was ONE HOUR before the sheriff's deputy arrived.
Many of the laws and ideas proposed would not just make guns "safer." They would, in fact, make gun ownership more difficult for the tens of millions of Americans who guns have never been a problem for anyone else.
Feel free to believe otherwise, but my contention is that the large segment of the population that has little or no familiarity with guns, no need for them for protection, no enjoyment from collecting and shooting, and no experience with hunting are creating an insolvable situation by their clueless attitudes toward banning guns altogether.
Those people exist, and they are LOUD.
And unless they are shouted down by the people who want gun controls they will do nothing more than draw out more gun owners, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, and Democrats, who will put all else aside about their beliefs because safety of their families is the most important thing to them.
While I’m sure Ms. Romm is a well-intentioned person, she doesn’t know any more about what D.B. Wesson would want than I do. Instead, we are now being subjected to “legend” and “I would like to believe” in support of the anti-gun argument. Conjecture and fantasy have no place in this debate.
7
The author overlooked the fact that her ancestor developed the first true repeating rifle in the world and is listed on its patent. More than any other firearm - repeating rifles and there decedents have created the most mayhem and slaughter.
5
Yes. Why shouldn’t gun manufacturers be proactive in seeking to reduce the fatalities caused by their products.
As for the statement “guns don’t kill, people do” , it should be adjusted to say “people with guns are much more likely to kill people than those without”. People with both a grudge and a gun are much more lethal than those without one of these elements.
18
Instead of recommending that gun makers lead the gun discussion, Ms. Romm should recommend that they stop funding the National Rifle Association, which continues to provide significant bribes to Republican members of the Congress.
14
Very well said and thought out. To assume there is no solution to make guns safer is just lazy and greedy.
10
PEOPLE WITHOUT GUNS DON’T SHOOT PEOPLE Only
PEOPLE WITH GINS SHOOT PEOPLE
(It’s that simple)
An excellent insightful piece, Ms. Romm. The problem you face is dealing with a segment of the public who abhor any research, unless of course it already agrees with their preconceived notions and prejudices. Objective Research, Science are not a forte of the N.R.A. Spreading falsehoods and fear are. It is up to those who support this propaganda who need to stand up and refuse to become puppets.
DD
Manhattan
5
Goes both ways. I personally would be very skeptical of the results of any research on this issue as both sides desire material for propaganda. My guess is the information will be about as unbiased as "reefer madness".
Dear BB:
Please, do not equate the bias in "Reefer Madness" with actual Research. Drug use has been scientifically examined for eons. The results, duly noted. It is when a topic is politicized it becomes a hornet's nest of confusion and misinformation.
"Reefer Madness" has its counterparts. The miracle drug of the Civil War, morphine, when abused, begat heroine, later methadone. I'm old enough to recall when Harvard psychiatrist Timothy Leary raved (no pun intended) of the wonders of LSD.
Unlike drugs, guns pack a less esoteric wallop, less abstract is their purpose. To alleviate gun violence the United States already is privy to the vast thoroughly researched options taken by other nations. These laboratories of democracy should be a beacon of light, a shining guide to a path we should take. The evidence is there. But to date there still exists a preponderance of numbskulls who choose to bury their heads in the sand, refusing to facts. Unlike the illusion of madness falsely connected to marijuana use clouding the issue, solutions to reducing guns violence are there for the taking. The problem is the taking.
DD
Manhattan
1
One of the first things to think about is , What should we do about the millions of guns already out there? We spend billions on bombs, we could start a trade in your gun for a safer one type of program.
3
Will this gun be as absolutely reliable as the one I would turn in?
I have a 1903 Colt pocket hammerless and it is as safe as any firearm manufactured today. I would never trade it in. If by safe you actually mean "smart Gun" I see them as being inherently unsafe for my needs. The only potential plus I can see for the gun designs I have seen would be for issue to police officers who might have their sidearm taken from them in a scuffle and turned on themselves.
It is ridiculous to think that eliminating the hammer made a gun safer. One of the comments correctly points out that the hammer was eliminated to prevent it getting caught on clothing. If the hammer is eliminated, what about the trigger? Much easier to discharge the weapon by pulling that. And if children are playing with a loaded gun, the situation can not be made much more dangerous by a hammer.
4
very true
Thank you for such a well thought out piece. Unfortunately reason and hard facts don't reach the majority of citizens in this country. As long as the only talking point by the NRA and all who are controlled by them is you want to take away our guns. As a nation we can not move forward. Todays slaughter of people from random shooting to police officers shoot to kill nothing will change if we refuse to listen and have a meaningful conversation. All you have to see is how the students from Florida were attacked by the NRA spokeswomen, Fox News fringe groups. We all must in our own way use your talking points build on them, the pros and the cons try to find common ground with the people around us, otherwise we will just keep repeating the same routine over and over again.
4
Smith And Wesson were just as much capitalists as the current gun manufacturers. They made guns and marketed them to sell.
1
All I can say is this: Who would defend this disgraceful and unprecedented-in-American-history status quo?
We can hide behind the notion that we do not know what the founders or our ancestors would have thought, or we can actually follow their example and do something about the state of the world we live in and take responsibility for leaving it at least as good as it was given to us by them.
One doesn't have to look so far back into our country's history to know that no generation of Americans has had to live with this in walk-a-day life in this country. Adults and leaders from what era before now would have stood by and done nothing in the wake of such carnage?
And stop with the "I had to hide under my desk for air raid drills" and conflating that with active shooter drills in our elementary schools or suggesting arming teachers, pastors, ushers, or probably needing to pack iron when going to a concert etc.. The implied threat of nuclear war from a foreign power bent on the destruction of our country or tied to geo-politics is nothing close to an existential threat of capricious and military-power violence perpetrated by fellow citizens.
Or we can just say this is the price of American life and tell our kids it's a new cost that we selfishly created and passed on to them.
8
'Wesson, known as D. B., was so distraught about the accident that he and his son, Joseph, developed a more child-safe revolver that they called the .38 Safety Hammerless.'
This is a hugely powerful statement, historically, and is yet one more tragic reminder of just how far and low our society has fallen in our level of madness in the ramped up mass deregulation of not only the sale of guns, but of the money they bring in to keep the wrong people in charge of our civil society.
Sadly, the day the Smith and Wesson (and others) Co. was sold off, a family owned business, to these mass players of CEO boardmen with huge corporate sized interests, is the day that responsible control died.
Too many self-interested players wagging the tail of the profit seeking dog, essentially. American Outdoor, then you have Blackrock and all of it's millions of stockholders. Then, you have all those American Outdoor and Blackrock lobbyists .... thus, the original intent, and the responsible control, is completely lost.
The main intent is no longer safety. It's profit. Gun safety doesn't have to mean lower sales, but to millions of stockholders, well.
The horse, (modern commerce), has left the barn and the door has been permanently ripped off. Tragic, really.
25
The safety hammerless was designed so one could carry the pistol in ones pocket and it would not snag the hammer when being needed. Colt also made a pocket hammerless. It is a cute story but that is all it is a cute story.
Kudos, applause, and 21-gun salute to Ms. Romm. "Gun Dealer Code of Conduct" is a remarkable document, comparable in its import to Code Duello, published in Ireland in 1777. The attempts of the leftist radicals to make weapons manufacturers responsible for the acts of violence committed by evil-doers are outright illogical and wholly Un- or even Anti-American.
I see in the citizens openly bearing arms as a strong deterrent against crime, and I support the enlargement of the 2nd Amendment to the 34th, with the three critical words, ...EVERYWHERE AND ALWAYS ..., inserted there. The words that were either overlooked or neglected by the Founding Fathers and that opened a loophole to the States and municipalities to restrict the possession and carrying of arms on one's person.
4
I shared this thought previously and it is apt here. Imagine the world you just painted where “everyone is packing”. You and your family go to a park and this is who you run into: a guy that’s drunk, a guy that thinks you looked at his girlfriend funny, a guy who went to the bathroom and forgot his gun on the shelf and the lady who decided to take a dip in the lake so she wrapped up her gun in her towel and left it on shore.
Now start to think about how you would defend against all those threats: the irrational drunk, the 8 year old who found a gun and is now pointing it at your family not knowing any better. Who’s going to be the hero that “defends” against these threats? Will you ever sleep soundly knowing these threats and many more surround you and your family wherever they go?
It doesn’t have to be intentional or criminal, but the more guns proliferate the greater the likelihood of accidents, carelessness and potential for harm. The greater the chance you’ll run into someone who just doesn’t care if you’re packing or not.
The only way to protect your family is tighter control and fewer guns. You might not like it, but the math is against you.
8
What the author suggests is no different that what all liberals are universally saying in unison. Registration, which facilitates a future confiscation.
We already have background checks. Maybe you have noticed that after one of these well publicized crimes law enforcement knows where the gun came from within 24 hours.
There is a reason the phrase "shall not be infringed" was included in the amendment, and in individual state's bills of right. The liberals are on a campaign to make people think the second amendment was an after thought and is irrelevant in today's society.
If they want to disarm civilians then they should also disarm the police and the military.
9
There is also a reason why it also says “well regulated militia”.
8
There is a reason the phrase "well-regulated" is there as well.
5
Considering that the current 2nd Amendment was actually the 4th one proposed (the 1st being about financial compensation of Congress - now the 27th Amendment, the 2nd was the one we now call the 1st Amendment, the 3rd was about due process and we now call the 6th Amendment, THEN came the one you're talking about; all this should give one a picture into the mindset of James Madison, who originally wrote them all), I think you need to rethink yourself, as those spouting off as you were tend to think of the order of the Amendments as regarding their importance, rather than simply as they were - the order they were passed in. Some of them were easier to pass than others. Perhaps it's time for you to reread the entire document, not just the parts you like.
3
Half measures simply ensure that more people will be unnecessarily killed and wounded (93 killed per day) from firearms. Justice Stevens is correct: repeal and replace the Second Amendment.
10
Will that be a litmus test for progressives? I hope so.
2
I'll take your first amendment from you. I don't want you to speak so don't. Why do you need freedom of speech? Why? You don't need that and I don't want you to have it.
1
This is a great moral voice on this issue. I agree with her completely about registering all firearms so they could be monitored by law enforcement when they are used in criminality, that rigorous training must be required if you are going to use a firearm. It is the reason we are required to take and pass driving tests if we are going to own or drive cars. I think all gun owners should also be asked to insure their guns. If we can't own cars without insuring them, why would guns not have insurance? It is nefarious that Congress would not allow the CDC to conduct research on the injury and deaths caused by firearm. What is the reasoning behind this legislation? If the lives of Americans matter even a little bit, this legislation should be changed. Money matters, but could it possibly matter more to gun manufacturers than human lives? How could they sleep with a good conscience at the end of the day reaping all the profits, but knowing it's at the cost of thousands of healthy productive Americans who would have contributed so much to their families and society? I support Ms. Romm's call for them to please show some humanity, that blood runs in their veins like the rest of us. The youth of America, from kindergarteners to college students are being decimated. They are the future, the most vital part of society. Each gun death violates and traumatizes our humanity, individually or collectively, no matter what side of the gun debate you are on.
5
Well stated, Ms. Romm! Products like cars get recalled frequently because of failing safety standards. Gun manufacturing companies should be held to the same standard.
19
I always thought the hammerless revolver was designed to make the gun more suitable for concealed carry because the hammer would snag on the fabric when the gun was carried in a pocket. That is why hammerless guns are manufactured and sold today. It should go without saying that a child should never get their hands on a gun in any case so it's difficult to fully accept that the hammerless gun was invented to prevent children causing a mishap. They were manufactured and sold because people carried guns in their pocket.
7
A child should never get their hands on a gun. So let’s increase the odds of that accidentally happening by putting a lot more guns out there? Even if 1 in 100 gun owners is irresponsible and we double the number of guns, we will increase the number of accidental deaths.
I’m sorry but logic dictates there are already way too many guns and we need to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of those who handle them.
2
The population is increasing, not remaining static, so logic would dictate an increase in the number of guns and a renewed emphasis on safety and training. This safety training is available from various organizations like the (trigger warning!) the NRA.
Your exactly right. You eliminate the hammer, what about the trigger? Ridiculous idea to think that the hammer was eliminated to make it safer. The trigger is much easier to pull than the hammer. If the child is handling the gun the situation is already terrible. Hammer or not the child is no safer.
We can't know what our ancestors would have done. What I can say is that there is a long history of firearms ownership and regulation in America. Many of the proposed fixes have either been tried before and didn't help much or were ineffective. About half of the population is in favor of firearms ownership and about half opposed. Neither side has the support to overcome the resistance of the other. The solution is a compromise. By that I don't mean what gun control groups propose. They too need to give some things they desire up. I don't know exactly what the compromise would be but I do know is that no one will like it but it will be better than what we have now.
2
Very few people are "against firearms ownership".
To come to a solution, first you must understand what your opponents are actually saying.
2
I think the majority has probably given up on the idea of eliminating gun ownership. That’s different than being in favor of gun ownership.
Washington would have loved to have me at the battles of Long Island, and Brandywine with an AR, since I could have cut the British ranks to pieces with semi-auto fire (after killing off all the officers and NCOs) from cover due to me using smokeless powder. I would have had the firepower of a battalion.
Gun owners will not embrace any safety fearures until its reliability has been tested and proven (ie used everyday) by law enforcement and, to some extent, the military.
Also, any type of registration will be challenged as it is viewed that registration is the first step to confiscation.
In America we need our guns, but we need to do a better job keeping it out of the hands of those who are unfit. So how do we decide if someone is unfit? That to me should be the focus of the conversation, given the subjectivity of the word “unfit”. Not too long ago it was decided by the color of one’s skin. How should it be today?
2
Bullets kill people not guns. Guns and people just allow them to fly free.
This was a well written piece to point this fact out and how technology has advanced in letting more bullets fly in less time while laws promote the sales of the newest attempts to do so. How about them there robotic guns partner?
2
Most guns are as safe as there going to get. I don't think Smith or Wesson would give a second thought about today's guns.
2
Eliza. You’re dreaming. If you don’t understand the thinking of today’s gun makers, just check in with the people who speak for them - the NRA. The only way a gun maker would care about the carnage caused by their products is if someone close to them joined the 33,000 people killed by the weapons they pedal.
21
Having the manufacturers lead? Maybe we should have Putin lead a commission on human rights and freedom of the press. We need is the ability to sue gun manufactures. That is the only thing that makes any sense.
9
You seem to have a level head ie you don't condemn gun manufacturers. also see the need for regulation, research etc.
The problem in America is that the issue is dominated by the extremes ie right wing extremists who say we don't have a problem or blame it all on the inner cities or left wing extremists who say the problem is the gun, the gun owner and the NRA and regulation, to the ultimate point of bans is the answer.
They are both wrong. Only a policy of legality, regulation, responsibility, and non promotion of the gun is the cure like we did with cigs., drunk driving etc.
One of the ways to do it, is to condemn the extremes and work with non gun owners and gun owners who want to solve the problem.
6
Bravo for standing up.
7
There isn't ever going to be a "safe" gun. There certainly can be safer guns, and indeed there's a wide range in the safety of guns on the market today.
The bad news folks, is that particularly in handguns the current fads are for more dangerous guns lacking safety features that have been around for a long time.
The Colt M1911 ("the Colt 45") was designed in ... you guessed it, 1911.
This early design had two important safety mechanisms: a manual (thumb) safety and a grip safety: the gun cannot be fired unless firmly gripped.
Later variants add further safety interlocks, an improved trigger action safety, and on some a magazine safety (gun can only be fired with magazine in place ... safety against a variety of unloading accidents).
Old-style practice didn't encourage carrying with a round in the chamber, the guns were set up with at least reasonably heavy trigger pulls, and holsters are a practical necessity because the gun is big and heavy.
Small children cannot rack the gun, nor get enough grip pressure to fire one, even if they flip the thumb safety.
Today you've got people enamored of the idea that they need to be instantly ready quick-draw artists, with small pocket or purse guns that have next-to-no safeties, very light trigger pressures, are carried 1iP.
Guns are being sold as a paranoid's fashion accessory today -- that and fantasy is what sells. Guns, and the people who carried them, were safer in 1911.
24
I had an open conversation on FaceBook in the aftermath of the shootings in Parkland. And as FB includes family, friends and associates, the responses to my proposition ran the gamut.
While not the first mass shooting involving a weapon designed for the military and most likely not the last, my prayer to stemming the violence with respect to these assault-style weapons dates back to Newtown. I really had hoped that we would as a nation wake up from this nightmare and do something. This hope included acknowledgement and acceptance of this solemn responsibility by the one group that could most quickly advance a solution, the NRA.
My point was that while we were moved by the smiling pictures of the babies lost that terrible day, we as a nation might have been better served by taking on the horror that first-responders witnessed. Images of horrific violence have helped end wars, change culture and advocate freedoms to name a few. I suggested that perhaps if we all had to absorb the images of shattered grade-school children, things might change.
But I was wrong then and history since Newtown has only proven me more wrong. The NRA isn't about gun safety nearly as much as it is about gun profits. They are the soulless side of this discussion. Many responders to my FB post resenting any restrictions on assault weapons, "guns aren't the problem, people are" was the argument de jour and that the solution was in arming every American.
So what would D.B. have done?
4
You want to showed freshly butchered people? Does that only apply to mass shootings or does it cover all heinous acts?
.
On 911, there were about 30 minutes of live coverage, showing people jumping from the top floors of the North Tower. The networks quickly went to time delay, to prevent those scenes from airing.
.
I know my mind was changed on that day, about previously held beliefs.
Sadly, I think gun makers, just like the manufacturer of Oxycontin, feel that a few additional deaths here and there as a result of their product is the cost of doing business. While I find this appeal praiseworthy, I am not sure if it will ever resonate in the rooms where the capitalists are busy counting their profits.
6
Weapons such as the AR15 or other attack weapons are excellent weapons of war. They should be limited to use by the military. They offer no use except to kill people. They are not designed for skill shooting or competition shooting. They are not suitable for hunting game.
True sportsman take pride in their skill competition that require excellent craftsmanship in their firearms. Something that is not present in an assault weapon.
It is time to return it to its formerly banned state.
10
Whatever reason someone chooses an AR type weapon, is none of your concern. Your choice is none of my concern. I would never consider giving you guidance about what weapon to use for what ever purpose.
.
When the need for deadly force arises, the gun or any other weapon, is used to stop the attacker. There is no warning, there is no "shoot to wound" and there is no "shoot to kill". If the presence of the weapon is not enough to deter the attacker, then, the attacker has chosen to test the gun owner's will to use deadly force.
.
That said, mentally challenged people should not own, nor have access to firearms. Existing laws must be enforced. Failure to enforce existing laws does not logically mean there is a requirement for more laws.
.
Every time there is a mass shooting, there is a hysterical call about the role of the NRA. When was the last mass shooting that directly linked or even indirectly linked, the NRA to the shooting?
.
Finally, enact security measures at schools that mirror airports and airplanes. When was the last successful aircraft hijacking, of a US based flight?
2
ARs are used in competition all the time. They are used in hunting all the time, especially for wild pigs. ARs are hand crafted by Les Baer and others and can hit a silver dollar at 300 yards. Tom should brush upon his understanding in order to offer comments that would advance the debate.
"mentally challenged people should not own"
A platitude that is easy to say but much more difficult to put into law and enforce. NICS is worthless for 1st timers, so thementally challenged need to be fingered.
1
Fascinating to read this article by a descendant of the famous gunmaker. Especially interesting to learn how Wesson was concerned with safety. The world has changed so dramatically and technology of guns has made them so much more dangerous, and yet safety and regulation of guns has decreased since the early days of gun manufacturing. It seems the original Wesson was conscientious and took at least some responsibility for problems associated with his production of guns. Sadly current gunmakers run and shirk their responsibilities. Apparently conscientiousness is not valued by modern gunmakers.
I appreciate the author coming forward with this informative article and hope it has some imfluence on those gunmakers who clearly place profit over any other thing including safety and human life. She carries forward her great great great grandfather's sense of responsibility and is an example of how people can place morality over profit.
29
A revolver that was not as drop-safe as thought caused S&W to develop an extra safety feature, and also offer to retrofit it free to every gun sent back, including a vast number of military guns.
Bill Ruger gave them the patent free, when it seemed there was a potential infringement of his own patent safety transfer bar. They agreed over a meal to drop the patent claims, and offer the retrofits free.
These guys walked the walk on gun safety, when it cost a lot to do so.
I don't know what they'd do with current designs, but the author's claim that they were very safety conscious and responsible about their products is demonstrably true.
70
Good points. I've always admired the genius of Ruger's safety transfer bar. I would add that there are still manufacturer's - not many - who go a step beyond. Daimler-Benz has never patented any safety feature they develop for their automobiles (their list of safety features is considerable.) Daimler literally gives their passenger-safety technology away to any takers.
8
One responsible and common sense regulation that all parties should be able to agree on is training and licensing. There isn't one state in America where you can get obtain a drivers' without taking an exam. And for good reason. The same rationale should apply to firearms.
66
What do you think about "training and licensing" for the 1st amendment?
My first amendment rights can't snuff out your life in the blink of an eye.
1
Yes, proper training is a must for all new gun owners. However, a national gun registry would be seen by most as a prelude to confiscation, and would be as effective in stopping crime as her ancestor's faith in homeopathic medicine.
3
Jeremy -- the point of a registry is to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. Registries work for cars, work for airplanes ... work for a lot of other dangerous things you probably don't know about, including explosives.
If you are concerned about some jack-boot authoritarian takeover in the US that would want to "take all the guns" you better tell me how you and who else are really going to fight that armed with Glocks and AR-15s ... and how long you will keep it up as your ammunition runs out.
Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, Al Queda, ISIS etc learned really quickly that squads with AK-47s stood no chance, so they retreated to sniping (that they also lost) and IEDs. IEDs were the only thing that generated numbers of American casualties.
Stop the sick fantasies; that's all they are.
4
Have you ever been to traffic court? There are lots of people illegally driving unregistered cars.
Or flying planes.
A guy in SC had over 3,000 stolen weapons.
Read the reports on where killers get their guns.
Lee -
Try to take any gun that own into a home you buy in the Big Apple. Back in Dec 2016, the city wanted people with lever-action .30-30 rifles because of the 6 round tubular magazine under the barrel. Get it out of town, somehow "fix" the fundamental design to limit the number of rounds, or turn it it in with no compensation to the NYPD. Registration made that possible.
Like so many proclamations from the anti-gun left, the statement "They (gun makers) create products designed to kill human beings." is totally false!
They design products capable of launching projectiles of varying sizes and compositions, at certain speeds, with various degrees of accuracy.
Any and all "design" to use that product to take a life is clearly in the mind of the user!
Change minds, not laws!!
2
OK, then what, besides killing, are these items used for? Perhaps they make a better paper hole-punch? Or, perhaps they could be used to shoot holes through cheese wheels so it looks like Swiss cheese? Seriously, I'm at a loss as to other uses besides killing.
Not all of us on the left are "anti-gun." I've said often and I'll say again, I choose not to own firearms, but I have relatives who hunt and eat what they kill. I've enjoyed many fine meals they've prepared. They also have handguns for self defense while I prefer to call 911. Again, fine.
Both they and I want rational gun control. Why is this so incomprehensible?
5
C’mon man..
1
Alcoholic beverages aren't designed to make you drunk, they're just mixes of alcohol and flavors in various combinations.
2
How about teaching your children not to play with guns and keep them locked in a safe when not in use. Do you really want to create a gun that is safe for children.
4
Better yet, teach children to understand and respect firearms as the tool they are.
As they age, they should be able to handle and use this tool safely, appropriately and effectively.
5
Every gun is real, until YOU know it is not.
Every gun is loaded, until YOU know it is not.
In the presence of someone that should not be in possession of a gun, leave.
An unattended gun should be reported to the nearest responsible adult, immediately.
.
Worded for the vocabulary of your audience.
2
6,787 15-24 year olds die annually in cars. What are we doing about that?
3,920 die from poison. 4,500+ commit suicide.
If you read the research on mass killings, you see a variety of methods are used. Look at the Secret Service & FBI studies.
RedFlag laws should be validated and promulgated if effective.
Recognizing & treating alienated/disaffected youth programs should be evaluated and promulgated.
Universal first aid training can save 30,000 lives/year.
Focusing on the attack mode simply means the mass killer simply shifts to other modes.
Semi-automatic magazine fed rifles have been around since the 40s. There is nothing magical there.
We need systematic, comprehensive programs that address all the preventable deaths.
3
You mention people 15-24 being killed by cars and what we’re doing about it. Seriously? Many states have graduated licenses with different hours and privileges at different ages. We mandate drivers training. We require the cars themselves to pass safety standards and many states require periodic re-inspection. Per mile driven, the fatality rate is the lowest it’s ever been. Look it up. Yes we could do more by getting ridiculous. 30 mph speed limits and still there would be fatalities, each one tragic. But we are doing nothing about gun violence.
1
For those who believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution and also think that the second clause of the Second Amendment stands alone, why was ‘and’ used instead of ‘or’?
4
If people are the problem, not guns, then consider this. Deaths by gunfire is 30-150 times more common in the US than all developed economies/Western societies like the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany and Japan. And deaths by intentional homicide are 5-25 more common than in nearly all those countries. Thus the only logical choice seems to be that either guns are a big part of the problem, or that the American people and American society are collectively a lot worse than most other societies.
35
Not exactly, David. You are a likely to be murdered in London as NYC though it will be a knife in London.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/london-murder-rate-overtakes-york-stabbings-s...
I find it curious, there are three sides to this argument. The side that wants to restrict or remove guns from the argument. The side that wants the current level of gun ownership. Then there is the criminal side.
.
The criminal side never suggests they should do less attacking, less raping, less car jacking. That group keeps to themselves. I believe if they were forced to comment, they would be four square behind less gun ownership.
.
I own S&W firearms. I can attest to their reliability and value.
1
These days corporations follow the bible according to the Kochs, which states that profit is their only responsibility.
6
Thank you for this piece. But, sadly, if you're asking a manufacturer in today's world to 'have a purpose other than making money', it won't happen. And on the topic of conscience, it's likely that every time there's a mass shooting, they break out the champagne at NRA headquarters to celebrate.
5
Nice story. Really if you want a firearm, you should be required the have a license, registration and Insurance.
There’s probably a lot of money that the manufacturers gun shops and insurance companies could make by conniving together.
3
If you logic holds, you should have a license to say what you want here, register your computer, and have insurance to cover what you say that might upset somebody.
Rights are like that.
George -- you really aren't thinking.
Yes, one needs to have a license to say what you want here -- a subscription and of course comments are screened, and rejected at the New York Time's discretion.
And in George -- effectively every computer used on the internet is registered ... go check your MAC address -- that's a registration number and the internet knows right were you are (pretty close) when you talk over it.
And there's no need to worry about merely "upsetting" anybody.
But if you shoot somebody, that's different. And it's pretty disturbing that you do not apparently see that difference ... do you?
2
Like registering to vote.
Yes, the gun manufacturers have blood on their hands. They give millions to the NRA and their lobbyists to make it easier to flood the U.S. with firearms in a irresponsible way. They need to step up and take responsibility in addition to doing further research in smart gun technology.
13
There is something in the psyche of some Americans that will never be explained. The want for guns because the constitution supposedly says they can own them. It's this pig headed viewpoint that any infringement of their right removes something from them as an American. It's not even about the safety of children or society as a whole. This right trumps all, not matter how strong the counterargument. I've had blazing rows with people over how irrational it is to want to own an item who's sole purpose is to kill. But it's like trying to explain that they shouldn't breathe - it's pointless.
20
Assuming that you live in Manchester, UK, what are you going to do about the rise in knife killings. London had more murders so far this year than NYC.
"I realize this is not entirely rational..."
It's entirely rational, as an empathetic human being who cares about the safety of others when it comes to guns and how this country perceives them.
3
I find it incredible that I cannot use my phone without the input of my thumbprint or a numerical code, yet any yahoo can pick up any gun and fire at will. I cannot obtain cash from a machine without both a card and PIN and can be limited on the amount I can withdraw on any given encounter, yet there is no limit on the number of guns I can buy. I have allergies and OTC Sudafed works quite well for me, but I have to produce my driver's license, a database is checked and I am limited on the amount of medicine available to be purchased, but nothing like that exists for ammunition. All of the above examples prove that it is possible to use technology to improve the safety of the public without an undue burden on the individual. The question is, why the resistance?
142
A firearm must have a level of reliability far beyond your phone or your ATM card.
In Oregon it is easier to buy a gun than it is to buy a cold medicine containing pseudophedrine.
8
"Safety" was my father's first word to me when I opened the Christmas paper gift-wrapping of my Remington .22 rifle in 1956. At four years old, every time I touched the rifle, "safety" became instinctive. Even my first NRA childrens' card contained language encouraging "safety first." Thank you, Ms. Romm, for your personal Wesson family testimony. Accurate shooting was the second important goal. "One shot" is still the primary goal of a good hunter.
12
Chris ... I was 5 years old in 1956, you are a year younger than I am. You got a 22 at four? Really? Did you have full control and use of it any time you wanted to, unsupervised? Control your own ammunition? I hope not.
At age 9 my grandfather (I was raised by my grandparents) decided I was ready for a gun. He went into his gun closet and picked the one he thought most suitable: a Japanese Arisaka WWII rifle he'd brought back from the Philippines. It was lighter than his others, a bolt-action rifle rather like the 1903 Springfield. It was big for me.
I had the gun, but not the ammunition ... and ammunition for it is uncommon. Grandpa loaded rounds for it, reduced charge, and I could have ammunition and shoot it only under his supervision.
That went on for about half a year and the next-door neighbor kid I played with went to his parents and said "Lee has a gun, how about me?"
I was at his birthday party when he received a BB-gun. He opened it. They showed him how to put BB's in it. He cocked it... nobody stopped him.
And he turned, aimed at me, pulled the trigger. The BB hit me in the forehead above the eyes, went down to the bone.
My grandfather hustled me down to the clinic, they dug it out ... and the kid's parents took his BB gun away.
The matter of an inch would have cost me an eye with a BB. At that range a 22LR would have killed me.
I was a good kid. I trust you were a good kid. Some really aren't.
40
Let's be clear: Daniel Wesson got into the business of firearm manufacturing so that he could sell the implements of death.
It's supremely ironic that his efforts at "safety" centered around preventing accidental discharge, while simultaneously ensuring that when his products were discharged as designed, they would work with maximum effect.
Regardless of the financial situation of S&W today, they profited for decades as nothing other than merchants of the implements of death. But hey - at least they're "safe" implements of death.
The electorate must demand real and significant gun law reform and must insist that any person running for political office on any level must stand first and foremost upon that platform. The media has a role to play in keeping the public focused on that goal and in moving public opinion toward that direction. The electorate must not be distracted by the machinations of the powerful influences who feel otherwise. This is the only way for us to effect change and I think if we accomplish this achievable goal many other progressive issues will follow.
6
I do not trust politicians. They change their minds whenever the mood of the media swings one way or the other. Therefore I would add to the excellent suggestions here that S&W should maintain their own database of users and not trust the government.
5
"Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the C.D.C. from 2009 to 2017, asked Congress repeatedly to fund research in gun-violence prevention but never succeeded."
Look closely and it becomes obvious that this kind of lobbying by corporate interests to control our government at the expense of public interest is systemic- it is how our government is designed.
Money will always buy government influence beyond the power of the electorate, but we have allowed an excessive and actually quite chaotic domination of this kind of power in America where it is every interest for themselves and little cooperation between our "Lords"
At least a government with a legitimate House of Lords and House of Commons could bring some organization and efficiency to the running of our government.
Our hodge-podge of competing interests vying for influence in the dark creates chaos and inefficiency that is easily measured by our level of gun violence, cost of health care and extreme high rates of incarceration.
The only partial remedy is serious campaign finance reform- anything else is playing Whack-a-mole.
46
"...national registry for tracking its products, and indeed all firearms. These measures would help prevent weapons from falling into the hands of the wrong people "
In most if not all of the mass shootings we have seen, the murderer had obtained their weapons legally.
It makes no sense to have more laws about registering guns so "they don't fall into the wrong hands."
4
So what does it make sense to do?
5
Try developing a sophisticated mental health system to identify and help people who have issues managing them.
Accept that to have "gun free death zones" like schools require that these locations have access control and immediate and creditable counter force.
As a mental health professional I must respond. I don’t want the responsibility for determining who should have guns because it’s not possible to predict. The best predictor of the future is the past but past what? Many people make threats and never follow through. Do I ban them all? Domestic violence convictions should be a no brainer but do they ever get them back. How does one prove they’ve changed? There is no blood test nor even valid and reliable psychological tests. No professional will give someone their guns back if they can be sued for damages. If talking with a mental health professional could get guns taken away, no one will voluntarily seek professional help, especially those most likely to use the guns violently. Calling the problem mental health is a canard. Better mental health care can be a part of the solution but controlling the available lethality is more pragmatic.
S&W isn't a family owned business today, and that is exactly the problem. Private equity firms have no connection with community and no conscience, all they care about is profit.
91
Do you think D.B. Wesson might have felt less caring compunction toward gun safety if he were alive today? The U.S. population in 1880 was a mere 15% of what it is now. Is it possible that moral culpability, not so lost in the crowd, wasn't as easy to sidestep as it is seems to be today? There has been one mass tragedy after another. How many do we need to have before we all--no matter our ages--can come together, and with a backward glance at the wisdom of a .38 hammerless, realize wide-eyed that a far greater time for gun safety is here again now.
9
A scan of the earliest comments to this op-ed makes painfully evident, yet again, that this issue won’t be resolved by the “guilt” felt by a distant relative of the 19th Century co-founder of Smith & Wesson.
These sentiments hardly build an atmosphere of trust between gun control activists and gun rights activists, an atmosphere that will be absolutely necessary to secure rational, effective and workable gun regulation.
This is an issue of fundamentally opposed interests, which is tailor-made for federal courts to adjudicate, since just such service is mostly what they render society. This has been done again and again, and the results are that localities are empowered to regulate the possession and use of firearms. Where there is a consensus among the voters of those localities, such as NYC, Chicago, D.C., elsewhere, guns are strongly regulated … and we see millions of illegal guns in the hands of civilians; and where no such consensus exists, we see the right to carry a loaded gun into a bar or to a political event.
We’re not getting anywhere on this issue whose results we might see in less than decades. It must come down to crafting a guarantee of explicit rights civilians have on guns that government may not take away, in return for effective regulation of their acquisition and lawful use. We may need a new constitutional amendment – which absolutely wouldn’t be ratified unless BOTH sides saw their interests protected.
11
What happened to the right to carry a loaded gun into a public event, at the Republican national convention?
8
@Sal,
As long as no Democrats were admitted, what's the problem?
Sal:
It lost its popularity once all its exponents had been shot to death.
A national registry for guns, a solution Ms Romm suggests, is a non-starter for those Americans in support of gun rights. Period. To those folks, registration is the first step towards confiscation, and their belief is not unwarranted. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when the NOPD and the government couldn't fulfill their basic requirement to actually protect citizens, they did have the time to go door to door using the city's gun registry and confiscate legally-owned civilian firearms. The police then kept these firearms for years before a lengthy court battle forced them to begrudgingly return a handful of them to their legal owners.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/us/nationalspecial/police-begin-seizi...
As a gun owner I think that licensing and mandatory safety training (similar to requirements for a CCW or hunting permit) are reasonable. But when the same gun control advocates that push for a full repeal of the second amendment or for bans on semi-automatic weapons also talk registration, the conversation will go no where and we will be stuck with the status quo.
6
"As a gun owner I think that licensing..."
.
Isn't licensing registration?
Here in Ohio, we have to register our cars. I assume the same is true wherever on the "East Coast" you reside. Is this the first step toward confiscation of our cars?
4
L23 -- those gun seizures in NoLa are the most misrepresented story in gun-lore.
Read here
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/08/nra-hurricane-katrina-gun-confiscation/
That's "The Trace" ... a gun rights organization.
2
The NRA and most gun makers blocked development of safer guns that could only be fired by certain people. They spread the idea that any research or work on gun safety was but a prelude to confiscation of all guns.
37
You can also price a gun beyond the ability of most to buy by adding all sorts of techno-features that are expensive to manufacture in reliable ways -- that, by the way, far from being blocked are available today (e.g., patented "intelligun" fingerprint or pin-code accessibility -- a .22 caliber pistol for $1800, instead of one obtainable for well-under $500). Sounds like a means of restricting guns to the upper-middle-class and the wealthy.
1
The notion of self defense is, of course, a primitive anachronism to proponents of the nanny state. However, to those Neanderthals who still believe that they have primary responsibility for their own safety, depending on sophisticated battery powered electronics in a life or death emergency is not an option. How often do phone batteries go dead? How much development and field testing do new complex digital devices require before they are reliable?
1
Richard L. -- your argument would stop every safety regulation there is.
And folks -- It cannot be that truly everybody has a "right" to a gun -- felons do not, children do not, and I am certain that every one of you know some adult who is not a felon ... but should not have a gun.
The problem here is that guns, like some other things, are extremely attractive to those who should not have them.
Gun advocates spend all their time talking about "how many guns cause no problems."
Then along comes a Steven Paddock: 58 killed, over 500 wounded. Put a liability price tag on it assuming there is a pocket to pay it -- it will be over 1 Billion dollars.
Those of you who call this "the price of freedom" ... why don't you pay it?
The rest of us don't want to. Having the guns that can do this as "anybody can have one" is unacceptable to us.
And you tell me how to identify the Steven Paddocks out there ... from you, or from me? And then if you cannot do that with high reliability, good enough so the identified people can be denied these guns, I want these guns very highly regulated or out-right banned to civilians.
That means me too. And if you tell me how wonderful you are and that somehow you are "protecting my freedom" with your gun play, that's just a very bad joke -- Steven Paddock would have surely said the same.
12
I’ve been saying for years, we need to treat guns like cars. A test to get one, insurance in case of accidents and suspension/loss of license for serious mistakes.
164
Government has insisted for many decades that driving is a "privilege" not a "right". Your solution simply empowers government, shy of a constitutional amendment legitimizing that power, to transform a constitutional right into a mere privilege that government deigns to grant at its sole discretion.
2
It is also a privilege to have a Constitution to help secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity and with that privilege goes responsibilities to preserve domestic tranquillity. Responsibilities are inseparable from rights.
29
And criminal prosecution for homicide if a death is caused by misuse.
10
I suggest that we curtail bullet manufacture while raising the prices of purchase so that that lead of death that guns blaze out of their barrels are in very short supply. Then guns are not the problem they have been.
21
Uh huh.
Fine. I own over 5,000 of them. They're not scarce.
1
So a person who practices like me (100 rounds every 28 days) can not improve and maintain my skills?
1
I applaud the fundamentals of this whole article, but take exception to the following quote from American Outdoor Brands Company management:
“We must collectively have the courage to ensure any actions are guided by data, by facts and by what will actually make us safer.”
Sounds good, but obscures the fact that the NRA and gun manufacturers have made big campaign contributions to keep there from being any research and thus minimal "data and facts". Such statements become a self serving means of defense. As pointed out in this article, they pay the government NOT to do research and then have the temerity to point out that there is no data to support the counter positions. Of course there isn't, they paid to make sure!
128
Ah...as Ronnie Reagan would say dp. there you go again, finger point, cherry pick.
Yes what you way is true, but what about half of the gun violence is America? It comes from the inner city. You say nothing about this. Good ole liberal Hollywood producing untold amount of shoot em up, grat. R rated violent media aimed at our inner children city. Half of all non suicide gun deaths are in this area. Whether you regulate/ban guns or not it will make little difference in this geo area where guns can be bought legal or not legal.
Only a policy of legality, regulation, responsibility and non promotion of the gun is the answer.
Cherry picking, ax grinding, finger pointing, rationalization, intellectualization etc. by the opposing sides is not the answer.
2
I hope gun manufacturers step up like you suggest, but we can’t rely on their self-determined contributions alone. It wouldn’t hurt to compel them as an industry too, in the same way that Ralph Nader’s consumer campaign for safe automobiles lead to safety standards across the board. And like the tobacco companies, gun manufacturers should be pressed through the legal system to change their practices.
53
What practices are those? Making guns?
1
Gun manufacturers should be compelled by legislation, or class action law suit, to fund research into the public health and safety issues arising from the use and misuse of their products.
When more people die each year from gun shot (not counting suicide) than all the soldiers killed in our longest running war, isn't it a public health concern worth investigating more seriously? What possible reason is there for not studying ways to reduce firearm accidents and unintended fatalities?
1
Manufacturers could cut off irresponsible distributors, have better control of distribution channels, create better smart guns, and above all stop pandering to the paranoid cosplay fantasies of modern day would be “minute men”.
1